Abstract
The overwhelming demand of deadwoods outside protected areas has not given deadwoods enough time to remain standing for the formation of the tree cavities by birds and other natural agents. Consequently, cavity adopter and large-bodied species face difficulties in finding and establishing acceptable nest sites. The focus of biodiversity conservation has been mainly within protected area systems, and less attention has been given to areas outside protected areas despite the fact that these areas support a bigger proportion of bird community. A high pace of deadwood loss on the entire landscape on the southern slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro is an irreversible situation in which is increasingly becoming a growing concern for the conservation of biodiversity beyond protected areas. Here, we investigate what extent deadwoods have in providing nest sites among cavity-nesting birds. We do this through observations and by placing artificial nest boxes on trees within three different land-use types. We found that deadwood volume and number of natural tree cavities were lower at coffee plantations as compared to mixed farming areas and Kilimanjaro National Park (KINAPA). Likewise, tree cavity positions from the ground were higher at coffee plantations than in other two land-use types. However, application of artificial nest boxes reveals that a good number of larger artificial nest boxes had greater occupancy, as did boxes placed at higher positions on trees from the ground at coffee plantations and mixed farming areas than at KINAPA, suggesting a shortage of natural cavity-nesting sites for larger birds and an avoidance of nest predation or human disturbances, respectively. Therefore, provision of artificial nest boxes could offer nesting opportunities for a range of cavity-nesting birds if designs and constructions take into consideration all possible factors that might hinder their occupation by cavity-nesting birds. In this manner, application of cavity nest boxes could be a vital alternative tool for conservation of cavity-nesting birds beyond boundaries of protected areas.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Arnett BA, Sallabanks R (1998) Land manager perceptions of avian research and information needs. In: Marzluff JM et al (eds) Avian conservation: research and management. Island Press, p 563
Brandeis TJ et al (2002) Cavity-nester habitat development in artificially made Douglas-fir snags. J Wildl Manag 66(3):625
Catry I et al (2013) Foraging habitat quality constrains effectiveness of artificial nest-site provisioning in reversing population declines in a colonial cavity nester. PLoS One 8(3):1–10
Cockle K, Martin K, Wiebe K (2011) Selection of Nest trees by cavity-nesting birds in the Neotropical Atlantic forest. Biotropica 43(2):228–236
Elmqvist T, Zipperer WC, Güneralp B (2016) Urbanization, habitat loss and biodiversity decline. Solution pathways to break the cycle. In: Routledge handbook of urbanization and global environmental change, pp 139–151. https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ja/2016/ja_2016_zipperer_001.pdf
Fargallo JA et al (2001) Nestbox provisioning in a rural population of Eurasian kestrels: breeding performance, nest predation and parasitism. Bird Study 48(2):236–244
Goldingay RL, Stevens JR (2009) Use of artificial tree hollows by Australian birds and bats. Wildl Res 36:81–97
Harper MJ, McCarthy MA, van der Ree R (2005) The use of nest boxes in urban natural vegetation remnants by vertebrate fauna. Wildl Res 32(6):509
Hemp A (2006) The banana forests of Kilimanjaro: biodiversity and conservation of the Chagga homegardens. Biodivers Conserv 15:1193–1217
Kideghesho JR et al (2006) Factors and ecological impacts of wildlife habitat destruction in the Serengeti ecosystem in northern Tanzania. Afr J Environ Assess Manag 11(April):17–32
Kirk DA, Evenden MD, Mineau P (2011) Past and current attempts to evaluate the role of birds as predators of insect pests in temperate agriculture. In: Current ornithology. Springer, Boston, pp 175–269
Kook D, Moodie J, Ames D (2008) Using nest boxes for Lewis’s Woodpecker conservation in Central Oregon. In: Proceedings of the fourth international partners in flight conference: Tundra to tropics, pp 565–568
Lambrechts MML et al (2010) The design of artificial nestboxes for the study of secondary hole-nesting birds: a review of methodological inconsistencies and potential biases. Acta Ornithol 45(1):1–26
Le Roux DS et al (2016) Enriching small trees with artificial nest boxes cannot mimic the value of large trees for hollow-nesting birds. Restor Ecol 24(2):252–258
Loose SS, Anderson SH (1972) Woodpeckers habitat use in the forests of Southeast Wyoming. J Field Ornithol 66(4):503–514
Macdonald C (1979) Ontario’s cavity-nesting birds. Ontario Birds December 1992 10(3)
Martin K, Aitken KE, Wiebe KL (2004) Nest sites and nest webs for cavity-nesting communities in interior British Columbia, Canada: Nest characteristics and niche partitioning. Condor 106:5–19
Misana SB, Sokoni C, Mbonile MJ (2012) Land-use/cover changes and their drivers on the slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro. Tanzania 5(6):151–164
Newmark WD (1996) Insularization of Tanzanian parks and the local extinction of large mammals. Conserv Biol 10(6):1549–1556
Newton I (1998) Population limitation in birds. Academic, London
Remm K (2006) Tree cavities in riverine forests: what determines their occurrence and use by hole-nesting passerines? For Ecol Manag 221:267–277
Robles H, Ciudad C, Matthysen E (2011) Forest ecology and management tree-cavity occurrence, cavity occupation and reproductive performance of secondary cavity-nesting birds in oak forests: the role of traditional management practices. For Ecol Manag 261(8):1428–1435
Scott VE et al (2004) Cavity-nesting birds of north American forests
Twedt DJ, Henne-Kerr JL (2001) Artificial cavity enhance breeding bird densities in managed cottonwood forest. Wildl Soc Bull 29(2)
Tyson LA, Blackwell BF, Seamans TW (2011) Artificial nest cavity used successfully by native species and avoided by European starlings. Wilson J Ornithol 123(4):827–830
Warakai D et al (2013) Tree cavity-using wildlife and the potential of artificial nest boxes for wildlife management in New Guinea. Trop Conserv Sci 6(6):711–733
Waters JR, Noon BR, Verner J (1990) Lack of nest site limitation in a cavity-nesting bird community. J Wildl Manag 54(2):239–245
Wiebe KL (2011) Nest sites as limiting resources for cavity-nesting birds in mature forest ecosystems: a review of the evidence. J Field Ornithol 82(3):239–248
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dulle, H.I., Seif, S.S., Mungure, S.K., Kideghesho, J.R. (2020). Growing Concern for the Conservation of Cavity-Nesting Birds Outside Protected Areas: Can Artificial Nest Boxes Be Effective Conservation Tools?. In: Durrant, J., et al. Protected Areas in Northern Tanzania. Geotechnologies and the Environment, vol 22. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43302-4_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43302-4_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-43301-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-43302-4
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)