Register      Login
Wildlife Research Wildlife Research Society
Ecology, management and conservation in natural and modified habitats
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > WR > WR04106
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 32(6)

The use of nest boxes in urban natural vegetation remnants by vertebrate fauna

Michael J. Harper A C , Michael A. McCarthy B and Rodney van der Ree B
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A School of Botany, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Vic. 3010, Australia.

B The Australian Research Centre for Urban Ecology, Royal Botanic Gardens, South Yarra, Vic. 3141, Australia.

C Corresponding author. Email: m.harper@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au

Wildlife Research 32(6) 509-516 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR04106
Submitted: 3 November 2004  Accepted: 11 July 2005   Published: 18 October 2005

Abstract

Nest boxes are routinely installed as a substitute for natural tree hollows to provide den and nest sites for a range of hollow-utilising fauna. We installed 120 nest boxes in 20 patches of indigenous vegetation (remnants) across the urban/suburban landscape of Melbourne, south-eastern Australia, and investigated their use by indigenous and exotic vertebrate species over a period of 12 months. Nest-box use was dominated by the common brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula), the common ringtail possum (Pseudocheirus peregrinus) and the common myna (Acridotheres tristis), an aggressive introduced bird. We found that brushtail and ringtail possums utilised nest boxes all year round but more frequently in cooler months (May–August). Common mynas dominated nest-box use during spring/summer, potentially reducing the availability of this resource to indigenous species. We found evidence that the probability of a nest box being occupied by either species of possum was greater in remnants with abundant possum populations. Brushtail possums preferred thick-walled pine nest boxes over thin-walled plywood nest boxes, most likely owing to differences in their thermal insulation properties. Although considerable economic costs would be involved in using nest boxes as a long-term substitute for hollow-bearing trees, nest boxes may provide a temporary hollow resource until hollow-bearing trees are recruited in urban remnants.


Acknowledgments

The authors thank Pavlina Shukuroglou and Jeannie Campbell for proofreading this manuscript and the staff and students at the Australian Research Centre for Urban Ecology for discussion and suggestions regarding improvements to the manuscript. This research was undertaken pursuant to the conditions of permit no. 10002113 issued by the Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria. Financial support for this research was generously supplied by the Holsworth Wildlife Trust and The Baker Foundation.


References

Ambrose G. J. (1982). An ecological and behavioral study of vertebrates using hollows in eucalypt branches. Ph.D. Thesis, La Trobe University, Melbourne.

Coelho, J. R. , and Sullivan, J. B. (1994). Colonization of wildlife nest boxes by honey bee swarms. American Bee Journal 134, 697–699.
Gibbons P. (1999). Habitat tree retention in wood production forests. Ph.D. Thesis, The Australian National University, Canberra.

Gibbons P. , and Lindenmayer D. B. (2002). ‘Tree Hollows and Wildlife Conservation in Australia.’ (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne.)

Golding B. G. (1979). Use of artificial hollows by mammals and birds in the Wombat Forest, Daylesford, Victoria. M.Env.Sci. Thesis, Monash University, Melbourne.

Grant J. (1997). ‘The Nestbox Book.’ (Gould League of Victoria: Melbourne.)

Hall, L. S. , Krausman, P. R. , and Morrison, M. L. (1997). The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25, 173–182.
Harley D. (2005). Patterns of nest box use by Leadbeater’s possum (Gymnobelideus leadbeateri): applications to research and conservation. In ‘The Biology of Australian Possums and Gliders’. (Eds R. Goldingay and S. Jackson.) pp. 318–329. (Surrey Beatty: Sydney.)

Harper, M. J. , McCarthy, M. A. , van der Ree, R. , and Fox, J. C. (2004). Overcoming bias in ground-based surveys of hollow-bearing trees using double-sampling. Forest Ecology and Management 190, 291–300.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Mackowski C. M. (1984). The ontogeny of hollows in blackbutt (Eucalyptus pilularis) and its relevance to the management of forests for possums, gliders and pine. In ‘Possums and Gliders’. (Eds A. P. Smith and I. D. Hume.) pp. 553–567. (Surrey Beatty: Sydney.)

Mayle, B. A. (1990). A biological basis for bat conservation in British woodlands – a review. Mammal Review 20, 159–195.
Menkhorst P. W. (1984 a). The application of nest boxes in research and management of possums and gliders. In ‘Possums and Gliders’. (Eds A. P. Smith and I. D. Hume.) pp. 517–524. (Surrey Beatty: Sydney.)

Menkhorst, P. W. (1984b). Use of nest boxes by forest vertebrates in Gippsland: preference and demand. Australian Wildlife Research 11, 225–264.
Paton D. C. (1996). Overview of feral and managed honeybees in Australia: distribution, abundance, extent of interactions with native biota, evidence of impacts and future research. Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra.

Pell, A. S. , and Tidemann, C. R. (1997a). The impact of two exotic hollow-nesting birds on two native parrots in savannah and woodland in eastern Australia. Biological Conservation 79, 145–153.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Roulston G. F. (1935). ‘Reminiscences of the Early Days of Dandenong.’ (Dandenong and District Historical Society: Melbourne.)

Russell, B. G. , Smith, B. , and Augee, M. L. (2003). Changes to a population of common ringtail possums (Pseudocheirus peregrinus) after bushfire. Wildlife Research 30, 389–396.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Smith A. (1997). Squirrel gliders, Pittwater Council and housing development: on the brink. Your bush, their habitat, our act. Is the Threatened Species Conservation Act working? Nature Conservation Council, Sydney.

Soderquist, T. , and Mac Nally, R. (2000). The conservation value of mesic gullies in dry forest landscapes: mammal populations in the box–ironbark ecosystem of southern Australia. Biological Conservation 93, 281–291.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | Spiegelhalter D. , Thomas A. , Best N. , and Lunn D. (2003). ‘WinBUGS User Manual. Version 1.4.’ (MRC Biostatistics Unit: Cambridge, UK.)

Stains, H. J. (1961). Comparison of temperatures inside and outside two tree dens used by raccoons. Ecology 42, 410–413.
van der Ree R. (2004). The impact of urbanisation on the mammals of Melbourne: do atlas records tell the whole story or just some of the chapters? In ‘Urban Wildlife, More Than Meets The Eye’. (Eds D. Lunney and S. Burgin.) pp. 195–204. (Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales: Sydney.)

Vitousek, P. M. , Mooney, H. A. , Lubchenco, J. , and Melillo, J. M. (1997). Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277, 494–499.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Willner, G. R. , Gates, J. E. , and Devlin, W. J. (1983). Nest box use by cavity-nesting birds. American Midland Naturalist 109, 194–201.


Wormington, K. R. , and Lamb, D. (1999). Tree hollow development in wet and dry sclerophyll eucalypt forest in southeast Queensland, Australia. Australian Forestry 62, 336–345.