Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T16:08:58.393Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interaction between distant taxa in the use of tree cavities in African ecosystems: a study using nest-boxes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 March 2013

José P. Veiga ,
Wanyoike Wamiti ,
Vicente Polo  and
Muchane Muchai
José P. Veiga*
Affiliation:
Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, CSIC, Departamento de Ecología Evolutiva, Madrid, Spain
Wanyoike Wamiti
Affiliation:
Zoology Department, National Museums of Kenya, P.O. Box 40658-00100, Nairobi, Kenya
Vicente Polo
Affiliation:
Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Escuela Superior de Ciencias Experimentales y Tecnología, ESCET, Área de Biodiversidad y Conservación, Madrid, Spain
Muchane Muchai
Affiliation:
Zoology Department, National Museums of Kenya, P.O. Box 40658-00100, Nairobi, Kenya
*
1Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Convergence in the use of resources may occur between distantly related organisms. A major ecological resource in which members of various taxa may be interested is a cavity for nesting. A variety of social hymenopterans and vertebrates may nest within tree cavities in tropical ecosystems. We used 241 nest-boxes placed in seven Kenyan localities to investigate the use of nesting cavities by members of distant taxa and discuss whether interaction between them is a potential factor shaping cavity-nester communities in tropical regions. The nest-boxes were occupied by social insects (ants, bees and wasps) (30.1% of nest-boxes in April–May and 33.1% in September–October) and vertebrates (birds and mammals) (20% and 7.7%, respectively). Hymenopterans were more abundant in forest boxes (36.2% of nest-boxes occupied in April–May and 37% in September–October), whereas savannas had lower figures (21.7% and 31.3%, respectively). Among vertebrates, most occupants of nest-boxes in savanna were birds (17.8% of nest-boxes occupied vs. 8% in mammals), while mammals predominated in forests (4.9% of the nest-boxes occupied vs. 0.3% in birds). Spatial and temporal patterns of occupation highlight the potential that interaction between distant taxa may have on the access to nesting cavities. More nest-boxes remained unoccupied in forested areas than in savanna areas suggesting that a shorter supply of nesting sites in the savanna may be a source of competition. The simultaneous occupation of a nest-box by two different taxa was exceptional, also supporting the hypothesized inter-taxon competition.

Keywords

birdscavity nestershymenopteransinteraction between taxamammalsnest-boxestree cavitiesvertebrates
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , May 2013 , pp. 187 - 197
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

LITERATURE CITED

ARNOTT, G. & ELWOOD, R. W. 2008. Information gathering and decision making about resource value in animal contests. Animal Behaviour 76:529–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AUSTAD, S. N. 1983. A game theoretical interpretation of male combat in the bowl and doily spider (Frontinella pyramitela). Animal Behaviour 31:59–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BARNES, D. K. A. 2003. Competition asymmetry with taxon divergence. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 270:557–562.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
BENNUN, L. A. & NJOROGE, P. 1999. Important bird areas of Kenya. East Africa Natural History Society, Nairobi. 318 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BENTLEY, T., HULL, T. T., HARDY, I. C. W. & GOUBAULT, M. 2009. The elusive paradox: owner-intruder roles, strategies, and outcomes in parasitoid contests. Behavioral Ecology 20:296–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BEYER, G. L. & GOLDINGAY, R. L. 2006. The value of nest boxes in the research and management of Australian hollow-using arboreal marsupials. Wildlife Research 33:161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BLEM, C. R. & BLEM, L. B. 1991. Nest-box selection by prothonotary warblers. Journal of Field Ornithology 62:299–307.Google Scholar
BROWN, J. H., REICHMAN, O. J. & DAVIDSON, D. W. 1979. Granivory in desert ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 10:201–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CARPENTER, F. L. 1979. Competition between hummingbirds and insects for nectar. American Zoologist 19:1105–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CATAL, L. L., ODOM, D. L., BANGMA, J. T., BARRETT, T. L. & BARRETT, G. W. 2011. Artificial nest cavities designed for use by small mammals. Southeasterrn Naturalist 10:509–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CHELLAPPA, S., YAMAMOTO, M. E., CACHO, M. S. R. F. & HUNTINGFORD, F. A. 1999. Prior residence, body size and the dynamics of territorial disputes between male freshwater angelfish. Journal of Fish Biology 55:1163–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CIECHANOWSKI, M. 2005. Utilization of artificial shelters by bats (Chiroptera) in three different types of forest. Folia Zoologica 54:31–37.Google Scholar
COCKLE, K. L., MARTIN, K. & DREVER, M. C. 2010. Supply of tree-holes limits nest density of cavity-nesting birds in primary and logged subtropical Atlantic forest. Biological Conservation 143:2851–2857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
COELHO, J. R. & SULLIVAN, J. B. 1994. Colonization of wildlife nest boxes by honey-bee swarms. American Bee Journal 134:697–699.Google Scholar
CORNELIUS, C., COCKLE, K., POLITI, N., BERKUNSKY, I., SANDOVAL, L., OJEDA, V., RIVERA, L., HUNTER, M. & MARTIN, K. 2008. Cavity-nesting birds in Neotropical forests: cavities as a potentially limiting resource. Ornitologia Neotropical 19:253–268.Google Scholar
DIAMOND, J. M. 1987. Competition among different taxa. Nature 326:241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DYER, F. C. & SEELEY, T. D. 1994. Colony migration in the tropical honey bee Apis dorsata F (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Insects Sociaux 41:129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DRUMMOND, H. 2006. Dominance in vertebrate broods and litters. Quarterly Review of Biology 81:3–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
EDEN, S. F. 1987. Dispersal and competitive ability in the magpie: an experimental study. Animal Behaviour 35:764–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ELLIS, J. D., EVANS, J. D. & PETTIS, J. 2010. Colony losses, managed colony population decline, and colony collapse disorder in the United States. Journal of Apicultural Research 49:134–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FIGLER, M. H., KLEIN, R. M. & PEEKE, H. V. S. 1976. The establishment and reversibility of dominance relationships in jewel fish, Hemichromis bimaculatus Gill (Pisces, Cichlidae): effects of prior exposure and prior residence situations. Behaviour 58:254–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FOKIDIS, H. B. & RISCH, T. S. 2005. The use of nest boxes to sample arboreal vertebrates. Southeastern Naturalist 4:447–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GOLDINGAY, R. L. 2011. Characteristics of tree hollows used by Australian arboreal and scansorial mammals. Australian Journal of Zoology 59:277–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GOLDINGAY, R. L. & STEVENS, J. R. 2009. Use of artificial tree hollows by Australian birds and bats. Wildlife Research 36:8197.Google Scholar
GOLDINGAY, R. L., GRIMSON, M. & SMITH, G. C. 2007. Do feather tail gliders show a preference for nest box design? Wildlife Research 34:484–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GREENE, T. C. & JONES, A. 2003. Observed responses of captive stoats (Mustela erminea) to nest boxes and metal collars used to protect kaka (Nestor meridionalis) nest cavities. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 27:139–145.Google Scholar
HOCHBERG, M. E. & LAWTON, J. H. 1990. Competition between kingdoms. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 5:367–371.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
HSU, Y. Y., EARLEY, R. L. & WOLF, L. L. 2006. Modulation of aggressive behaviour by fighting experience: mechanisms and contest outcomes. Biological Reviews 81:33–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
JOHNSSON, K., NILSSON, S. G. & TJERNBERG, M. 1993. Characteristics and utilization of old black-woodpeckers Dryocopus martius holes by hole nesting species. Ibis 135:410–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JUSKAITIS, R. 1995. Relations between common dormice (Muscardinus avellanarius) and other occupant of bird nest-boxes in Lithuania. Folia Zoologica 44:289–296.Google Scholar
KEMP, D. J. & WIKLUND, C. 2001. Fighting without weaponry: a review of male–male contest competition in butterflies. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 49:429–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KODRIC-BROWN, A. & BROWN, J. H. 1979. Competition between distantly related taxa in the coevolution of plants and pollinators. American Zoologist 19:115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KOENIG, W. D., GOWATY, P. A. & DICKINSON, J. L. 1995. Boxes, barns, and bridges – confounding factors or exceptional opportunities in ecological studies. Oikos 63:205–208.Google Scholar
KOIVULA, K., LAHTI, K., ORELL, M. & RYTKöNEN, S. 1993. Prior residency as a key determinant of social dominance in the willow tit (Parus montanus). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 33:283–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KOPPMANN-RUMPF, B., HEBERER, C. & SCHMIDT, K. H. 2003. Long term study of the reaction of the edible dormouse Glis glis (Rodentia: Gliridae) to climatic changes and its interactions with hole-breeding passerines. Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 49:69–76.Google Scholar
LAMBRECHTS, M. M., ADRIAENSEN, F., ARDIA, D. R., ARTEMYEV, A., ATIENZAR, F., BANBURA, J., BARBA, E., BOUVIER, J. C., CAMPRODON, J., COOPER, C. B., DAWSON, R. D., EENS, M., EEVA, T., FAIVRE, B., GARAMSZEGI, L. Z., GOODENOUGH, A. E., GOSLER, A. G., GREGOIRE, A., GRIFFITH, S. C., GUSTAFSSON, L., JOHNSON, L. S., KANIA, W., KEISS, O., LLAMBIAS, P. E., MAINWARING, M. C., MAND, R., MASSA, B., MAZGAJSKI, T. D., MøLLER, A. P., MORENO, J., NAEF-DAENZER, B., NILSSON, J. A., NORTE, A. C., ORELL, M., OTTER, K. A., PARK, C. R., PERRINS, C. M., PINOWSKI, J., PORKERT, J., POTTI, J., REMES, V., RICHNER, H., RYTKONEN, S., SHIAO, M. T., SILVERIN, B., SLAGSVOLD, T., SMITH, H. G., SORACE, A., STENNING, M. J., STEWART, I., THOMPSON, C. F., TRYJANOWSKI, P., TOROK, J., VAN NOORDWIJK, A. J., WINKLER, D. W. & ZIANE, N. 2010. The design of artificial nestboxes for the study of secondary hole-nesting birds: a review of methodological inconsistencies and potential biases. Acta Ornithologica 45:1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LANGOWSKA, A., EKNER, A., SKORKA, P., TOVOLKA, M. & TRYJANOWSKI, P. 2010. Nest-site tenacity and dispersal patterns of Vespa crabro colonies located in bird nest-boxes. Sociobiology 56:375–382.Google Scholar
LÖHMUS, A. & REMM, J. 2005. Nest quality limits the number of hole-nesting passerines in their natural cavity-rich habitat. Acta Oecologica 27:125–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MAYNARD-SMITH, J. & PARKER, G. A. 1976. The logic of asymmetric contests. Animal Behaviour 24:159–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MCATEE, W. L. 1931. Paper wasps (Polistes) in bird houses. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 31:136.Google Scholar
MCGLYNN, T. P. 2012. The ecology of nest movement in social insects. Annual Reviews of Entomology 57:291–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MCNALLY, L. C. & SCHNEIDER, S. S. 1992. Seasonal cycles of growth, development and movement of the African honey-bee, Apis mellifera scutellata, in Africa. Insectes Sociaux 39:167–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NEUMANN, P. & CARRECK, N. L. 2010. Honey bee losses. Journal of Apicultural Research 49:1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NEWTON, I. 1994. The role of nest sites in limiting the numbers of hole nesting birds: a review. Biological Conservation 70:265–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OBALDIA, N., OTERO, W., MARIN, C., APARICIO, J. & CISNEROS, G. 2011. Long-term effect of a simple nest-box on the reproductive efficiency and other life traits of an Aotus lemurinus lemurinus monkey colony: an animal model for malaria research. Journal of Medical Primatology 40:383–391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
OLDROYD, B. P., LAWLER, S. H. & CROZIER, R. H. 1994. Do feral honey bees (Apis mellifera) and regent parrots (Polytelis anthopeplus) compete for nest sites? Australian Journal of Ecology 19: 444–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
POTTS, S. G., BIESMEIJER, J. C., KREMEN, C., NEUMANN, P., SCHWEIGER, O. & KUNIN, W. E. 2010. Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:345–353.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
PRANGE, S. & NELSON, D. H. 2007. Use of small-volume nest boxes by Apis mellifera L. (European honey bees) in Alabama. Southeastern Naturalist 6:370–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
REMM, J., LÖHMUS, A. & ROSENVALD, R. 2008. Density and diversity of hole-nesting passerines: dependence on the characteristics of cavities. Acta Ornithologica 43:83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RHODES, M. & JONES, D. 2011. The use of bat boxes by insectivorous bats and other fauna in the greater Brisbane region. Pp. 424–442 in LAW, B., LUNNEY, D. & LUMSDEN, L. (eds.). Biology and conservation of Australasian bats. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales. Griffith University, Griffith.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ROBLES, H., CIUDAD, C. & MATTHYSEN, E. 2012. Responses to experimental reduction and increase of cavities by a secondary cavity-nesting bird community in cavity-rich Pyrenean oak forests. Forest Ecology and Management 277:46–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SARA, M., MILAZZO, A., FALLETA, W. & BELLIA, E. 2005. Exploitation competition between hole-nesters (Muscardinus avellanarius, Mammalia and Parus caeruleus, Aves) in Mediterranean woodlands. Journal of Zoology 265:347–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SCHLUTER, D. 1986. Character displacement between distantly related taxa? Finches and bees in the Galápagos. American Naturalist 127:95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SNELL-ROOD, E. C. & CRISTOL, D. A. 2005. Prior residence influences contest outcome in flocks of non-breeding birds. Ethology 111:441–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
STANBACK, M., MERCADANTE, A., ANDERSON, W., BURKE, H. & JAMESON, R. 2009. Nest site competition between cavity nesting passerines and golden paper wasps Polistes fuscatus. Journal of Avian Biology 40:650–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
STEFFAN-DEWENTER, I., POTTS, S. G. & PACKER, L. 2005. Pollinator diversity and crop pollination services are at risk. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20:651–652.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
TAKEUCHI, T. 2006. Matter of size or matter of residency experience? Territorial contest in a green hairstreak, Chrysozephyrus smaragdinus (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Ethology 112:293–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TAKEUCHI, T. & HONDA, K. 2009. Early comers become owners: effects of residence experience on territorial contest dynamics in a lycaenid butterfly. Ethology 115:767–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TRICARICO, E. & GHERARDI, F. 2010. Past ownership makes crayfish more aggressive. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 64:575–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TWEDT, D. J. & HENNE-KERR, J. L. 2001. Artificial cavities enhance breeding bird densities in managed cottonwood forests. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:680–687.Google Scholar
VAN BALEN, J. H. 1984. The relationship between nest-box size, occupation and breeding parameters of the great tit Parus major and some other hole-nesting species. Ardea 72:163–175.Google Scholar
VAN BALEN, J. H., BOOY, C. J. H., VAN FRANEKER, J. A. & OSIECK, E. R. 1982. Studies on hole-nesting birds in natural nest sites. 1. Availability and occupation of natural nest sites. Ardea 70:1–24.Google Scholar
VAN ENGELSDORP, D. & MEIXNER, M. D. 2010. A historical review of managed honey bee populations in Europe and the United States and the factors that may affect them. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 103:S80–S95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VAN ENGELSDORP, D., HAYES, J., UNDERWOOD, R. M., CARON, D. & PETTIS, J. A. 2011. A survey of managed honey bee colony losses in the USA, fall 2009 to winter 2010. Journal of Apicultural Research 50:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VON HAARTMAN, L. 1971. Population dynamics. Pp. 391–459 in FARNER, D. S. & KING, J. R. (eds.). Avian biology, volume 1. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
WAMITI, W., MALAKI, P., KIMNI, K., NALIANYA, N., KARIUKI, C. & WAGURA, L. 2010. The birds of Uaso Narok Forest Reserve, central Kenya. Scopus 30:12–25.Google Scholar
WESOLOWSKI, T. 2007. Lessons from long-term hole-nester studies in a primeval temperate forest. Journal of Ornithology 148:S395–S405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WIEBE, K. L. 2011. Nest sites as limiting resources for cavity-nesting birds in mature forest ecosystems: a review of the evidence. Journal of Field Ornithology 82:239–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
YAMAGUCHI, N., KAWANO, K. M., YAMAGUCHI, Y. & SAITO, T. 2005. Small protection plates against marten predation on nest boxes. Applied Entomology and Zoology 40:575–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar