Open Access
Issue
Published:
26 February 2022
Habitat selection by nestbox-breeding birds and Roe Deer are incongruent within a heterogeneous woodland landscape
Download citation
595
Views
18
Downloads
2
Crossref
2
WoS
2
Scopus
0
CSCD
Conserving species relies upon acquiring an understanding of their use of habitat, yet our understanding of the use of habitat by co-existing species of different guilds at microgeographic scales remains poor. In particular, the use of habitat by woodland species is of conservation concern because of widespread declines in woodland biodiversity. Woodland bird declines have been ascribed, in part, to high deer densities because their browsing reduces the availability of nesting sites and food. We quantify the microgeographic use of habitat by Roe Deer (Capreolus capreolus) and of Great Tits (Parus major), Blue Tits (Cyanistes caeruleus) and Pied Flycatchers (Ficedula hypoleuca) in a heterogenous woodland landscape. We examined the use of habitat at microgeographic scales by the deer and the three bird species in relation to whether the local habitat was flat or wet or had a path, fence or wall within a 25-m radius of 206 randomly selected locations. We first examined if the occupancy rates of nestboxes in those locations were correlated with the number of Roe Deer lays and second, examined if the use of habitat by the Roe Deer and the bird species were associated with each of the habitat features that we quantified. We begin by showing that the use of habitat by Roe Deer is incongruent with the use of habitat by Great Tits, Blue Tits and Pied Flycatchers during the breeding season. Also, whilst all three bird species showed no, or weak, habitat preferences, the Roe Deer preferred daytime lay sites that were in flat areas of wet woodland close to paths, whilst there were no significant effects of the presence of fences and walls. These findings show that the Roe Deer and the three bird species differ in the use of habitat within a heterogenous woodland landscape, meaning that their use of habitat did not overlap at microgeographic scales. Meanwhile, the deer showed preferences for flat areas of wet woodland, whilst none of the bird species exhibited such preferences, and we discuss the implications of our findings for the management of woodlands.
menu
Habitat selection by nestbox-breeding birds and Roe Deer are incongruent within a heterogeneous woodland landscape
Abstract
Conserving species relies upon acquiring an understanding of their use of habitat, yet our understanding of the use of habitat by co-existing species of different guilds at microgeographic scales remains poor. In particular, the use of habitat by woodland species is of conservation concern because of widespread declines in woodland biodiversity. Woodland bird declines have been ascribed, in part, to high deer densities because their browsing reduces the availability of nesting sites and food. We quantify the microgeographic use of habitat by Roe Deer (Capreolus capreolus) and of Great Tits (Parus major), Blue Tits (Cyanistes caeruleus) and Pied Flycatchers (Ficedula hypoleuca) in a heterogenous woodland landscape. We examined the use of habitat at microgeographic scales by the deer and the three bird species in relation to whether the local habitat was flat or wet or had a path, fence or wall within a 25-m radius of 206 randomly selected locations. We first examined if the occupancy rates of nestboxes in those locations were correlated with the number of Roe Deer lays and second, examined if the use of habitat by the Roe Deer and the bird species were associated with each of the habitat features that we quantified. We begin by showing that the use of habitat by Roe Deer is incongruent with the use of habitat by Great Tits, Blue Tits and Pied Flycatchers during the breeding season. Also, whilst all three bird species showed no, or weak, habitat preferences, the Roe Deer preferred daytime lay sites that were in flat areas of wet woodland close to paths, whilst there were no significant effects of the presence of fences and walls. These findings show that the Roe Deer and the three bird species differ in the use of habitat within a heterogenous woodland landscape, meaning that their use of habitat did not overlap at microgeographic scales. Meanwhile, the deer showed preferences for flat areas of wet woodland, whilst none of the bird species exhibited such preferences, and we discuss the implications of our findings for the management of woodlands.
References(49)
Alatalo RV, Lundberg A, Glynn C. Female pied flycatchers choose territory quality and not male characteristics. Nature. 1986;323:152-153
Bengtsson J, Nilsson SG, Franc A, Menozzi P. Biodiversity, disturbances, ecosystem function and management of European forests. For Ecol Manag. 2000;132:39-50
Bertolino S, Montezemoloa NC, Perrone A. Habitat use of coexisting introduced eastern cottontail and native European hare. Mamm Biol. 2013;78:235-240
Both C, van Turnhout CAM, Bijlsma RG, Siepel H, Van Strien AJ, Foppen RPB. Avian population consequences of climate change are most severe for long-distance migrants in seasonal habitats. Proc R Soc B. 2010;277:1259-1266
Briggs KB, Deeming DC. Use of materials in nest construction by Pied Flycatchers Ficedula hypoleuca reflects localized habitat and geographical location. Bird Study. 2016;63:516-524
Briggs KB, Mainwaring MC. Habitat geology influences intraspecific variation in the speckling patterns of Blue Tit Cyanistes caeruleus and Great Tit Parus major eggs. Acta Ornithol. 2017;52:11-20
Briggs KB, Mainwaring MC. Experimental evidence of non-random nest material selection in Pied Flycatchers. Behav Process. 2019;164:59-64
Brockerhoff EG, Barbaro L, Castagneyrol B, Forrester DI, Gardiner B, Gonzalez-Olabarria JR, et al. Forest biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and the provision of ecosystem services. Biol Cons. 2017;26:3005-3035
Buesching CD, Newman C, Jones JT, Macdonald DW. Testing the effects of deer grazing on two woodland rodents, bankvoles and woodmice. Basic Appl Ecol. 2011;12:207-214
Bugalho MN, Ibanez I, Clark JS. The effects of deer herbivory and forest type on tree recruitment vary with plant growth stage. For Ecol Manag. 2013;308:90-100
Chapman NG, Claydon K, Claydon M, Harris S. Distribution and habitat selection by muntjac and other species in a coniferous forest. Acta Theriol. 1985;30:287-303
Chollet S, Martin J-L. Declining woodland birds in North America: should we blame Bambi? Divers Distrib. 2013;19:481-483
Cote SD, Rooney TP, Tremblay J-P, Dussault C, Waller DM. Ecological impacts of deer overabundance. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2004;35:113-147
Emmering QC, Kelly JK, Ostfeld RS, Schmidt KA. Variation in coexisting birds to exploit spatial heterogeneity in small mammal activity. J Avian Biol. 2018;49:e01946
Fuller RJ. Responses of woodland birds to increasing numbers of deer: a review of evidence and mechanisms. Forestry. 2007;74:280-298
Fuller RJ, Gill RMA. Ecological impacts of increasing numbers of deer in British woodland. Forestry. 2001;74:193-199
Fuller RJ, Smith KW, Grice PV, Currie FA, Quine CP. Habitat change and woodland birds in Britain: implications for management and future research. Ibis. 2007;149:261-268
Gill RMA, Beardall V. The impact of deer on woodlands: the effects of browsing and seed dispersal on vegetation structure and composition. Forestry. 2001;74:209-218
Goodenough AE, Elliot SL, Hart AG. The challenges of conservation for declining migrants: are reserve-based initiatives during the breeding season appropriate for the Pied Flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca? Ibis. 2009;151:429-439
Gregory RD, Vorisek P, van Strien A, Gmelig Meyling AW, Jiguet F, Fornasari L, et al. Population trends of widespread woodland birds in Europe. Ibis. 2007;149:78-97
Hawkes RW, Smart J, Brown A, Jones H, Lane S, Wells D, et al. Multi-taxa consequences of management for an avian umbrella species. Biol Conserv. 2019;236:192-201
Hemami MR, Watkinson AR, Dolman PM. Habitat selection by sympatric muntjac (Muntiacus reevesi) and Roe Deer (Capreolus capreolus) in a lowland commercial pine forest. For Ecol Manag. 2004;194:49-60
Hemami MR, Watkinson AR, Dolman PM. Population densities and habitat associations of introduced muntjac Muntiacus reevesi and native Roe Deer Capreolus capreolus in a lowland pine forest. For Ecol Manag. 2005;215:224-238
Hewson CM, Amar A, Lindsell JA, Thewlis RM, Butler S, Smith K, et al. Recent changes in bird populations in British broadleaved woodland. Ibis. 2007;149:14-28
Hewson CM, Noble DG. Population trends of breeding birds in British woodlands over a 32-year period: relationships with food, habitat use and migratory behaviour. Ibis. 2009;151:464-486
Holt CA, Fuller RJ, Dolman PM. Breeding and post-breeding responses of woodland birds to modification of habitat structure by deer. Biol Cons. 2011;144:2151-2162
Jiang G, Zhang M, Ma J. Effects of human disturbance on movement, foraging and bed selection in red deer Cervus elaphus xanthopygus from the Wandashan Mountains, northeastern China. Acta Theriol. 2007;52:435-446
Joys AC, Fuller RJ, Dolman PM. Influences of deer browsing, coppice history and standard trees on the growth and development of vegetation structure in coppiced woods in lowland England. For Ecol Manag. 2004;202:23-37
Kirby KJ. The impact of deer on the ground flora of British woodland. Forestry. 2001;74:219-230
Lambrechts MM, Adriaensen F, Ardia DR, Artemyev AV, Atienzar F, Banbura J, et al. The design of artificial nestboxes for the study of secondary hole-nesting birds: a review of methodological inconsistencies and potential biases. Acta Ornithol. 2010;45:1-26
Linnell JDC, Nilsen EB, Andersen R. Selection of bed-sites by Roe Deer Capreolus capreolus fawns in an agricultural landscape. Acta Theriol. 2004;49:103-111
Martin PR, Martin TE. Ecological and fitness consequences of species coexistence: a removal experiment with Wood Warblers. Ecology. 2001;82:189-206
Millspaugh JJ, Raedeke KJ, Brundige GC, Willmott CC. Summer bed sites of Elk (Cervus elaphus) in the Black Hills, South Dakota: considerations for thermal cover management. Am Midl Nat. 1998;139:133-140
Morecroft MD, Taylor ME, Ellwood SA, Quinn SA. Impacts of deer herbivory on ground vegetation at Wytham Woods, central England. Forestry. 2001;74:251-257
Muller A, Dahm M, Boecher PK, Root-Bernstein M, Svenning J-C. Large herbivores in novel ecosystems - habitat selection by red deer (Cervus elaphus) in a former brown-coal mining area. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0177431
Mysterud A. Bed site selection by adult Roe Deer Capreolus capreolus in southern Norway during summer. Wildlife Biol. 1996;2:101-106
Palomares F, Fernandez N, Roques S, Chavez C, Silveira L, Keller C, et al. Fine-scale habitat segregation between two ecologically similar top predators. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0155626
Perrins CM, Overall R. Effect of increasing numbers of deer on bird populations in Wytham Woods, central England. Forestry. 2001;74:299-309
Sakata Y, Michimasa Y. Deer overbrowsing on autumn-flowering plants causes bumblebee decline and impairs pollination service. Ecosphere. 2015;6:274
Samplonius JM, Both C. Competitor phenology as a social cue in breeding site selection. J Anim Ecol. 2017;86:615-623
Samplonius JM, Kromhout Van Der Meer IM, Both C. Nest site preference depends on the relative density of conspecifics and heterospecifics in wild birds. Front Zool. 2017;14:56
Silva JS, Catry FX, Moreira F, Bugalo MN. The effects of deer exclusion on the development of a Mediterranean plant community affected by a wildfire. Restor Ecol. 2015;23:760-767
Tolvanen J, Seppanen J-T, Monkkonen M, Thomson RL, Ylonen H, Forsman JT. Interspecific information on predation risk affects nest site choice in a passerine bird. BMC Evol Biol. 2018;18:181
Tremblay I, Thomas D, Blondel J, Perret P, Lambrechts MM. The effect of habitat quality on foraging patterns, provisioning rate and nestling growth in Corsican Blue Tits Parus caeruleus. Ibis. 2005;147:17-24
Wilkin TA, King LE, Sheldon BC. Habitat quality, nestling diet, and provisioning behaviour in Great Tits Parus major. J Avian Biol. 2009;40:135-145
Publication history
Copyright
Acknowledgements
We thank Alex Mather, Karl Oyston and Rodney Everett for permission to work in their woodlands.
Rights and permissions
This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
FEEDBACK 
TOP