Action Synopsis: Bird Conservation About Actions

Remove eggs from wild nests to increase reproductive output

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
  • Certainty
  • Harms

Study locations

Key messages

  • A replicated study from Mauritius found that harvesting entire clutches appeared to increase Mauritius kestrels Falco punctatus productivity more effectively than removing individual eggs as they were laid.
  • A replicated study over 30 years in Canada (Kuyt 1996) found that wild whooping cranes Grus americana reproductive success was higher for nests with one or two eggs removed than for control nests.
  • A single study from the USA found that removing bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus eggs from wild nests for hand-rearing did not appear to greatly affect the wild population.


About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A replicated, controlled study in two marshland sites in Florida, USA, between 1985 and 1990 (Wood & Collopy 1993) found that 78% of 58 bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus pairs that had their first clutch removed for hand-rearing (‘donor nests’) between 1985 and 1988 laid replacement clutches within two months. Replacement clutches were slightly smaller than first clutches (58 first clutches averaged 2.1 eggs/clutch vs. 1.8 eggs/clutch for 45 second clutches). In one study area, donor nests produced fewer fledglings than control pairs (1.0 fledgling/nest for 16 donor nests vs. 1.5 fledglings/nest for 39 controls), but this was not true in a second area (1.2 fledgling/nest for 26 donor nests vs. 1.1 fledglings/nest for 41 controls). Donor nests were more productive in the year before eggs were removed than the year after donation (approximately 1.3 fledglings/clutch for 32 pairs the year before donation vs. 0.85 fledglings/clutch for 34 pairs the year after). A demographic model suggested that a donor population would be very slightly smaller than a control population after 25 years. Timing of clutch removal did not affect the speed or probability of replacement clutches being laid.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated 1995 study on the Mauritius kestrels Falco punctatus conservation programme (Jones et al. 1995) found that harvesting whole clutches rather than single eggs was more successful in increasing wild pair productivity: 95% of females re-laid within 14 days of clutch removal, but fertility fell rapidly in clutches where eggs were removed as they were laid. Females laid up to 4 clutches/season as a result of harvesting, but clutch fertility decreased to zero by the fourth clutch. Clutch size was an average of 3.4 eggs/clutch for 96 first clutches, compared with 3.3 for 63 second clutches.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A replicated controlled study in Northwest Territories and Alberta, Canada, between 1967 and 1996 (Boyce et al. 2005) found that the reproductive success of wild whooping cranes Grus americana was higher for nests that had one of two eggs removed, compared to control nests. Both recruitment of juveniles to the population and survival until August (eggs were removed in May) were higher (50% chance of recruitment from nests with eggs removed vs. 39% for unmanipulated nests). A total of 496 eggs were removed from wild nests in the study period, representing 62% of all crane nests during this time period. The success of artificially incubating and rearing the removed eggs is discussed in Kuyt (1996) in ‘Captive breeding, rearing and releases (ex situ conservation)’.

    Kuyt, E. (1996) Reproductive manipulation in the whooping crane Grus americana. Bird Conservation International, 6, 3–10.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Williams, D.R., Child, M.F., Dicks, L.V., Ockendon, N., Pople, R.G., Showler, D.A., Walsh, J.C., zu Ermgassen, E.K.H.J. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Bird Conservation. Pages 137-281 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.


Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Bird Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Bird Conservation
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 19

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust