Do nest boxes breed the target species or its competitors? A case study of a critically endangered bird

Alien vs. Predator: Impacts of Invasive Species and Native Predators on Urban Nest Box Use by Native Birds

Many bird species in Australia require tree hollows for breeding. However, assessing the benefits of urban nest boxes to native birds requires frequent monitoring that allows to assess nesting success. To better understand the benefits of nest boxes for native birds, we examined the impact of local habitat characteristics, invasive species (common myna, Acridotheres tristis), and native mammalian predators on urban nest box use and nesting success of native birds. We installed 216 nest boxes across nine locations in southeastern Australia (S.E. Queensland and northern New South Wales) in both long-invaded sites (invaded before 1970) and more recently invaded sites (after 1990). We monitored all boxes weekly over two breeding seasons. We recorded seven bird species and three mammal species using the nest boxes. Weekly box occupancy by all species averaged 8% of all boxes, with the species most frequently recorded in the nest boxes being the common brushtail possum (Trichosurus vulpecula), a native cavity user and nest predator. We recorded 137 nesting attempts in the boxes across all bird species. The most frequent nesting species were the invasive alien common mynas (72 nesting attempts). We recorded an average nesting failure rate of 53.3% for all bird species. We did not record any common mynas evicting other nesting birds, and found that several native species used the same box after the common myna completed its nesting. We recorded native possums in 92% of the boxes, and possum occupancy of boxes per site was negatively correlated with bird nesting success (p = 0.021). These results suggest that when boxes are accessible to invasive species and native predators, they are unlikely to significantly improve nesting opportunities for native birds. To ensure efficient use of limited conservation resources, nest boxes should be designed to target species of high conservation importance and limit other species of both predators and competitors.

Artificial refuges for wildlife conservation: what is the state of the science?

Artificial refuges are human-made structures that aim to create safe places for animals to breed, hibernate, or take shelter in lieu of natural refuges. Artificial refuges are used across the globe to mitigate the impacts of a variety of threats on wildlife, such as habitat loss and degradation. However, there is little understanding of the science underpinning artificial refuges, and what comprises best practice for artificial refuge design and implementation for wildlife conservation. We address this gap by undertaking a systematic review of the current state of artificial refuge research for the conservation of wildlife. We identified 224 studies of artificial refuges being implemented in the field to conserve wildlife species. The current literature on artificial refuges is dominated by studies of arboreal species, primarily birds and bats. Threatening processes addressed by artificial refuges were biological resource use (26%), invasive or problematic species (20%), and agriculture (15%), yet few studies examined artificial refuges specifically for threatened (Vulnerable, Endangered, or Critically Endangered) species (7%). Studies often reported the characteristics of artificial refuges (i.e. refuge size, construction materials; 87%) and surrounding vegetation (35%), but fewer studies measured the thermal properties of artificial refuges (18%), predator activity (17%), or food availability (3%). Almost all studies measured occupancy of the artificial refuges by target species (98%), and over half measured breeding activity (54%), whereas fewer included more detailed measures of fitness, such as breeding productivity (34%) or animal body condition (4%). Evaluating the benefits and impacts of artificial refuges requires sound experimental design, but only 39% of studies compared artificial refuges to experimental controls, and only 10% of studies used a before-after-control-impact (BACI) design. As a consequence, few studies of artificial refuges can determine their overall effect on individuals or populations. We outline a series of key steps in the design, implementation, and monitoring of artificial refuges that are required to avoid perverse outcomes and maximise the chances of achieving conservation objectives. This review highlights a clear need for increased rigour in studies of artificial refuges if they are to play an important role in wildlife conservation.

Choice of monitoring method can influence estimates of usage of artificial hollows by vertebrate fauna

The loss of hollow-bearing trees is a key threat for many hollow-dependent taxa. Nesting boxes have been widely used to offset tree hollow loss, but they have high rates of attrition, and, often, low rates of usage by target species. To counter these problems, chainsaw carved hollows (artificial cavities cut into trees) have become a popular alternative, yet little research has been published on their effectiveness. We examined the usage of 150 chainsaw carved hollows by cavity-dependent fauna in the central west of New South Wales using observations from traditional inspection methods and remote cameras. Between October 2017 and April 2019, we detected 21 species of vertebrates (two reptile, one amphibian, 10 bird, and eight mammal species) inside chainsaw carved hollows, but the number of species detected was dependent on the chosen monitoring method. We detected six species inside hollows during physical inspections, whereas remote cameras detected 21 species entering hollows. Cameras detected eight species using hollows as breeding sites, whereas physical inspections detected just four species. Cameras detected two threatened mammals (squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis) and greater glider (Petauroides volans)) raising young inside hollows, yet we failed to detect these species during physical inspections. For birds, the two methods yielded equivalent results for detection of breeding events. Overall, our study showed that few cavity-dependent species used chainsaw carved hollows as breeding sites. This highlights how artificial hollows are not a substitute for retaining naturally occurring hollows in large trees and revegetation programs.