Action

Action Synopsis: Bird Conservation About Actions

Translocate nests to avoid disturbance

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    24%
  • Certainty
    39%
  • Harms
    30%

Source countries

Key messages

  • Four small trials from the USA and a replicated study from Chatham Island, New Zealand found some success in relocating nests whilst they were in use.
  • However, one study from the USA found that only 40% of burrowing owls Athene cunicularia were moved successfully, another found that American kestrels Falco sparverius tolerated movement of their nest, but not repeated disturbance and another found that barn swallow Hirundo rustica may follow their nest as it is slowly moved on a car, but may not stay at the new site.

 

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 small single-site study from May-August in 1979-1981 reporting a translocation attempt of a pair of golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) into an undisturbed shrubland area in Wyoming, USA (Postovit et al. 1982) found that temporary nesting platforms can be used to induce relocation into the target area. To encourage the pair to move into the target area, their single nestling was moved sequentially to a series of temporary platforms erected between the nest tree (located in a mining-impacted area) and the target platform at points 175, 715 and 1,375 m from the nest tree. Sticks were added to each temporary platform. Each move was executed only after the nestling’s acceptance of the previous platform. A fresh rabbit carcass was placed with the nestling each time it was moved. The nestling fledged from the third temporary platform before the adult pair had fully accepted the temporary platforms. However, in 1981, the adults voluntarily nested on and successfully fledged one nestling from the target platform.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A small replicated study from June-July in 1989 that tested a new method for translocating whole nests on two barn swallow Hirundo rustica nests in Ithaca, New York, USA (Winkler & McCarty 1990), found that nests could be successfully transferred in stages but that only one parent remained with one of the nests. Overall, the 3.5 km journey between the old and new site required 27 and 13 hours of daylight for each nest respectively. All chicks fledged from both nests but only one of four parents remained with the nest post-translocation. Both nests were fastened to a vehicle-roof and moved in stages, waiting at each point until the parents had fed the young. Distance between stops varied from 5-10 m initially to 100-200 m closer to the target site. Nests were moved in 4 m stages at the target site (using a mist-net pole) to the new habitat. The transport box (13 x 20 cm) had one side left open for parents to access the nest.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A single-site study in May 1992 in one field containing an American kestrel Falco sparverius breeding pair in an artificial nest box in Ohio, USA (Carpenter 1992) found that the breeding pair tolerated initial, but not continued, human disturbance. The nestbox (containing two eggs), initially located in a maple tree, was removed from the tree and placed upright on the ground 3 m away while the tree was felled. The male was found incubating the eggs at this time. The nestbox was subsequently attached to a steel fencepost 10 m away.  Although the female kestrel entered the nest initially, the birds appeared to abandon the nest and were later observed copulating near a nest box located 1 km away. When checked, the translocated nest box contained 5 cold eggs. Three eggs were therefore laid after the nest was moved and incubation was initiated while the nest box was on the ground. The author suggests that kestrel nests may be successfully relocated to a short distance if further disturbance is kept to a minimum.

    Study and other actions tested
  4. A small study from June-July in 1998 in one field impacted by agriculture in southern Idaho, USA (Smith & Belthoff 2001) found that burrowing owls Athene cunicularia exhibited mixed responses to nest relocation to a nearby natural buffer strip. Relocation distances averaged 153 m from old nests. Overall, two families (five fledglings) accepted the new nests (40%); two families (five fledglings) returned to the vicinity of the old nests one day after relocation (40%); and one family (five fledglings) disappeared from the field (20%). Dates of relocation events did not correlate with relocation outcomes. In 1999, one male and one female returned to the relocated sites and successfully fledged young (20% return rate). However, during 1999, none of the 15 fledglings from the 1998 nests was observed. The buffer strip was 25 m wide on the outskirts of a field zoned for development. All nests were artificial burrow systems.

    Study and other actions tested
  5. A replicated study on a beach on Chatham Island, New Zealand (Moore & Williams 2005) found that, of 78 Chatham Island oystercatcher Haematopus chathamensis nests gradually moved 1–32 m upshore during 1998–2004, although 11 were subsequently washed away by storm surges or high tides. Nests were moved either by hand (from a shallow nesting scrape to another, man-made scrape close by) or by dragging the artificial nesting platforms that the nests were on (see ‘Provide nesting habitat for birds that is safe from extreme weather’). In 2004-5, 26 nests from 33 pairs were washed away by very high storms; no data was available on the number of nests moved in this year. Before nests were moved, all nests on the beach were sometimes washed away. No data were provided on acceptance of movement or breeding success. The beach was also subject to several other conservation interventions: see ‘Exclude livestock to reduce trampling or predation’, ‘Predator control on islands’ and ‘Remove problematic vegetation’.

    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. (2019) Bird Conservation. Pages 141-290 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, N. Ockendon, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2019. 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 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, terrestrial 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 latest volume: Volume 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

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