Tree Cavity-Using Wildlife and the Potential of Artificial Nest Boxes for Wildlife Management in New Guinea

Abstract

Little is known of the frequency of use and reliance upon tree cavities by wildlife, nor the natural availability of cavities in New Guinea forests. We surveyed the literature for records of cavity use by birds and mammals in New Guinea. We examined every standing tree on one hectare of primary forest and one hectare of secondary forest for cavities, then carefully assessed every tree for cavities after they were felled. We put up 190 artificial nest boxes of five designs in three sites and monitored occupancy. At least 50 species (23.6%) of New Guinea terrestrial mammals and 118 species (17.7%) of non-marine or aquatic bird species are recorded in the literature as using tree cavities. Ground observation identified 36 suspected cavities in a hectare of lowland primary forest and 10 in nearby secondary forest. Upon inspection of all trees after felling, these figures changed to 26 and 0 respectively. Ground censuses are not accurate. Cavities were more commonly found in large trees. In less than a year, nest box occupancy reached exceeded 33%, with Phalanger spp. and Sugar gliders, Petaurus breviceps, being most common. Some bird use was detected by the presence of feathers; snakes and geckos were also found in boxes. Occupancy increased with time and would probably be higher after a second year. The larger boxes had greater occupancy, as did boxes placed higher in the trees. Bees occupied and probably excluded other users from 10% of boxes. As Papuan forests are disturbed by logging, hunting practices and gardening, conservationists might need to manage practices to ensure cavity availability. Artificial nest boxes might have utility for wildlife conservation and research.

Specific nest box designs can improve habitat restoration for cavity‐dependent arboreal mammals

“…Honeybees used less than 10% of all nest boxes, but these observations included abandoned or remnant hives. The loss of approximately 10% of nest boxes to honeybee occupation may be a common occurrence (Harper et al 2005;Durant et al 2009;Grarock et al 2013;Veiga et al 2013;Warakai et al 2013). Lindenmayer et al (2009) argued that maintenance of nest boxes to control honeybee infestations will undermine the economic effectiveness of nest box programs.…”

“…There is also evidence that insectivorous bat populations can be supported by artificial cavities (Stebbings & Walsh ; Flaquer et al ; Baranauskas ; Bender ). In contrast, evidence for cavity‐dependent non‐flying arboreal mammals is equivocal because non‐flying arboreal mammals may show a relatively low frequency of use of nest boxes (5–8% of boxes, Menkhorst ; 8–23%, Rhind & Bradley ; 8–14%, Lindenmayer et al ; 15%, Durant et al ; 20%, Madikiza et al ; 22%, Franco et al ; 8%, Veiga et al ; 2–12%, Warakai et al ; 13%, Williams et al ). The relative lack of success in attracting some mammal species has led some to conclude that attempts to restore habitat value using artificial cavities may not be successful (Lindenmayer et al ).…”

A Population of Blue-Winged MacawPrimolius Maracanain Northeastern Brazil: Recommendations for a Local Conservation Action Plan

“…Artificial nest boxes should also be considered as a temporary means of intervention to compensate for the low availability of natural cavities. This method has proven to be effective in the recovery of populations of various species [26,35].…”

Temperature variation in nest boxes in eastern Australia

“…This has led some authors to suggest that artificial tree hollows will be needed to manage some populations of arboreal mammals in Australia (Beyer and Goldingay 2006;Harley 2006). The use of nest boxes in management is still in its infancy, with factors that influence nest box use still poorly understood (Menkhorst 1984;Beyer and Goldingay 2006;Goldingay and Stevens 2009;Lindenmayer et al 2009;Veiga et al 2013;Warakai et al 2013). One factor that has been postulated to influence the use of nest boxes is the internal temperature (Isaac et al 2008a).…”

“…construction material, position of entrance) can have a profound influence on the temperatures experienced inside (Calder et al 1983). Few studies have investigated this influence and yet there is large variation in the designs of nest boxes currently being installed, even when targeting mammals across a narrow range in body size such as the squirrel glider, sugar glider (Petaurus breviceps) and Leadbeater's possum (Gymnobelideus leadbeateri) (Lindenmayer et al 2003;Harley 2004;Durant et al 2009;Ball et al 2011;Warakai et al 2013). Therefore, I investigated the influence of two design elements that varied in commercially procured nest boxes: construction material (plywood versus hardwood) and nest box colour (brown versus green).…”