Implications of nest‐site limitation on density‐dependent nest predation at variable spatial scales in a cavity‐nesting bird

Abstract

Nest‐site limitation may have different implications in the spatial distribution of breeding pairs depending on the availability of suitable habitat and the types of nest‐sites. Distribution of cavities suitable as nest sites may allow circumstantial aggregation or active choice of colonial nesting, which may have different implications on breeding performance through effects on breeding density, with variable costs and benefits depending on the consequences of intraspecific competition, social interactions and predation. We evaluated the effects of breeding density derived from nesting site limitation on breeding performance and predation at different spatial scales and considering multiple social, population and environmental limiting factors in the red‐billed chough Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax. The results indicate that variable breeding density may arise within the population depending on the availability and spatial distribution of nest‐sites. Nest‐site availability and distribution may also determine social breeding systems (isolated or aggregated) at variable densities, thus resembling differences found at different spatially distant populations under contrasting environmental conditions. Breeding performance was related to density‐dependent processes of population regulation, especially density‐dependent nest predation due to predator attraction to nest clusters. Results also indicate that predation pressure depend on density patterns at large scales. This suggest that predation may have important consequences on population dynamics of spatially structured populations depending on the strength of this kind of density dependence, which in turn may depend on habitat features affecting the prey but also the spatially variable guild of predators. Because habitat and nesting site availability may vary spatially depending on multiple human influences, understanding the strength and form in which breeding density and nest predation at different spatial scales may influence the size and persistence of populations can help to manage them more adequately.

Extreme genetic structure in a social bird species despite high dispersal capacity

“…) and nest in caves, crevices and human‐made structures (Blanco et al . ; Banda & Blanco ). The study area comprises the Iberian Peninsula, the European stronghold for this species, where numerous fragmented population nuclei are distributed across open, montane and rocky inland and coastal areas (Fig.…”

Nest‐Site Defense by Competing Honey Bee Swarms During House‐Hunting

“…2000; Iguchi et al. 2004; Lindström & Pampoulie 2004; hole‐nesting birds, see Newton 1994; Krist 2004; Banda & Blanco 2009; and reptiles, see Rand 1968; Rand & Rand 1976; Dugan et al. 1981) and invertebrates (e.g.…”

Habitat characteristics and species interference influence space use and nest‐site occupancy: implications for social variation in two sister species

“…Nest‐sites are important components of the habitat requirements of species, and generally of their socio‐ecology (Santos and Lacey 2011, Webber and Vander Wal 2018). Being critical environmental features for survival and reproduction (Edelman et al , Auclair et al 2014), nest‐site choice is expected to be under strong selection pressure (Forstmeier and Weiss , Mainwaring et al ), and the object of both intra‐ and interspecific competition (Schradin 2005, Duckworth et al 2015).…”

“…Nest‐sites are crucial resources for the establishment and maintenance of group‐living in many species (e.g. rodents, Lacey and Sherman , Ebensperger et al 2008, Santos and Lacey 2011; birds, Banda and Blanco , Duckworth et al 2015; and, insects, Rangel et al ). Moreover, group members establish bonds and sometimes breed communally (Hayes , Schradin , Auclair et al 2014) in nest‐sites that they defend and compete for against other groups (e.g.…”

“…By coupling space use proxies with nest‐site characteristics and occupancy, our study aims to elucidate how local habitat characteristics and species interference influence spatial group establishment and therefore its social organization. Competition between sister species is known to impact resource use (Dufour et al ), reproduction (Pfennig and Pfennig ) and agonistic interactions (Latour and Ganem ), enhancing species divergence or convergence in sympatry (Grant , Grether et al ) or resulting in the exclusion of one of the species (Violle et al 2011). Species interference has been largely neglected in the study of sociality.…”