Nest-Box and Natural-Cavity Use in Three Mid-South Forest Habitats

Abstract

Use of 235 nesting boxes by birds and mammals was compared to use of 165 natural cavities in 3 forest habitats. Nest boxes were used more frequently than natural cavities by 12 of the 19 species using cavities (P < 0.05). Average use of nest boxes after 2 years was constant regardless of nest-box size, density of nest boxes, or habitat type. Most birds and mammals appeared to select cavities on the basis of 1 or more physical characteristics of the cavity and/or the surrounding area. Nest boxes or natural cavities having desirable characteristics and located in residual trees after logging (thinning or harvesting) may increase seasonal use of each cavity. Interspersion of nest boxes among natural cavities may aid species dependent upon natural cavities by reducing interspecific competition for natural cavities. J. WILDL. MANAGE. 45(1):93-101 Bottomland hardwoods are being cleared and replaced with agricultural crops and hardwood plantations. Sternitzke (1976) suggested that if the midSouth is to continue as a leading manufacturer of hardwood products, more intensive silvicultural practices must be implemented in upland hardwoods. Several authors have reported that intensive silvicultural practices adversely affect cavity-dependent wildlife (Thomas et al. 1976, Hardin and Evans 1977, DeGraaf 1978, Scott 1979). Seemingly, the only practical method of providing nesting and denning sites for cavity-dependent wildlife, while managing hardwood forests for maximum cellulose production, is to use nest boxes. The objectives of our study were to compare use of nest boxes with use of natural cavities in an eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides) plantation, in an upland hardwood-pine stand, and in a bottomland hardwood stand; and to determine which physical characteristics of the cavity and the surrounding area were important to species using cavities. Funding was provided by the Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station, McIntire-Stennis Project 1893. We thank P. E. Schilling and J. L. Stewart for statistical help; and H. R. Perry, Jr., J. C. Chambers, and T. Hansbrough for aid and advice.