Action Synopsis: Bird Conservation About Actions

Provide artificial nesting sites for raptors

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

Study locations

Key messages

  • Nine studies from North America and Spain found that raptors used artificial nesting platforms, although one describes low levels of use and another describes use increasing over time.
  • Two studies from the USA describe increases in populations or population densities of raptors following the installation of artificial nesting platforms.
  • Three studies describe successful use of platforms, whilst three describe lower productivity or failed nesting attempts, although these studies only describe a single nesting attempt each.


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 before-and-after study at a marshland site in Maryland, USA (Rhodes 1972), found that the number of osprey Pandion haliaetus nests at the site increased from 4-6 before 1968 to 22 in 1971, and chick production tripled, following the erection of 24 artificial nesting platforms in 1968-72. Platforms had an 82% occupancy rate (59 nesting attempts out of 72 available nest-years) and more nests were found on platforms than at natural nest sites (59 nesting attempts on platforms vs. 12 at other sites). Nests on platforms produced an average of 1.3 chicks/nest, whilst natural nests produced 1.8 chicks/nest. Platforms consisted of a 122 x 122 cm platform of planks and wire on a 6.1 m wooden pole. The platform was braced, sunk 150 cm into the ground and designed to withstand hurricane-force winds.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A small study in 1976-9 in three scrub and grassland habitats in Idaho, USA (Howard & Hilliard 1980), found that ferruginous hawks Buteo regalis nested on 24 nesting platforms provided in 1976, with one attempt in 1977 and three attempts in both 1978 and 1979. An average of 1.7 chicks/nest fledged. Platforms were provided in shaded/un-shaded pairs, and hawks only used unshaded platforms, with one pair moving platforms when the shade was moved to the platform they had used. This study also discusses platform use by common ravens Corvus corax, discussed in ‘Provide artificial nest sites for songbirds’.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A small study at a reservoir in Arizona, USA (Grubb 1983), found that a bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus pair used an artificial nesting structure in the breeding season of 1978-9, but failed to fledge any chicks. The structure consisted of a tripod of aluminium pipes supporting an existing nest which had failed in 1976 (when it fell in the water) and 1977 (when it was blown down in high winds). The nest was thought to have failed due to thin egg shells.

    Study and other actions tested
  4. A controlled before-and-after study over nine years in two pastoral sites in Canada (Schmutz et al. 1984) found that the breeding density of ferruginous hawks Buteo regalis increased following the provision of 98 nesting platforms in 1975 in an experimental area (nine nests in 1975 vs. 14 in 1983, increased populations in all five subareas). There was no increase in a control area, without platforms. Swainson’s hawk B. swainsoni populations also increased from 0.1 pairs/km2 in 1975 to 0.15 pairs/km2 in 1983, but there were no differences between experimental and control areas. Less than 40% of hawk populations used platforms for the first two years, but use increased with time. Platforms were either 120 x 60 x 20 cm wooden boxes, or wire baskets, 60-90 cm in diameter and 20 cm deep. Both were lined with shrubs or grasses and mounted on wooden poles, buried 60-90 cm in the ground. After 17 ploes fell, the authors recommended burying them deeper. Platforms provided with shade were used more than un-shaded ones.

    Study and other actions tested
  5. A small study at a lake in Saskatchewan, Canada (Bortolotti et al. 1988), found that one out of two artificial nesting platforms were used by bald eagles Haliaeetus leucocephalus. The platforms were erected in 1980 and a nest was built in 1986, although no chicks fledged from it.

    Study and other actions tested
  6. A replicated study in 1978-90 at a lake in Saskatchewan, Canada (Houston & Scott 1992), found that osprey Pandion haliaetus pairs fledged significantly more chicks from nests built on artificial platforms than from those in trees (1.3 chicks/breeding attempt for 70 attempts on platforms vs. 0.9 chicks/attempt for 205 attempts in trees). This difference was due to higher success rates on platforms (63% of 70 attempts on platforms vs. 46% of 205 attempts in trees), with no significant differences between productivities of successful nests (2.1 chicks/nest for 44 successful attempts on platforms vs. 2.0 chicks/nest for 94 successful attempts in trees). Nests were erected between 1978 and 1985 (ten platforms, 33% usage) and 1986-1990 (ten nests, 95% usage) and were made of wood.

    Study and other actions tested
  7. A small study in Florida, USA (Marion et al. 1992), found that a bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus pair successfully used a nest on an artificial platform built in June 1989. The pair fledged two chicks from the nest on the platform in 1990 and attempted nesting again in 1991, although the second attempt was disrupted by heavy traffic below the platform and was not successful. The platform was made of plywood, measured 1.5 x 1.5 m and was erected on a power pylon, <1.5 m to the site of several unsuccessful nesting attempts. A nest of loblolly pine Pinus taeda branches was also provided on the platform.

    Study and other actions tested
  8. A replicated study reviewing an osprey Pandion haliaetus translocation programme in an urban area of Minnesota, USA (Martell et al. 2002), found that all but three of 26 nest sites used by 143 translocated ospreys and their young were artificial nesting platforms provided for the birds. Of these, 20 nests were productive, with only one not being situated on a nesting platform. This study is discussed in more detail in ‘Translocate individuals’.

    Study and other actions tested
  9. A small study at a reservoir in southern Spain in 2005 (Muriel et al. 2006) found that a pair of ospreys Pandion haliaetus successfully raised two chicks that were fostered to them in a nest on an artificial nesting platform. This study is discussed in more detail in ‘Foster eggs or chicks with wild conspecifics’.

    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 21

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 ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust