The design of artificial nestboxes for the study of secondary hole-nesting birds: a review of methodological inconsistencies and potential biases
(2010) In Acta Ornithologica 45(1). p.1-26- Abstract
- The widespread use of artificial nestboxes has led to significant advances in our knowledge of the ecology, behaviour and physiology of cavity nesting birds, especially small passerines Nestboxes have made it easier to perform routine monitoring and experimental manipulation of eggs or nestlings, and also repeatedly to capture, identify and manipulate the parents However, when comparing results across study sites the use of nestboxes may also Introduce a potentially significant confounding variable in the form of differences in nestbox design amongst studies, such as their physical dimensions, placement height, and the way in which they are constructed and maintained However, the use of nestboxes may also introduce an unconsidered and... (More)
- The widespread use of artificial nestboxes has led to significant advances in our knowledge of the ecology, behaviour and physiology of cavity nesting birds, especially small passerines Nestboxes have made it easier to perform routine monitoring and experimental manipulation of eggs or nestlings, and also repeatedly to capture, identify and manipulate the parents However, when comparing results across study sites the use of nestboxes may also Introduce a potentially significant confounding variable in the form of differences in nestbox design amongst studies, such as their physical dimensions, placement height, and the way in which they are constructed and maintained However, the use of nestboxes may also introduce an unconsidered and potentially significant confounding variable clue to differences in nestbox design amongst studies, such as their physical dimensions, placement height, and the way in which they are constructed and maintained Here we review to what extent the characteristics of artificial nestboxes (e g size, shape, construction material, colour) are documented in the 'methods' sections of publications involving hole-nesting passerine birds using natural or excavated cavities or artificial nestboxes for reproduction and roosting Despite explicit previous recommendations that authors describe in detail the characteristics of the nestboxes used, we found that the description of nestbox characteristics in most recent publications remains poor and insufficient We therefore list the types of descriptive data that should be included in the methods sections of relevant manuscripts and justify this by discussing how variation in nestbox characteristics can affect or confound conclusions from nestbox studies We also propose several recommendations to improve the reliability and usefulness of research based on long-term studies of any secondary hole-nesting species using artificial nestboxes for breeding or roosting. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/1654655
- author
- organization
- publishing date
- 2010
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- tit, field experiments, birds, secondary cavity-nesting, passerines, nest sites, methods, nestboxes, flycatcher, Ficedula, Parus, Cyanistes
- in
- Acta Ornithologica
- volume
- 45
- issue
- 1
- pages
- 1 - 26
- publisher
- Polish Academy of Sciences
- external identifiers
-
- wos:000280387600001
- scopus:77955620940
- ISSN
- 0001-6454
- DOI
- 10.3161/000164510X516047
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 10ac7c89-4fb5-4e81-b8cc-e59aeddf6dd5 (old id 1654655)
- date added to LUP
- 2016-04-01 13:53:21
- date last changed
- 2024-05-08 15:59:44
@article{10ac7c89-4fb5-4e81-b8cc-e59aeddf6dd5,
abstract = {{The widespread use of artificial nestboxes has led to significant advances in our knowledge of the ecology, behaviour and physiology of cavity nesting birds, especially small passerines Nestboxes have made it easier to perform routine monitoring and experimental manipulation of eggs or nestlings, and also repeatedly to capture, identify and manipulate the parents However, when comparing results across study sites the use of nestboxes may also Introduce a potentially significant confounding variable in the form of differences in nestbox design amongst studies, such as their physical dimensions, placement height, and the way in which they are constructed and maintained However, the use of nestboxes may also introduce an unconsidered and potentially significant confounding variable clue to differences in nestbox design amongst studies, such as their physical dimensions, placement height, and the way in which they are constructed and maintained Here we review to what extent the characteristics of artificial nestboxes (e g size, shape, construction material, colour) are documented in the 'methods' sections of publications involving hole-nesting passerine birds using natural or excavated cavities or artificial nestboxes for reproduction and roosting Despite explicit previous recommendations that authors describe in detail the characteristics of the nestboxes used, we found that the description of nestbox characteristics in most recent publications remains poor and insufficient We therefore list the types of descriptive data that should be included in the methods sections of relevant manuscripts and justify this by discussing how variation in nestbox characteristics can affect or confound conclusions from nestbox studies We also propose several recommendations to improve the reliability and usefulness of research based on long-term studies of any secondary hole-nesting species using artificial nestboxes for breeding or roosting.}},
author = {{Lambrechts, Marcel M. and Adriaensen, Frank and Ardia, Daniel R. and Artemyev, Alexandr V. and Atienzar, Francisco and Banbura, Jerzy and Barba, Emilio and Bouvier, Jean-Charles and Camprodon, Jordi and Cooper, Caren B. and Dawson, Russell D. and Eens, Marcel and Eeva, Tapio and Faivre, Bruno and Garamszegi, Laszlo Z. and Goodenough, Anne E. and Gosler, Andrew G. and Gregoire, Arnaud and Griffith, Simon C. and Gustafsson, Lars and Johnson, L. Scott and Kania, Wojciech and Keiss, Oskars and Llambias, Paulo E. and Mainwaring, Mark C. and Mand, Raivo and Massa, Bruno and Mazgajski, Tomasz D. and Moller, Anders Pape and Moreno, Juan and Naef-Daenzer, Beat and Nilsson, Jan-Åke and Norte, Ana C. and Orell, Markku and Otter, Ken A. and Park, Chan Ryul and Perrins, Christopher M. and Pinowski, Jan and Porkert, Jiri and Potti, Jaime and Remes, Vladimir and Richner, Heinz and Rytkonen, Seppo and Shiao, Ming-Tang and Silverin, Bengt and Slagsvold, Tore and Smith, Henrik and Sorace, Alberto and Stenning, Martyn J. and Stewart, Ian and Thompson, Charles F. and Tryjanowski, Piotr and Torok, Janos and van Noordwijk, Arie J. and Winkler, David W. and Ziane, Nadia}},
issn = {{0001-6454}},
keywords = {{tit; field experiments; birds; secondary cavity-nesting; passerines; nest sites; methods; nestboxes; flycatcher; Ficedula; Parus; Cyanistes}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{1}},
pages = {{1--26}},
publisher = {{Polish Academy of Sciences}},
series = {{Acta Ornithologica}},
title = {{The design of artificial nestboxes for the study of secondary hole-nesting birds: a review of methodological inconsistencies and potential biases}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.3161/000164510X516047}},
doi = {{10.3161/000164510X516047}},
volume = {{45}},
year = {{2010}},
}