Decaying trees improve nesting opportunities for cavity‐nesting birds in temperate and boreal forests: A meta‐analysis and implications for retention forestry

• Published in: Ecology and evolution Vol. 8; no. 16; pp. 8616 - 8626
• Main Authors: Gutzat, Fabian, Dormann, Carsten F.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01.08.2018; John Wiley and Sons Inc; Wiley
• Subjects: Birds; Boreal forests; cavity nesters; conservation; Dead wood; Deciduous forests; Ecosystems; Excavators; Forestry; Forests; Holes; Meta-analysis; Nesting; nest‐site selection; retention forestry; Review; Reviews; Scientific papers; Search engines; Site selection; Taiga; tree characteristics; Trees; conservation; nest‐site selection; retention forestry; meta‐analysis; tree characteristics; cavity nesters
• ISSN: 2045-7758; 2045-7758
• DOI: 10.1002/ece3.4245

Many studies have dealt with the habitat requirements of cavity‐nesting birds, but there is no meta‐analysis on the subject and individual study results remain vague or contradictory. We conducted a meta‐analysis to increase the available evidence for nest‐site selection of cavity‐nesting birds. Literature was searched in Web of Science and Google Scholar and included studies that provide data on the habitat requirements of cavity‐nesting birds in temperate and boreal forests of varying naturalness. To compare nest and non‐nest‐tree characteristics, the following data were collected from the literature: diameter at breast height (DBH) and its standard deviation (SD), sample size of trees with and without active nest, amount of nest and available trees described as dead or with a broken crown, and amount of nest and available trees that were lacking these characteristics. Further collected data included bird species nesting in the cavities and nest‐building type (nonexcavator/excavator), forest type (coniferous/deciduous/mixed), biome (temperate/boreal), and naturalness (managed/natural). From these data, three effect sizes were calculated that describe potential nest trees in terms of DBH, vital status (dead/alive), and crown status (broken/intact). These tree characteristics can be easily recognized by foresters. The results show that on average large‐diameter trees, dead trees, and trees with broken crowns were selected for nesting. The magnitude of this effect varied depending primarily on bird species and the explanatory variables forest type and naturalness. Biome had lowest influence (indicated by ΔAIC). We conclude that diameter at breast height, vitality, and crown status can be used as tree characteristics for the selection of trees that should be retained in selectively harvested forests. We conducted a meta‐analysis to gain insights into which tree characteristics are important during nest‐site selection by cavity‐nesting birds. Our results show that diameter at breast height (DBH), tree vitality, and crown status all significantly influence the suitability as nest trees. These findings also have important implications for the selection of trees to be retained in retention forestry.