Study

Nest-box and natural-cavity use in three mid-south forest habitats

  • Published source details McComb W.C. & Noble R.E. (1981) Nest-box and natural-cavity use in three mid-south forest habitats. Journal of Wildlife Management, 45, 93-101.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Create artificial refuges, hibernacula and aestivation sites

Action Link
Reptile Conservation

Provide artificial nesting sites for owls

Action Link
Bird Conservation

Provide artificial nesting sites for woodpeckers

Action Link
Bird Conservation

Provide artificial dens or nest boxes on trees

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Provide artificial nesting sites for songbirds

Action Link
Bird Conservation

Provide artificial nesting sites for wildfowl

Action Link
Bird Conservation
  1. Create artificial refuges, hibernacula and aestivation sites

    A replicated, controlled study in 1977–1979 in three riverine forest sites in Louisiana and Mississippi, USA (McComb & Noble 1981) found that artificial nest boxes were used by six reptile species. In total six reptile species were found in nest boxes and occurred in 0.3–11.3% of large boxes, 0.4–5.9% of medium boxes and 1.3–5.4% of small boxes compared to 1.2–2.0% of natural tree cavities (reptile numbers and species not provided). Boxes were erected in hardwood and hardwood/pine forests and were of three sizes: large (60 x 30 x 30 cm, 13 cm diameter entrance), medium (45 x 20 x 20 cm, 7.5 cm diameter entrance) and small (30 x 15 x 15 cm, 5 x 7 rectangle entrance). Fifty boxes were installed at two sites and 90 at the other. All boxes had 5–10 cm of pine shavings in the bottom. Boxes and natural cavities were inspected every month from April 1977 to February 1979.

    (Summarised by: Katie Sainsbury)

  2. Provide artificial nesting sites for owls

    A controlled study 1977-9 in riverine forests in Louisiana, USA (McComb & Noble 1981), found that Eastern screech owls Megascops asio (formerly Otus asio) used nest boxes more frequently than natural cavities (0.7% of 5,374 nest boxes inspected contained nests vs. 0.03% of 3,993 natural cavities). Frequently used nests faced north and were situated under tree limbs, in trees with lianas. Barred owls Strix varia also used nest boxes, but at very low frequencies. This study also examined nest box use by other birds (wildfowl, woodpeckers and songbirds).

     

  3. Provide artificial nesting sites for woodpeckers

    A controlled study 1977-9 in riverine forests in Louisiana, USA (McComb & Noble 1981), found that neither northern flickers Colaptes auratus nor red-bellied woodpeckers Melanerpes carolinus (formerly Centurus carolinus) nested with any frequency in nest boxes provided, with only a single woodpecker nest found in 5,374 inspections of 235 boxes. Both species, as well as red-headed woodpeckers M. erythrocephalus and hairy woodpeckers Picoides villosus (formerly Dendrocopus villosus) used nest boxes for roosting. Boxes were of three sizes between 30 x 15 x 15 cm with a 5.0 x 7.0 cm entrance hole and 60 x 30 x 30 cm with a 13 cm diameter entrance. All boxes had 5-10 cm of pine shavings in the bottom. This study also examined nest box use by other birds (wildfowl, owls and songbirds).

     

  4. Provide artificial dens or nest boxes on trees

    A study in 1977–1979 in three riverine forest sites in Louisiana and Mississippi, USA (McComb & Noble 1981), found that nest boxes were used by Virginia opossums Didelphis virginiana, southern flying squirrels Glaucomys volans, fox squirrels Sciurus niger, gray squirrels Sciurus carolinensis, golden mice Ochrotomys nuttalli and eastern woodrats Neotoma floridana. Virginia opossums, southern flying squirrels and fox squirrels were more frequently detected in nest boxes than in natural cavities (opossums: 1.2% vs 0.2 of inspections; flying squirrels: 2.1% vs 0.2; fox squirrels: 0.7% vs <0.1%). Gray squirrels were detected with more similar frequencies in nest boxes (1.6 % of inspections) and natural cavities (1.1%). These comparisons were not subjected to statistical tests. Golden mice and eastern woodrats used next boxes rarely (<0.05% of box inspections). Boxes were erected in hardwood and hardwood/pine forests and were of three sizes: large (60 x 30 x 30 cm, 13 cm diameter entrance), medium (45 x 20 x 20 cm, 7.5 cm diameter entrance) and small (30 x 15 x 15 cm, 5 x 7 rectangle entrance). Fifty boxes were installed at two sites and 90 at the other. All boxes had 5–10 cm of pine shavings in the bottom. Boxes and natural cavities were inspected every month from April 1977 to February 1979.

    (Summarised by: Ricardo Rocha)

  5. Provide artificial nesting sites for songbirds

    A controlled study 1977-9 in riverine forests in Louisiana, USA (McComb & Noble 1981), found that Carolina wrens Thryothorus ludovicianus nested more frequently in nest boxes than in natural cavities (nests found in 0.50% of 5,374 nest box inspections vs. 0.07% of 3,993 natural cavities). Two hundred and thirty five nest boxes were erected, of three sizes: large (60 x 30 x 30 cm with a 13 cm diameter entrance); medium (45 x 20 x 20 cm with a 7.5 cm diameter entrance) and small (30 x 15 x 15 cm with a 5.0 x 7.0 cm entrance). Large boxes had a 15 x 13 x 2.5 cm shelf 8 cm below the entrance. All boxes had 5-10 cm of pine shavings in the bottom. Other songbirds also used nest boxes and cavities, were too infrequent to be analysed. This study also examined nest box use by other birds (wildfowl, woodpeckers and owls).

     

  6. Provide artificial nesting sites for wildfowl

    A replicated controlled study 1977-9 in riverine forests in Louisiana, USA (McComb & Noble 1981), found that wood ducks Aix sponsa used nest boxes more frequently than natural cavities (0.4% of 5,374 nest boxes inspected contained nests vs. 0.03% of 3,993 natural cavities). The most frequently used nest boxes were large (60 X 60 X 30 cm), with a circular or oval entrance of less than 140 cm2. This study also examined nest box use by other birds (owls, woodpeckers and songbirds).

     

Output references
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