ANTHROPOGENIC MATERIALS IN THE NESTS OF PASSERINE BIRDS: DOES THE ENVIRONMENT MATTER?

Oksana Hnatyna


DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.30970/sbi.1901.815

Abstract


Background. For several past decades, a notable pollution of the environment by different kinds of solid waste has been noted. The number of studies addressing the issue of utilising debris for nest construction by various species of birds has increased over the past century. It is important to understand the extent to which anthropogenic transformation of the environment in the form of debris affects the nest-building beha­viour of birds and the architecture of the nest itself. In our research we analyse how the pollution of the environment with solid household waste affects the appearance of the debris in bird nests.
Materials and Methods. Materials for this article included 520 nests of 44 passe­rines species. Nests were collected unevenly during the last two decades (2002–2024) in different types of habitats mainly across the western part of Ukraine and in Poland. Collected after the breeding season, nests were decomposed in a laboratory and nest components were identified as natural (grass, plant stems, tree leaves, grass roots, moss, mammals’ hair, bird feather and others) and anthropogenic (threads, synthetic fibres, plastic ropes, fishing line, cigarette filters, paper, tissue, wires and others), and their percentage by volume was defined.
Results and Discussion. Birds in the human settlements used debris for nest construction more often. The number of nests with debris in natural environment was the lowest and debris were found there in very small amounts.
Even a sufficient amount of natural nest materials in the environment does not prevent birds from using debris. Part of nests collected in the natural environment included debris indicating environmental pollution in the surrounding area.
There was a significant difference in the presence, amount and number of kinds of debris in the nests collected in different environments.
In the natural environment far from human settlements, the proportion of nests with debris (6.6 %), the number of kinds (mean ± standard error 0.08±0.02; median value 0.00, Q1-Q3 values 0.00–0.00, n = 293) (further the numbers are presented as mean ± standard error; median value, Q1–Q3 values, n) and amount (0.07±0.04 % by volume; 0.00 %, 0.00–0.00 %, n = 293) were the lowest. In the natural environment far from human settlements, debris still was present in nests, indicating the presence of pollution in such territories and demonstrating birds’ ability to use debris, intentionally or unintentionally, even if natural nest materials are readily available.
Nests with debris collected on the outskirts are relatively high (63.2 % of nests), the number of kinds (1.12±0.10; 1.00, 0.00–2.00, n = 163) and amount (4.90±0.85 % by volume; 0.10 %, 0.00–4.00 %, n = 163) in debris, which may indicate randomly polluted environment as well as a presence of garbage dumps outside human settlements.
Debris in bird nests usually appeared in populated areas, where it is available and accessible in significant quantities. Most frequently, debris was found in passerine bird nests within human settlements (87.5 % of nests), however some nests did not include debris. The number of kinds of anthropogenic materials (ANMs) incorporated in the nests was the highest in populated areas (2.22±0.19; 2.00, 1.00-3.00, n = 64); it was more numerous in cities and towns (3.04±0.30; 3.00, 2.00–4.00, n = 25) than in villages (1.69±0.21; 1.00, 1.00–2.00, n = 39). The amount of debris in the nests was also the highest in human settlements (5.52±0.89 %; 2.00 %, 0.10–8.50 %, n = 64), being higher in cities and towns (6.93±1.22 %; 6.00 %, 2.00–10.00 %, n = 25) than in villages (4.62±1.23 %; 1.00 %, 0.10–5.00 %, n = 39).
Turdus merula from human settlements used debris a lot (92.9 % of nests). On the outskirts, 40.0 % of nests still contained debris (we assume that the number of nests in every environment is 100%), whereas in natural environment its nests consisted only of natural materials. On the outskirts, blackbird nests contained fewer kinds (0.50±0.22; 0.00, 0.00–1.00, n = 10) and a smaller amount (0.08±0.05 %; 0.00 %, 0.00–0.10 %, n = 14) of debris than in human settlements (3.00±0.50; 3.50, 1.00–4.00, n = 14; 7.30±1.55 %; 7.50 %, 3.00-10.00 %, n = 14).
Conclusion. The environment affects the presence of debris in bird nests. In the anthropogenic environment (human settlements) the share of nests with debris, the amount and number of kinds of debris were the highest. Birds do not always use ANMs in the polluted environment. On the other hand, even when the amount of natural materials was sufficient, birds could include debris into their nests.


Keywords


nest composition, anthropogenic materials, debris, environment, passerines

Full Text:

PDF

References


Antczak, M., Hromada, M., Czechowski, P., Tabor, J., Zabłocki, P., Grzybek, J., & Tryjanowski, P. (2010). A new material for old solutions - the case of plastic string used in Great Grey Shrike nests. Acta Ethologica, 13(2), 87-91. doi:10.1007/s10211-010-0077-2
CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Biddle, L. E., Broughton, R. E., Goodman, A. M., & Deeming, D. C. (2018). Composition of bird nests is a species-specific characteristic. Avian Biology Research, 11(2), 132-153. doi:10.31 84/175815618x15222318755467
CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Bokotey, A. (1992). Ekologia okresu lęgowego makolągwy Acanthis cannabina na Zachodniej Ukrainie. Dynamika Populacji Ptakow. Slupsk, 147-149. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/41614381/Ekologia_okresu_lęgowego_makolągwy_Acanthis_cannabina_na_Zachodniej_Ukrainie

Collias, N. & Collias, E. (1984). Nest building and bird behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press. doi:10.1515/9781400853625
CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Franchuk, M. V. (2013). Vypadky netypovoho hnizduvannya drozda spivochoho Turdus philomelos [Cases of unusual nesting of Song Thrush Turdus philomelos]. Troglodytes, 4, 35-39. (In Ukrainian)

Handbook of the Birds of the World and BirdLife International digital checklist of the birds of the world. (2024). Version 9. Retrieved from https://datazone.birdlife.org/about-our-science/taxonomy

Hanmer, H. J., Thomas, R. L., Beswick, G. J. F., Collins, B. P., & Fellowes, M. D. E. (2017). Use of anthropogenic material affects bird nest arthropod community structure: influence of urbanisation, and consequences for ectoparasites and fledging success. Journal of Ornithology, 158(4), 1045-1059. doi:10.1007/s10336-017-1462-7
CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Hansell, M., & Overhill, R. (2000). Animal builders and the importance of bird nests. In: M. Hansell (Ed.), Bird nests and construction behaviour (pp. 1-22). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9781139106788.001
CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Hartwig, E., Clemens, T., & Heckroth, M. (2007). Plastic debris as nesting material in a Kittiwake-(Rissa tridactyla)-colony at the Jammerbugt, Northwest Denmark. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 54(5), 595-597. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2007.01.027
CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Henriksen, K. (2000). Man-made materials in nests of Blackbirds. Dansk Ornitologisk Forenings Tidsskrift, 94, 90-91.
Google Scholar

Hnatyna, O. (2023). Antropogenic materials in the nests of Passerine birds in the west of Ukraine. Studia Biologica, 17(3), 99-110. doi:10.30970/sbi.1703.723
CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Horban, I. M. (1994). Netypove hnizduvannia konoplianky [Atypical nesting of the Linnet]. Berkut, 3(1), 26. (In Ukrainian)
Google Scholar

Igic, B., Cassey, P., Grim, P. S. T., & Hauber, M. E. (2009). Cigarette butts form a perceptually cryptic component of song thrush (Turdus philomelos) nests. Notornis, 56, 134-138.
Google Scholar

Jagiello, Z., López-García, A., Aguirre, J. I., & Dylewski, Ł. (2020). Distance to landfill and human activities affects the debris incorporation into the white stork nests in urbanized landscape in central Spain. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(24), 30893-30898. doi:10.1007/s11356-020-09621-3
CrossrefPubMedPMCGoogle Scholar

Jagiello, Z., Reynolds, S. J., Nagy, J., Mainwaring, M. C., & Ibáñez-Álamo, J. D. (2023). Why do some bird species incorporate more anthropogenic materials into their nests than others? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 378(1884), 20220156. doi:10.1098/rstb.2022.0156
CrossrefPubMedPMCGoogle Scholar

Jagiello, Z. A., Dylewski, Ł., Winiarska, D., Zolnierowicz, K. M., & Tobolka, M. (2018). Factors determining the occurrence of anthropogenic materials in nests of the white stork Ciconia ciconia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(15), 14726-14733. doi:10.1007/s11356-018-1626-x
CrossrefPubMedPMCGoogle Scholar

Jagiello, Z., Corsini, M., Dylewski, Ł., Ibáñez-Álamo, J. D., & Szulkin, M. (2022). The extended avian urban phenotype: anthropogenic solid waste pollution, nest design, and fitness. Science of The Total Environment, 838(2), 156034. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156034
CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Jagiello, Z., Dylewski, Ł., Tobolka, M., & Aguirre, J. I. (2019). Life in a polluted world: a global review of anthropogenic materials in bird nests. Environmental Pollution, 251, 717-722. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2019.05.028
CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Lowry, H., Lill, A., & Wong, B. B. M. (2012). Behavioural responses of wildlife to urban environments. Biological Reviews, 88(3), 537-549. doi:10.1111/brv.12012
CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Mainwaring, M. C., & Hartley, I. R. (2013). The energetic costs of nest building in birds. Avian Biology Research, 6(1), 12-17. doi:10.3184/175815512x13528994072997
CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Mazgajski, T. D. (2007). Effect of old nest material on nest site selection and breeding parameters in secondary hole nesters - a review. Acta Ornithologica, 42(1), 1-14. doi:10.3161/068.042.0107
CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Radhamany, D., Das, K. S., Azeez, P. A., Wen, L., & Sreekala, L. K. (2016). Usage of nest materials by house sparrow (Passer domesticus) along an urban to rural gradient in Coimbatore, India. Tropical Life Sciences Research, 27(2), 127-134. doi:10.21315/tlsr2016.27.2.10
CrossrefPubMedPMCGoogle Scholar

Reynolds, S. J., Davies, C. S., Elwell, E., Tasker, P. J., Williams, A., Sadler, J. P., & Hunt, D. (2016). Does the urban gradient influence the composition and ectoparasite load of nests of an urban bird species? Avian Biology Research, 9(4), 224-234. doi:10.3184/175815516x14725499175665
CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Sarlin, P. J., Morris, S., Morris, S., Morris, S., & Joseph, P. (2023). First report of "wire mesh reinforcement" in avian nest construction. Watershed Ecology and the Environment, 5, 108-113. doi:10.1016/j.wsee.2023.03.002
CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Seacor, R., Ostovar, K., & Restani, M. (2014). Distribution and abundance of baling twine in the landscape near Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) nests: implications for nestling entanglement. The Canadian Field-Naturalist, 128(2), 173-178. doi:10.22621/cfn.v128i2.1582
CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Suárez-Rodríguez, M., & Macías Garcia, C. (2017). An experimental demonstration that house finches add cigarette butts in response to ectoparasites. Journal of Avian Biology, 48(10), 1316-1321. doi:10.1111/jav.01324
CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Suárez-Rodríguez, M., & Macías Garcia, C. (2014). There is no such a thing as a free cigarette; lining nests with discarded butts brings short-term benefits, but causes toxic damage. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 27(12), 2719-2726. doi:10.1111/jeb.12531
CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Suárez-Rodríguez, M., López-Rull, I., & Macías Garcia, C. (2013). Incorporation of cigarette butts into nests reduces nest ectoparasite load in urban birds: new ingredients for an old recipe? Biology Letters, 9(1), 20120931. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2012.0931
CrossrefPubMedPMCGoogle Scholar

Surgey, J., Feu, C. R. D., & Deeming, D. C. (2012). Opportunistic use of a wool-like artificial material as lining of tit (Paridae) nests. The Condor, 114(2), 385-392. doi:10.1525/cond.2012.110111
CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Tavares, D. C., da Costa, L. L., Rangel, D. F., de Moura, J. F., Zalmon, I. R., & Siciliano, S. (2016). Nests of the brown booby (Sula leucogaster) as a potential indicator of tropical ocean pollution by marine debris. Ecological Indicators, 70, 10-14. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.06.005
CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Townsend, A. K., & Barker, C. M. (2014). Plastic and the nest entanglement of urban and agricultural crows. PLoS One, 9(1), e88006. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0088006
CrossrefPubMedPMCGoogle Scholar

Tsaryk, Y., Reshetylo, O., Ivanets, O., Nazaruk, K., Hnatyna, O., Shydlovskyy, I., & Liesnik, V. (2024). Transformatsia oselyshch i ii vplyv na zoobiotu [Habitat transformation and its impact on zoobiota]. Visnyk of Lviv University. Biological Series, 91, 55-64. doi:10.30970/vlubs.2024.91.06 (In Ukrainian)
CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Tuomainen, U., & Candolin, U. (2010). Behavioural responses to human-induced environmental change. Biological Reviews, 86(3), 640-657. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.2010.00164.x
CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Wang, Y., Chen, S., Blair, R. B., Jiang, P., & Ding, P. (2009). Nest composition adjustments by Chinese Bulbuls Pycnonotus sinensis in an urbanized landscape of Hangzhou (E China). Acta Ornithologica, 44(2), 185-192. doi:10.3161/000164509x482768
CrossrefGoogle Scholar


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2025 Oksana Hnatyna

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.