DOCSLIB.ORG

Selection and Use of Nest Sites by Barn Owls in Norfolk, England

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

j Raptor Res. 28(3):149-153 ¸ 1994 The Raptor ResearchFoundation, Inc. SELECTION AND USE OF NEST SITES BY BARN OWLS IN NORFOLK, ENGLAND PAUL N. JOHNSON The Durrell Instituteof Conservationand Ecology,The University,Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NX United Kingdom AI•STR•CT.--Between1989 and 1993 reproductionwas monitoredat 96 barn owl (Tyro alba) breeding sitesin England. Nestswere locatedin tree cavities,buildings, and nest boxesin farm buildingsand maturetrees. Many of the sitesother than nestboxes used by owls were of human origin, but the number of thosedeclined during the courseof the study due to deteriorationof human-madestructures and competitionfrom otherspecies. Nest boxesincreased the populationdensity from 15 breedingpairs/100 km2 to 27 pairs.Over the studyperiod, pairs usingnest boxes produced significantly larger clutchesthan at other sites,but the numberof fledglingswas not significantlydifferent amongtypes of nest sites. KEY WORDS: barn owl; breedingecology; England; human-altered habitats; nest boxes; Tyro alba. Selecci6ny usode sitiosde nidificaci6npor Tyroalba en Norfolk, Inglaterra RESUMEN.--Entre1989 y 1993 semonitore6 la reproducci6nen 96 sitiosreproductivos de Tyroalba. Los nidosse localizaron en cavidadesde firboles,edificios, cajas anideras en construccionesagricolas y firboles madufos.Mucho de estossitios, aparte de las cajasanideras, usados por T. alba fueron de origen humano, peroel nfimerode ellosdeclin6 durante el cursodel estudiodebido al deteriorode las estructurasartificiales y a la competenciacon otras especies.Las cajasanideras incrementaron la densidadpoblacional de 15 parejasreproductivas/100 km 2 a 27 parejas.En el periodode estudio,las parejasque usaronlas cajas aniderasprodujeron nidadas significativamentemils grandesqueen otros sitios, pero el nfimero de volantonesno fue significativamentediferente entre los distintostipos de sitios. [Traducci6n de Ivan Lazo] The barn owl (Tyro alba) is currentlyclassified box studieshas been criticized by Moller (1989, as vulnerable in northwest Norfolk, England by 1992). Shawyer(1987) who recordeda 66% declineto just The primary objectivesof this studywere to mon- 82 breedingpairs and a densityof 2.9 pairs per 100 itor and compare reproductive levels between nat- km2 from the 240 pairs and 8.4 pairs per km2 re- ural and nest-boxbreeding sites, and to promotea cordedby Blaker (1933). A surveyof this area found sustainableexpansion of breedingbarn owls by ex- that 60% of the barn owl population used natural tendingthe range and number of nestingsite types. tree cavitiesfor nesting (Johnson 1991). Regional METHODS trendsin the type of nestingsite selectedby a barn owl population have been reported in Bunn et al. The study area (10 x 15 km) was intensivelyfarmed (1982). in individual units ranging from 300-15 000 ha. Principle cropswere winter and springcereals, sugarbeets, and rough Artificial nestingsites have beenreadily usedby grassland. owlsand havebeen widely usedin long-termstudies Nest siteswere locatedduring 1989-90 by methodically of owls (Southern1959, 1970, KorpimSki and Sul- searchingall possiblestructures, interviewing landowners, kava 1987, Saurola1989). By providingnest boxes, and by following birds to their nest sites.The locationsof all potentialnatural nestingsites were recorded,together the breeding population densitiesof owls were in- with details of their dimensions. creasedabove the levels previouslythought to be Nest boxes placed in buildings (N -- 43) were con- limited by the availability of natural sites.Lenton structedfrom 8 mm exterior grade plywood and located (1978) demonstratedthat the breedingdensity of in suitably safe and quiet siteson every farm within the study area. Tree-mountednesting boxes (N = 17) were previouslyrare barn owls in Malaysia couldbe in- made from 19 mm exterior grade plywood for increased creasedwith the provisionof nestboxes. On the other thermal insulation becausethis speciesis known to be hand, the naturalness of results obtained from nest- sensitiveto extreme cold (Johnson1974). Tree-mounted 149 150 PAULN. JOHNSON VOL. 28, NO. 3 Table 1. Reproductionby barnowls at four nestsite types in Norfolk, England.Tabular valuesare percentagesor mean _+ 1 SD. Numbers of nest typesare in parentheses. REPRODUCTIVE NESTSITE TYPES PARAMETERS TREE Box (8) BUILDINGBOX (43) TREE CAVITY(28) BUILDING(14) Percent of site use 29.4 25.6 57.1 10.6 Clutch size 5.4 _+ 1.8 5.0 _+ 1.4 4.3 _+ 1.3 3.9 _+ 1.1 Brood size 4.1 _+ 1.7 3.7 _+ 1.2 3.3 _+ 1.2 2.9 _+ 1.4 Fledglings 4.1 _+1.7 3.1 _ 1.1 2.9 _ 1.2 2.6 _ 1.3 Fledglings/eggs 75.0 _ 9.2 65.8 _+21.3 66.3 _+18.5 64.9 _ 25.1 boxesreplicated the darknessfound in deepernatural tree were determinedat all sites. The number of young of cavitiesby incorporatinga baffle to shield the entrance fledgingage was recordedduring visitsto band youngat hole from the nestingchamber and increasethe protection 5-6 wk of age. of birdsfrom weatherand predators(Johnson 1990). Tree Data were analyzedfor differencesin selectionof site nestboxes were erectedin areaslacking suitable buildings typesand productivitybetween natural nestingsites and and were mountedon old tree stumpsand telegraphpoles nestingboxes using Chi-square analysis. Because the data 3 m abovethe ground. All boxeswere lined with wood for the reproductiveefforts were not normally distributed, chips. dataon clutch,brood, number of fledglings,and fledgling/ All siteswere monitored at 8-wk intervals throughout egg amongthe four site typeswere comparedusing the the year. The frequencyof visitswas increasedto every 3 Kruskal-Wallis test. Comparisonsof clutch, brood, and wk during the breedingseason from March to September fledglings/broodproduced in natural sitesand in all types at occupiedsites. Egg clutch size and initial brood size of boxeswere done using the Mann-Whitney U-test. 12'• INBUILDING [• TREE CAVITY • BOX(BUILDING) • BOXTREE): 10- _ UJ 6- Z 4- _ 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 YEAR Figure 1. Nest sitesavailable in the studyarea. SEPTEMBER 1994 BARN OWL NEST SITES IN ENGLAND 151 700 • 600 i No.EGGS HATCHEDLAID No.FLEDGED 500 400 300, 200 100 O' TREE CAVITIES. NATURALSITES. BOX(BUILDING) BOX(TREE) SITE TYPES Figure 2. Nest site use by barn owls, 1989-93. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION number of eggslaid) in this study was 66.6% (SD = 20.3), which comparesfavorably with an average Site useand reproductivedata are shownin Table of 62.5% (SD = 14.8) for 11 other speciesof cavity- 1. Tree cavitieswere usedat a higher rate than non- nestingowls (F.R. Gelbach pers. comm.). box sitesin buildings(P = 0.06). The combineddata My early surveyresults (Johnson 1991) showed for nest boxesversus all other types showedno sig- a 58% use of large tree cavitiesand only 31% use of nificant differencein selectionrelative to availability buildings by breeding owls in comparisonto a na- (X2 = 0.3, NS). Tree boxesproduced more eggs,but tional trend of 64.6% nesting in buildings and 24% not significantlymore fledglingsthan other sitetypes in trees (Shawyer 1987). Within the studyarea, the (Kruskal-Wallis, H -- 9.6, P = 0.02 for clutch; H three pairs nestingin buildingsused lofts in derelict = 6.3, P > 0.08 for brood and fledglings). housesor abandonedmilitary buildings. These find- Significantdifferences were found in the clutch ingsare in line with other studiesin the East Anglian and broodsizes and the numbersof young produced region.Cayford (1992) alsofound a high proportion betweennest boxesand other sites,but productivity of nest sitesin tree cavities;only buildingswith lofts of fledglingsin relation to clutch sizeswas compa- or nest boxeswere usedas breedingsites. Such fea- rable between natural and artificial sites, (Mann- tures and natural sites were scarcein the area prior Whitney U = 802, P < 0.04 for the first three, but to this study (Fig. 1). Tree cavitieswere usedin ash U = 1005, NS for productivity).Therefore, box sites (Fraxinusexcelsior; N = 5), oak (Quercusrobur; N apparentlydo producea greaterreproductive effort, = 5), elm (Ulmusprocera;N = 3), and beech(Fagus but not necessarilya greater reward. Overall, pro- sylvatica;N = 1). The low annual rainfall in the ductivityof fledgedyoung (number of youngfledged/ region (• = 65 cm comparedto 100-300 cm nation- 152 PAULN JOHNSON VOL. 28, No. 3 50' • % BREEDPOE •- 45- [T• % MEANOUTPUT o 40- z :,•',<'*,sq•'::,'g•:*'/,½1111111It111111 ca 35- ,';/;¾/#, =: 30- z 25- ,,, 20- z •5- ::3 5- O a. 0 TREE CAVITY NATURAL SITES o BOX(BUILDING) BOX(TREE) TYPES OF SITE Figure 3. Reproductiveperformance by barn owls in four typesof nestsites. ally) is thoughtto be a critical factorallowing such the greatestimpact on the densityof suitablenatural open structuresto be used successfully(Shawyer breedingsites during this study. The observedtrend 1987). The lossof elms to diseaseacross the region for nesting barn owls was an increaseduse of nest has significantlyreduced the availability of tree cav- boxesand a declinein the availability of natural tree ities. Osbourne and Krebs (1981) estimated a loss cavities(Fig. 2). Eleven (25%) of the 43 nest boxes of over 11 million trees nationally, which has in- erected in buildings were used, together with five creasedcompetition among other cavity-nestingspe- (41%) of the 17 tree boxes,increasing the breeding cies. populationdensity within the studyarea from 23 to The tawny owl (Strix aluco),often viewed as a 41 pairs, an increaseof 178% during the 5 yr of the nest-sitecompetitor with the barn owl (Shawyer study. Much like the situationdescribed by Lenton 1987), onlyused one box during
Recommended publications
  • Wood Duck Nest Box Design & Assembly Directions

    Wood Duck Nest Box Design & Assembly Directions

    Wood Duck Nest Box Design & Assembly Directions Instructions, Illustrations & Photos Courtesy of MWDI and Scott Jasion, Harford County Chapter, Ducks Unlimited Side door opening design for easy mounting & monitoring access light-weight, field-proven effectiveness Design can be easily converted to a top lid opening by keeping the door panel in one piece and permanently attachin to sides; add hinge to roof instead of attaching. Design can also be converted to an “east-west” side door by cutting the door panel into “thirds”, by attaching the upper and lower portions and then by adding a hinged piece in the middle as desired height. Materials Needed for One Box 10-foot, 10” wide board (ideally cypress or cedar for longevity) High quality wood, #2 grade, rough cut one side One – 12-14” x 3-4” exit ladder Nominal 10” width and 1” thickness Hardware cloth (rat wire), small mesh, curved in 12” boards can easily be used, adhere to the same length center to form slight hump, easier ladder use by dimensions. ducklings. Other lumber is also feasible but other hardwoods will Trim or fold edges to prevent injury to ducklings add significant weight. from sharp wire points. Softwoods require treatment and will not last as long. Plastic gutter guard will also works well. Cut with scissors. Premium wood glue. Apply liberally to all seams, splits and knot areas. Will 1 ½” stainless steel or galvanized staples, insure boxes hold up much longer than those without ¼” narrow crown, 18 gauge glue. for use in compressed air staple gun. 1 ½” stainless steel, ribbed, cedar shake nails may also Tools Needed be used with hammer or 1 ½" screws.
  • Making a Southern Flying Squirrel (SFS) Nest Box: a Few Steps but Lots of Details by Don Althoff 2020

    Making a Southern Flying Squirrel (SFS) Nest Box: a Few Steps but Lots of Details by Don Althoff 2020

    Making a Southern Flying Squirrel (SFS) Nest Box: A Few Steps But Lots of Details By Don Althoff 2020 Knock…and you may find someone home! Plug and check behind the door A “cut” hickory…the SFS is the only species in our region to have this distinctive entry into Flying squirrel box half full a hickory nut. Larger tree of ‘cut’ hickory nuts…a sure squirrels are able to crush sign of SFS in your woods these hard shelled nuts Basics 2 You need one (1) board per box: 1” x 8” x 8-ft white board (aka pine/spruce/fir) Screws or nails. 2” 2 carriage bolts/nuts/washers ¼” diameter, 2 ½” long You need 1-pair of hinges. 1 ½” will do. You need ¼” x ¼” hardware cloth/screen mesh (get 24” wide roll. A 5 ft. long roll will yield 10 screens) 2 carriage bolts +nuts +washers ¼” diameter, 2 ½” long Hook & eyelet 1 ½” is suffcient Electrical outlet plate 1 ½” opening to keep larger species of squirrels (i.e., red, gray, and fox) out of the box 3 Cutting & Assembly Tips 4 Pay attention to grain. Look at the end of your boards. Face outside Always have the curve facing to the inside Face inside Suggest you use 1 ½” paddle bit to make side hole. Drill about ¾ way through on one side, then flip over board and drill from other side to complete hole. This reduces tear- out/splintering on one side For left side (box door side facing you), use strip from piece you just cut to create the inner strip piece.
  • Barn Owl (Tyto Alba) Caleb G

    Barn Owl (Tyto Alba) Caleb G

    Barn Owl (Tyto alba) Caleb G. Putnam Status: State Endangered, Casual (MBRC) these reports occurred during MBBA II, two one-day wonders at Tawas Point State Park, Iosco County, were clearly migrants and may have pertained to the same individual. The third, present for two days in July 2002 in Washtenaw County, yielded possible breeding evidence. This compares to one breeding confirmation and five non-breeding season observations during MBBA I. After the MBBA II period, a single Barn Owl was observed in and near a barn on 7 September 2009 in Penn Township, Cass County and several dropped feathers were retrieved (MBRC 2010, Putnam 2010). Still, it seems likely that the period between the two Tawas Point, Iosco County, MI. 5/17/2007 atlases witnessed the conclusion of this species’ © Caleb Putnam regular breeding in the state. The monkey-faced Barn Owl has the dubious Historically, breeding activity occurred distinction of being one of Michigan’s few primarily from March to June, with occasional extirpated breeding bird species. Formerly an records into October during times of high uncommon to rare breeder in the southern LP, microtine abundance. The species shows a the species last nested in the early 1980s and has marked preference for human-made nest since been only infrequently encountered. This structures, in which a clutch of 3-11 eggs is laid. species is one of the most widely distributed of Eggs are incubated for about 30-34 days and the all land birds, being found on six continents and young are brooded an additional 52-56 days constituting approximately 28 to 35 subspecies (Ehrlich et al.
  • American Kestrel Nest Box Monitoring Guidelines

    American Kestrel Nest Box Monitoring Guidelines

    American Kestrel Nest Box Monitoring Guidelines Phase 1: Pre-season check Shortly before the kestrels are due to return (early March), you should do a pre-season check to get the box ready and ensure that it is in good order. 1. Open – If the box was closed for the winter to prevent squirrels, sparrows, and starlings from using it, open it now. 2. Lining – Line the bottom of the box with a few inches of pine shavings or wood chips. Do not use sawdust, as it will not insulate the eggs properly, and do not use cedar shavings, as these are toxic to young birds. 3. Inspection – Inspect the box and its mounting pole. Do any parts appear cracked or broken? This is the time when a replacement box can be erected – once the season starts, it will be much harder. Phase 2: Early breeding season During the early breeding season (from late March onward), all that needs be done is to assess whether the box has been selected by kestrels. One hour-long visit every two weeks should be sufficient. If the box is likely to be taken over by House Sparrows or starlings, weekly visits should be made to check for these invasives. If kestrels are seen going in and out of the box, you may well have nesting kestrels. If squirrels, starlings, or House Sparrows are seen, the box may have been invaded. Observe for a time, and if you determine that another animal is using the box, wait for the adult animals to leave. Once the adults are outside, simply close the box.
  • Build a Duck Nest Box Wood Ducks, Barrow’S Goldeneyes, Common Goldeneyes, Hooded Mergansers, Common Mergansers and Buffleheads Are All Cavity Nesting Ducks

    Build a Duck Nest Box Wood Ducks, Barrow’S Goldeneyes, Common Goldeneyes, Hooded Mergansers, Common Mergansers and Buffleheads Are All Cavity Nesting Ducks

    Build a duck nest box Wood ducks, Barrow’s goldeneyes, common goldeneyes, hooded mergansers, common mergansers and buffleheads are all cavity nesting ducks. They build nests in abandoned woodpecker holes or natural tree cavities caused by disease, fire or lightning. These ducks will also use a constructed nesting box. Here are plans for a nest box that you can build, install and maintain. The design, which is used by the Ducks Unlimited Greenwing program, may even attract other cavity nesting birds such as kestrels, tree swallows, great crested flycatchers or screech owls. Cedar is ideal* Cedar lumber is recommended because it is naturally resistant to weather and insects. You can also use any materials you have available such as pine or plywood. The box pictured uses 10.5 linear feet of 1" X 10" (3/4" thick by 9 1/4" wide) lumber that is rough on one side (for the inside of the box). *Ducks Unlimited staff in the interior of British Columbia indicate that plywood boxes better withstand the region’s temperature extremes. Finishing touches Ducks Unlimited does not recommend applying a finish to cedar boxes. A finish might help to extend the life of a plywood box. If you decide to apply a finish to your nest box, use a nontoxic wood preserver or a light shade of an earth tone paint. The ducks will find your box by seeing the contrast in color caused by the entry hole. Do not apply finish inside the box. Cavity nesting ducks do not carry nesting materials. It’s important to help them out by placing four to six inches of wood shavings in the bottom of the box.You can find wood shavings at your local pet or farm supply store.
  • Measuring Owl Flight Noise

    Measuring Owl Flight Noise

    Measuring owl flight noise Thomas GEYER1; Ennes SARRADJ2; Christoph FRITZSCHE3 1;2 Chair for Technical Acoustics, BTU Cottbus - Senftenberg, Germany 3 now with the Thuringian State Institute for Environment and Geology, Germany ABSTRACT It is well known that most genera of owls are able to fly almost silently in order to hunt their prey. However, this knowledge is actually based on very few quantitative studies only. This is especially interesting regarding the fact that, against the background of increasing air traffic, the unique plumage adaptations of the owl responsible for the silent flight are the motivation behind various airframe noise reduction techniques such as serrations or porous trailing edges. Both by reviewing existing data and by means of appropriate experiments, the paper will first illustrate the special feather adaptations of owls and will expand upon their contribution to the silent flight. Then, following a brief review of existing measurement data on the silent owl flight from past studies, the paper will focus on more recent measurements of the noise generated by gliding owls. Thereby, two different approaches were followed: First, outdoor measurements of the noise emitted by gliding owls were performed using microphone array technology and a high speed camera setup to capture the flight path of the birds. Second, indoor measurements in an aeroacoustic open jet wind tunnel revealed the noise generated by prepared wings as well as their aerodynamic performance in terms of lift and drag forces. In both cases, special attention was paid to the difference between the flight noise of the owl compared to the noise of other, non-silently flying birds.
  • Download Download

    Download Download

    1 Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 2 (1996) Volume 105 p. 21-28 NESTING BY BARN OWLS IN INDIANA Allen R. Parker and John S. Castrale Indiana Department of Natural Resources Division of Fish and Wildlife Nongame and Endangered Species Program 553 East Miller Drive Bloomington, Indiana 47401 ABSTRACT: Indiana nesting records for the barn owl (Tyto alba) indicate a statewide distribution before the population decline of the last thirty years. To document recent nestings, a program of advertising for public sightings, interviewing observers, and inspecting sites was conducted from 1983 to 1993. A total of 112 barn owls (19% of the 588 reports received) and 61 nest sites were confirmed. All nests were found south of 40 degrees latitude. Nest attempts were found in nest boxes (43%), tree cavities (38%), silos (9%), and other sites (10%). Success to banding age was most probable for nest boxes (78%). The average number of young per successful nest peaked every third year and was 4.0 overall. Between 1984 and 1991, the loss of known nest sites was 19.6%. The number of banding age young per nest attempt (2.74) exceeded the normal range of young per breeding female for a stable population (1.86-2.18). KEYWORDS: Banding age young, barn owls, distribution, nest boxes, productivity. INTRODUCTION The barn owl was first noted in Indiana after 1879 (Butler, 1898; Mumford and Keller, 1984), following settlement and forest clearing. Nest records from historical times to 1986 (Whitaker and Gammon, 1988) indicate a statewide distribution. Declines in barn owl numbers in the last 30 years have resulted in the species being considered endangered by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR).
  • Nestbox Recommendations

    Nestbox Recommendations

    NABS Factsheet Nestbox Recommendations The North American Bluebird Society (NABS) no longer approves specific nestbox designs. We recommend the specifications given in this document for nestboxes erected for small, native cavity nesters like bluebirds. Probably no nestbox is “perfect” but if you buy or build one that follows the guidelines given in this document, you will increase the odds that the birds coming to your nestbox will remain safe through the nesting cycle and that their offspring will fledge successfully. A word of caution: We have found that some nestboxes may be sold with a “NABS approved” logo do not conform to these recommendations. Please tell us if you find such a nestbox. NESTBOX STYLE/DESIGN to attract and ensure safety of and Features recommend on bluebird nestboxes suitability for native birds • A wide variety of good nestbox plans are available online including: the NABS website: www.nabluebirdsociety.org/ nestbox-plans/ and also NestBox Builder: http://nestboxbuilder. com/nestbox-plans-for-bluebirds.html • Because of regional variation in bird species, predators, climate, and other factors, nestbox styles or nestbox features that work well in one area may not work as well in others. Many bluebird landlords have favorite styles. Contact experienced bluebirders in your area to learn what works best where you are. The NABS website at lists Affiliate organizations that can also help you with region-specific information: http://www. nabluebirdsociety.org/affiliates/ CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL to help the box last, maintain safe temperatures, and keep it safe from predators The following materials work best for constructing bluebird nestboxes: Bernie Daniel credit: Photo • Solid wood: ¾ to 1 inch thick, of softwoods (such as pine, Shown above are some of the ideal features for a bluebird which should be sealed with a water-based paint or stain) or nestbox.
  • Constructing, Erecting and Monitoring Pine Marten Den Boxes

    Constructing, Erecting and Monitoring Pine Marten Den Boxes

    Constructing, erecting and monitoring Pine Marten Den Boxes Background Den boxes are used to provide artificial breeding sites for pine martens, in areas where there is an absence of natural tree cavities. They have proved to be a very successful conservation tool in Scotland, with many boxes occupied year after year. Martens use den boxes to: Raise young in spring/summer Shelter from bad weather Rest in during the day Stay safe from predation (foxes) above ground level. We use them as: Temporary substitute for natural den/rest sites Monitoring tool for pine marten populations. The key features of the VWT den box design are: Den chamber size is similar to natural den sites. Good thermal insulation from the use of thick timber and boarding. Reduced convection heat losses by having entrances at bottom and having a snug fitting lid. Double “chimney” entrances give den chamber no external corners and so no rain penetration, increases insulation for the central chamber and gives animals a choice of entrance (mimicking many natural tree cavities). Den boxes can be purchased from The Nest Box Company (http://www.nestbox.co.uk/) or constructed using the following specification. Materials The plywood used for the front, back and lid is 18mm exterior WBP (water and boil proof) grade. The glues used in its construction are weatherproof, but the timber still needs to be painted and exposed edges need particular attention. Marine grade plywood would be better but is extremely expensive. The sides (both inner and outer) are cut from what is sold as 200mm x 25mm rough sawn timber, although the actual thickness of the timber may vary slightly and allowance for this should be made.
  • David Leach Ecology Ltd. Environmental Consultants Land At

    David Leach Ecology Ltd. Environmental Consultants Land At

    David Leach Ecology Ltd. Environmental Consultants Land at Long Landsley Salisbury Road Shaftesbury Dorset Ecological Survey Date: November 2018 - updated April 2019 Report compiled by M. Haines Report checked and authorised by D. V. Leach. M.C.I.E.E.M Phone: 01258 840773 Mobile: 07756 855212 E-mail: [email protected] Copyright David Leach Ecology Ltd Registered Office: Arrowsmith Court, Station Approach, Broadstone, Dorset, BH18 8AT Company Reg. No. 8846666 Contents Executive summary ................................................................................................................. 2 1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................. 3 1.2 Aims of the Survey ...................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Site Description ........................................................................................................... 3 2.0 Methodology ................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Desk Study .................................................................................................................. 4 2.2 Site Survey .................................................................................................................. 4 3.0 Results ..........................................................................................................................77
  • Barn Owls — Family Tytonidae

    Barn Owls — Family Tytonidae

    282 Barn Owls — Family Tytonidae Barn Owls — Family Tytonidae Barn Owl Tyto alba An uncommon permanent resident through much of San Diego County, the Barn Owl is the county’s most urban owl. It nests in buildings and among the bases of palm leaves more often than in cavities in native trees or on natural cliff ledges. Also, the owls readily use nest boxes designed for them. An increas- ing number of San Diegans are turning to the Barn Owl as an agent of natural rodent control, encourag- ing the owls by hanging these boxes in trees. Breeding distribution: The Barn Owl is widespread on the coastal slope of San Diego County at low to moderate elevations, occurring in riparian and oak woodland as Photo by Anthony Mercieca well as in any open area where trees, buildings, or other man-made structures offer secure sites for roosting and the nature of the surrounding habitat, provided that there nesting. Its numbers are greatest in the inland valleys, is ample open ground over which the owls can hunt. with up to 12 in Poway (M12) 10 June and 15 July 1998 In the higher mountains the Barn Owl is rare but (P. von Hendy), and 10 at Wilderness Gardens (D11) 5 recorded as high as around 5000 feet elevation near the April 1997 (V. Dineen). The availability of suitable nest upper end of the middle fork of Borrego Palm Canyon sites probably governs the species’ numbers more than (E21; one on 18 June 1999, K. L. Weaver, C. R. Mahrdt) and about 4650 feet near Camp Hual-Cu-Cuish, Cuyamaca Mountains (M20; one on 2 July 2000, R.
  • Nest Box Guide for Waterfowl Nest Box Guide for Waterfowl Copyright © 2008 Ducks Unlimited Canada ISBN 978-0-9692943-8-2

    Nest Box Guide for Waterfowl Nest Box Guide for Waterfowl Copyright © 2008 Ducks Unlimited Canada ISBN 978-0-9692943-8-2

    Nest Box Guide for Waterfowl Nest Box Guide For Waterfowl Copyright © 2008 Ducks Unlimited Canada ISBN 978-0-9692943-8-2 Any reproduction of this present document in any form is illegal without the written authorization of Ducks Unlimited Canada. For additional copies please contact the Edmonton DUC office at (780)489-2002. Published by: Ducks Unlimited Canada www.ducks.ca Acknowledgements Photography provided by : Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC), Jim Potter (Alberta Conservation Association (ACA)), Darwin Chambers (DUC), Jonathan Thompson (DUC), Lesley Peterson (DUC contractor), Sherry Feser (ACA), Gordon Court ( p 16 photo of Pygmy Owl), Myrna Pearman ,(Ellis Bird Farm), Bryan Shantz and Glen Rowan. Portions of this booklet are based on a Nest Box Factsheet prepared by Jim Potter (ACA) and Lesley Peterson (DUC contractor). Myrna Pearman provided editorial comment. Table of Contents Table of Contents Why Nest Boxes? ......................................................................................................1 Natural Cavities ......................................................................................................................................2 Identifying Wildlife Species That Use Your Nest Boxes .....................................3 Waterfowl ..................................................................................................................4 Common Goldeneye .........................................................................................................................5 Barrow’s Goldeneye