Register      Login
Wildlife Research Wildlife Research Society
Ecology, management and conservation in natural and modified habitats
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > WR > WR06144
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 35(1)

An experimental approach to understanding the use of mistletoe as a nest substrate for birds: nest predation

Stuart J. N. Cooney A B C and David M. Watson A
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A Ecology and Biodiversity Group, Institute for Land, Water and Society, Charles Sturt University, PO Box 789, Albury, NSW 2640, Australia.

B Present address: School of Botany and Zoology, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia.

C Corresponding author. Email: stuart.cooney@anu.edu.au

Wildlife Research 35(1) 65-71 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR06144
Submitted: 30 October 2007  Accepted: 17 December 2007   Published: 17 March 2008

Abstract

Recent research has documented an unprecedented diversity of birds using mistletoes as nest-sites, and a strong preference for nesting in mistletoes has recently been demonstrated for some species. The consequences and underlying reasons for this behaviour have not been evaluated, and it is unclear whether nests in mistletoes confer advantages compared with other available substrates. Nest predation is often cited as the most important factor regulating many bird populations and is thought to influence all aspects of nest-site selection. To evaluate whether nest predation may play a role in the widespread use of mistletoe as a nest-site, we conducted an artificial nest predation experiment in a eucalypt woodland in southern New South Wales, Australia. Artificial nests were modelled on noisy friarbird (Philemon corniculatus: Meliphagidae) nests, baited with a single quail egg and checked after four days. We used logistic regression to model the rate of depredation between plant substrates, and demonstrate that, in this experiment, mistletoe nests experienced a lower proportion of predation than eucalypt nests (51.5% versus 63.8% respectively). This finding suggests that predation may influence the widespread use of mistletoe as a nest-site in a range of habitats and regions. In addition to clarifying priorities for further work on mistletoe nesting, this finding has implications for studies of nest-site selection generally, with researchers encouraged to supplement between-substrate comparisons with direct measurements of within-substrate variation.


Acknowledgements

Our thanks go to the owners of Morgan’s Ridge, Andrew and Leonie Mathie, for allowing us to work in their little piece of paradise; Teresa Neeman, from the Statistical Consulting Unit at the ANU, as well as Gary Luck and Leeann Reaney for constructive discussions about the statistics used in this project; Charlie Mitsi who provided the quail eggs for the experiment; and Simon McDonald, Information Technology Officer (Spatial Analysis) from the Spatial Data Analysis Network at Charles Sturt University for his assistance with the map and other GIS support. The Johnstone Centre assisted financially with a scholarship to SJNC and a Stuart Leslie Bird Research Award, from Birds Australia, awarded to SJNC, supported the project. DMW acknowledges the support of the ARC (DP0342549). Two anonymous reviewers are also thanked for their comments.


References

Bakker, V. J. , and Hastings, K. (2002). Den trees used by northern flying squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus) in south-eastern Alaska. Canadian Journal of Zoology 80, 1623–1633.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Cooney S. J. N. (2004). Why do birds nest in mistletoe? An experimental investigation. B.App.Sc.(Honours) Thesis, Charles Sturt University.

Cooney, S. J. N. , and Watson, D. M. (2005). Diamond firetails Stagonopleura guttata preferentially nest in mistletoe. Emu 105, 317–322.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Ehleringer J. R., and Marshall J. D. (1995). Water relations. In ‘Parasitic Plants’. (Eds M. C. Press and J. D. Graves.) pp. 124–140. (Chapman and Hall: London.)

Ford, H. A. (1999). Nest site selection and breeding success in large Australian honeyeaters: are there benefits from being different? Emu 99, 91–99.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Garnett S., and Crowley G. (2000). ‘The Action Plan for Australian Birds.’ (Environment Australia.)

Götmark, F. , Blomqvist, D. , Johansson, O. C. , and Bergkvist, J. (1995). Nest site selection: a trade-off between concealment and view of the surroundings? Journal of Avian Biology 26, 305–312.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Hammer T. E., and Nelson S. K. (Eds) (1995). Characteristics of marbled murrelet nest trees and nesting stands. In ‘Ecology and Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet’. (USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-152.)

Haskell, D. (1994). Experimental evidence that nestling begging behaviour incurs a cost due to nest predation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 257, 161–164.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Higgins P. J., Peter J. M., and Steele W. K. (2001). ‘Handbook of Australian, New Zealand & Antarctic Birds. Volume 5: Tyrant-flycatchers to Chats.’ (Oxford University Press: Melbourne.)

Kelly, J. P. (1993). The effect of nest predation on habitat selection by dusky flycatchers in limber pine–juniper woodland. The Condor 95, 83–93.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Marchant S., and Higgins P. J. (1993). ‘Handbook of Australian, New Zealand & Antarctic Birds. Volume 2: Raptors to Lapwings.’ (Oxford University Press: Melbourne.)

Martin, T. E. (1987). Artificial nest experiments: effects of nest appearance and type of predator. The Condor 89, 925–928.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Rose A. B. (1962). ‘Reptiles and Amphibians of Southern Africa.’ (Maskew Miller: Capetown.)

Rudnicky, T. C. , and Hunter, M. L. (1993). Avian nest predation in clearcuts, forests, and edges in a forest-dominated landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 57, 358–364.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Watson D. M. (2004). Mistletoe: a unique constituent of canopies worldwide. In ‘Forest Canopies’. (Eds M. D. Lowman and H. B. Rinker.) pp. 212–223. (Elsevier: Boston, MA.)

Weidinger, K. (2002). Interactive effects of concealment, parental behaviour and predators on the survival of open passerine nests. Journal of Animal Ecology 71, 424–437.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Whelan, C. J. , Dilger, M. L. , Robson, D. , Hallyn, N. , and Dilger, S. (1994). Effects of olfactory cues on artificial-nest experiments. The Auk 111, 945–952.


Wilson, G. R. , Brittingham, M. C. , and Goodrich, L. J. (1998). How well do artificial nests estimate success of real nests? The Condor 100, 357–364.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Zanette, L. (2001). Indicators of habitat quality and the reproductive output of a forest songbird in small and large fragments. Journal of Avian Biology 32, 38–46.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Zanette, L. , and Jenkins, B. (2000). Nesting success and nest predators in forest fragments: a study using real and artificial nests. The Auk 117, 445–454.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |