Conservation Evidence strives to be as useful to conservationists as possible. Please take our survey to help the team improve our resource.

Providing evidence to improve practice

Individual study: Use of filled versus empty artificial snags and breeding success of Carolina chickadees Parus carolinensis in shrub versus non-shrub habitat in Ashland County, Ohio, USA

Published source details

Grubb T. & Bronson C. (1995) Artificial snags as nesting sites for chickadees. The Condor, 97, 1067-1070

This study is summarised as evidence for the intervention(s) shown on the right. The icon shows which synopsis it is relevant to.

Provide artificial nesting sites for songbirds Bird Conservation

Two replicated trials in 1992-4 in woodlots in Ohio, USA (Grubb & Bronson 1995), found that Carolina chickadees Parus carolinensis showed no preference for artificial snags filled with sawdust over those that weren’t filled, but nested more frequently in snags located high above ground (nine snags occupied) and in non-shrub habitat (18% of 38 snags occupied), compared to low snags (two occupied) and in shrub cover (8% of 38 snags occupied). Snags were placed in groups of four (two filled with sawdust and two empty; two in shrub habitat and two in other habitats) or in pairs (one with the entrance 1.2 m above ground, one 3 m above ground). Snags consisted of 1.2-3.08 m sections of 7.8 cm PVC tubing with a nest chamber attached at the top, ‘planted’ in the ground.