Abstract
Nest construction behaviour is widespread among bird species. Causes for the occurrence and great variation in nest characteristics between and within populations are still poorly understood. In this study, we present results concerning nest parameters of Great Tits Parus major and Blue Tits Cyanistes caeruleus over a period of 11 breeding seasons (2012–2022) in two structurally and floristically contrasting study areas in central Poland. The nest depth differed significantly between young (yearlings) and older females (≥ 2 years after hatching) in Blue Tits (but not in Great Tits): younger females tended to build deeper nests. The size and mass of the nest were very variable in both tit species. Blue Tits tended to build deeper and heavier nests than Great Tits. The depth of the nest was positively correlated with nest mass in Great and Blue Tits. In Great Tits, the nest mass (but not nest depth) differed between study sites, with nests being heavier in the forest and the nest depth differed between years; in Blue Tits, there was an interaction between year and study site that affected nest depth. The nest mass (but not depth) from the same nestbox tended to be consistently similar within species in Great Tits and Blue Tits. We argue that the large amount of variation in nest parameters between and within populations of both tit species may be a multi-factorial result of female age, breeding area, breeding season, individual predispositions and the size of the nestbox/natural hole.
Zusammenfassung
Nestgrößenparameter von Kohlmeisen und Blaumeisen: eine Langzeitstudie
Das Nestbauverhalten ist bei vielen Vogelarten weit verbreitet. Die Ursachen für das Auftreten und die großen Unterschiede bei den Nesteigenschaften zwischen und innerhalb von Populationen sind noch immer kaum bekannt. In dieser Studie präsentieren wir Ergebnisse zu Nestparametern von Kohlmeisen Parus major und Blaumeisen Cyanistes caeruleus über einen Zeitraum von 11 Brutzeiten (2012–2022) in zwei strukturell und floristisch kontrastierenden Untersuchungsgebieten in Zentralpolen. Die Nisttiefe unterschied sich signifikant zwischen jungen (Jährlinge) und älteren Weibchen (≥ 2 Jahre nach dem Schlupf) bei Blaumeisen (nicht aber bei Kohlmeisen): Jüngere Weibchen bauten tendenziell tiefere Nester. Die Größe und die Masse des Nestes waren bei beiden Meisenarten sehr variabel. Blaumeisen bauten tendenziell tiefere und schwerere Nester als Kohlmeisen. Die Tiefe des Nests war bei Kohl- und Blaumeisen positiv mit der Nestmasse korreliert. Bei Kohlmeisen unterschied sich die Nestmasse (aber nicht die Nesttiefe) zwischen den Untersuchungsstandorten, wobei die Nester im Wald schwerer waren und die Nesttiefe zwischen den Jahren variierte; bei Blaumeisen gab es eine Wechselwirkung zwischen Jahr und Untersuchungsstandort, die sich auf die Nesttiefe auswirkte. Die Nestmasse (aber nicht die Nesttiefe) in ein und demselben Nistkasten war bei Kohlmeisen und Blaumeisen innerhalb der Arten tendenziell ähnlich. Wir gehen davon aus, dass die große Variation der Nestparameter zwischen und innerhalb von Populationen beider Meisenarten ein multifaktorielles Ergebnis des Alters der Weibchen, des Brutgebiets, der Brutzeit, einer individuellen Prädisposition und der Größe des Nistkastens bzw. der natürlichen Nisthöhle sein dürfte.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The behaviour of nest building is widespread among animals, including insects, fish, reptiles, mammals and birds (Hansell 2000). The vast majority of birds construct some sort of nest to lay eggs and raise offspring. It is widely accepted that bird nests evolved mainly to provide not only a secure substrate and thermally optimal conditions for eggs and nestlings, but also to provide camouflage and/or defence from predators, moderate the microclimate for the clutch and incubating parents and to provide many other benefits for nestlings and parents (Collias and Collias 1984; McGowan et al. 2004; Mainwaring 2015; Maziarz et al. 2017; Glądalski et al. 2020; Lambrechts and Caro 2022), but also costs (Glądalski et al. 2018). The behaviour by which a bird builds and maintains a nest is caused by genetic, phenotypic and cultural characteristics of the parents (Slagsvold 1989; Hansell 2000; Álvarez and Barba 2011; Deeming 2013; Lambrechts et al. 2014). In the Parids, a nest usually consists of two main parts. The lining layer is mainly associated with thermoregulation during incubation and the first days after hatching. The moss layer is rather considered as a structural support and sanitary layer, especially crucial at the nestling stage, but it also may have some thermoregulation functions (Gosler 1993; Cruz et al. 2016; Stenning 2018; but see Järvinen et al. 2017a). A substantial number of avian species (including tits) tend to use bryophytes as nest construction material (with some anthropogenic additions in some urbanized areas, see Jagiełło et al. 2022), but repeatability of nest parameters among individual territories remains largely unexplored (Glądalski et al. 2021).
There is also a large amount of variation in nest size and shape not only across bird species as well as within taxa (Alabrudzińska et al. 2003; Heenan 2013; Mainwaring et al. 2014). No single factor can explain why nests are so variable and studies show that depth and size of a nest is affected by a wide variety of factors. For example secondary cavity nesters, like tits, may change the mass, depth and/or composition of the nest depending on availability of the artificial food (Mainwaring and Hartley 2009), nestbox size (Lambrechts et al. 2013; Deeming et al. 2019), light intensity (Podkowa and Surmacki 2017; Holveck et al. 2019), rapid change in ambient temperature (Deeming et al. 2012, but experimental manipulation of photoperiod and temperature did not influence nest size in captive Blue and Great Tits, see Lambrechts and Caro 2018), amount of rainfall, moisture, latitude, climate (Perez et al. 2020), parental quality, tit species (Lambrechts et al.2014) or predation pressure (Kaliński et al. 2014). Experiments on captive and wild tits also showed that replacement nests are smaller than the first nests (Lambrechts et al. 2012; Deeming and Mainwaring 2015). In addition Hanmer et al. (2017) found that Blue Tits Cyanistes caeruleus (but not Great Tits Parus major) had lighter nest in more urbanized areas of the same English town. But in general, different studies provide rather mixed support for differences in nest parameters related to urbanization (Reynolds et al. 2019) and some authors did not find any variation in the nest size or mass along the urbanization gradient in studied tit species, so the discussion continues (Glądalski et al. 2016; Lambrechts et al. 2017). Recent experimental evidence on captive Zebra Finch Taeniopygia guttata suggests that some birds tend to build larger nest if their first nest did not successfully produced fledglings (Edwards et al. 2020).
Studies examining characteristics of bird nests and aspects of nest-building behaviour are gaining more and more interest. When compared to other stages of bird reproduction the number of nest-studies is still smaller, but the number of publications is increasing in recent years (Mainwaring et al. 2014; Harnist et al. 2020). But still long-term/large-scale studies that illustrate the variation of parameters of tit nests or in different study areas over a sufficiently long period of time are rather scarce (Lambrechts et al. 2016a, b; O’Neill et al. 2018). The majority of reports refer to usually only 1–2 seasons of research, and inferring from such a small number of seasons can give incorrect or sometimes even opposite results. In this paper, we show variation in nest depth and nest mass during an 11-year nestbox study on Great and Blue Tits between two floristically and structurally contrasting study areas: an urban parkland and a deciduous forest. We also present repeatability of nest parameters (depth and mass) among selected individual territories between years in both tit species and the comparative analysis of nest depth constructed by young (yearling) and older females in both tit species. Our prediction is that there should be differences in depth and mass of the nests between Blue and Great Tits. We also predict that nests should differ in depth and mass among years, but not between study areas in both tit species.
Methods
This study was carried out during the years 2012–2022 in two structurally and floristically contrasting study areas: a rich deciduous forest (51°50′N, 19°29′E) and an urban parkland (51°76′N, 19°41′E), located 10 km apart. The present study is part of a long-term project of research into the breeding biology of secondary cavity nesters within around the city of Łódź, central Poland (Glądalski et al. 2016). Both study sites were supplied with standardized nestboxes with a removable front wall and all studied nests came from nestboxes of exactly the same dimensions of 30 (height) × 11 (width) × 11.5 (depth) cm and a 30 mm diameter entrance (located 20 cm from the bottom of the front wall) (Lambrechts et al. 2010; Glądalski et al. 2016). All nestboxes were hung on tree trunks using nails at a height of c. 3 m, and in both study sites, the distance between nestboxes was about 50 m.
The urban parkland study area (Botanic and Zoological Gardens in Łódź) was c. 80 ha (200 nestboxes) with artificially fragmented tree cover (Marciniak et al. 2007). The vegetation in this area was formed artificially for the purpose of plant and animal exposition, meaning that the tree cover is largely patchy with extensive flowerbeds and lawns. In the Botanic Garden tree patches make up a mosaic of different deciduous and coniferous trees, containing a considerable number of exotic and foreign species. In the parkland study site, the mean number of trees within 25 m-radius circles surrounding nestboxes was 43.5 (Glądalski et al. 2017). The forest study site was a 145 ha area in the interior of the Łagiewniki forest (in total up to c. 1250 ha), equipped with 300 nestboxes. The dominant tree species in the Łagiewniki forest are the oaks—Quercus petraea and Quercus robur (more than 50% of all trees), with hornbeam Carpinus betulus, birches Betula pendula, maples Acer spp., limes Tilia spp., being less numerous species. The average number of trees within a circular 25 m-radius surrounding of the nestbox in the forest study site was 130.7 (Glądalski et al. 2017).
Nest depth (cm), following Hansell (2000), Alabrudzińska et al. (2003) and Glądalski et al. (2016), was measured before the incubation stage (as the distance from the top rim of the nest cup to the nest base) with a steel ruler to the nearest 0.5 cm (during the short period removal of the front wall of the nestbox). Nest depth is also called in some studies nest height (Lambrechts et al. 2014) or nest thickness (Hurtrez-Boussès et al. 1999). The depth of 322 Great Tit nests (147 from the forest site and 175 from the parkland site) was measured (Table 1). The depth of 183 nests (69 from the forest and 114 from the parkland) was measured in Blue Tits. After the end of the breeding season all measured nests of both tit species were sampled. All collected nests were placed in a freezer (− 80 °C) for 24 h in order to kill non-parasitic and parasitic invertebrates by deep freezing. After freezing the nests were dried for another 24 h in a laboratory dryer at 60 °C and then the nests were weighed to the nearest 0.1 g (by Glądalski et al. 2016, 2021).
Adult Great Tits (98) and Blue Tits (21) were captured (2012–2022, no retraps) during the breeding season (i) in the nestbox or (ii) in a standardized manner using ornithological mist-nets placed next to the nestbox when parental birds fed 7–15-day-old nestlings. In the latter case, two 5-m-long mist-nets positioned fixedly during each trapping session and a loudspeaker with a recording of tit voices was used. Sex was determined by the presence of the brood patch in the females. The age of the females in both tit species (yearling: 1 year after hatching and older: ≥ 2 years after hatching) was determined after Demongin (2016) and Jenni and Winkler (2020).
Student’s t-tests for independent samples were used to examine the difference between the depth of the nest between younger (yearlings) and older females in both tit species. Pearson’s linear correlation analyses and t-tests were conducted applying Statistica 13.3 (TIBCO Statistica® 13.3 2017).
Nest depth and weight were separately modelled in relation to species (Great Tits vs Blue Tits), site (urban park site vs forest site) and year (2012–2022) as factors using general linear mixed models. Nestbox id was used as a random effect, with the denominator degrees of freedom being approximated by the Satterthwaite method. The modelling was performed applying IBM SPSS v. 22 software (IBM SPSS Statistics 22 2013). For both the nest traits initial models included species as a factor to compare effects for Great Tits and Blue Tits, but we assumed that we would further analyse submodels for the species separately. In all initial models and submodels main effects and their first-order interactions were included. These models were simplified by removing non-significant interactions, but retaining all main effects (Crawley 2002).
We further analysed the consistency of nest parameters across all cases of nests constructed in particular nestboxes by Blue Tits and Great Tits separately. To this end, we applied repeatability computed as intraclass correlation based on mean square sums from the general linear model where individual nestboxes were treated as a grouping factor, controlling for the number of nesting attempts in particular nestboxes (Bańbura and Zieliński 1990; Zar 2014). Standard errors of intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated according to Falconer (1989).
Results
The nest depth did not differ significantly between young (yearlings) and older females (≥ 2 years after hatching) in Great Tits (mean1yah = 9.89 ± 0.39 (SE) cm, mean≥2yah = 9.90 ± 0.35 (SE) cm, df = 96, t = 0.023, p = 0.982), whereas it differed significantly between young (yearlings) and older females (≥ 2 years after hatching) in Blue Tits (mean1yah = 13.97 ± 0.57 (SE) cm, mean≥2yah = 11.72 ± 1.05 (SE) cm, df = 25, t = 2.064, p = 0. 0496).
In Great Tits, the smallest nests were 4.5 times shallower than the largest ones in terms of nest depth. The maximum nest depth found in Great Tits was 18.0 cm (2277 cm3) and minimum 4.0 cm (506 cm3) in the urban parkland, while it was 15.0 cm (1898 cm3) and minimum 4.5 cm (569 cm3), respectively, in the forest site (Fig. 1). The mean nest volume was 1310 ± 327 cm3 (SD) in the urban parkland and 1270 ± 281 cm3 (SD) in the forest. All the above averages were calculated irrespective of year.
In Blue Tits the smallest nests were 3.5 times shallower than the largest ones in terms of depth. The maximum nest depth in Blue Tits was 21.5 cm (2720 cm3) and minimum 6.0 cm (759 cm3) in the urban parkland [mean 1746 ± 365 (SD) cm3] and in the forest maximum nest depth was 19.0 cm (2403 cm3) and minimum 6.5 cm (822 cm3) [mean 1667 ± 350 (SD) cm3] (Fig. 2).
In Great Tits, the lightest nests were 22 times lighter than the heaviest ones in weight. Maximum nest mass in Great Tits was 94.7 g and the minimum 5.2 g in the urban parkland, and it was 115.4 g and 9.9 g, respectively, in the forest (Fig. 3). In Blue Tits the lightest nests were 9.5 times lighter than the heaviest ones in weight. The maximum nest mass in Blue Tits was 97.3 g and the minimum 10.2 g in the urban parkland, whereas it was 86.8 g and 18.0 g, respectively, in the forest (Fig. 4).
The depth of the nest in the general inter-species model was affected by the site and species (Blue Tits tend to build a deeper nest), with a significant interaction between the year and the study site (Table 2). In the first sub-model for Great Tits the nest depth differed between years and did not differed between sites (Table 2, Fig. 1), while in the sub-model for Blue Tits, there was a significant interaction between year and site (Table 2, Fig. 2).
A general inter-species model showed that the nest mass was affected by site and species factors (Blue Tits tend to build heavier nest) (Table 3). In the sub-model for Great Tits the nest mass differed between study sites (being heavier in the forest), but did not differ between years (Table 3, Fig. 3). In the second sub-model considering Blue Tits the nest mass did not differ between either study areas or years. In general, the nest depth was positively correlated with nest mass in Great Tits (r = 0.71, n = 321, p < 0.001) and Blue Tits (r = 0.66, n = 183, p < 0.001).
The nest mass from the same nestbox tended to be consistently similar in Great and Blue Tits at the within-species level (for Great Tits, repeatability: R = 0.21 ± 0.08 (SE), F76; 125 = 1.69, p = 0.005, for Blue Tits, repeatability: R = 0.26 ± 0.12 (SE), F39; 57 = 1.83, p = 0.018), while the nest depth did not tend to be similar in the same nestbox in either species (for Great Tits, repeatability: R = 0.12 ± 0.08 (SE), F76; 125 = 1.35, p = 0.068, for Blue Tits, repeatability: R = 0.01 ± 0.12 (SE), F39; 57 = 0.99, p = 0.511).
Discussion
We showed that the nest depth differed significantly between young (yearlings) and older females in Blue Tits and that younger Blue Tits tended to build deeper nests. Nest size and nest mass were very variable in both tit species. Blue Tits tended to build deeper and heavier nests than Great Tits. The nest depth was positively correlated with the nest mass in Great and Blue Tits. In Blue Tits an interaction between year and study site affected nest depth. By comparison, in Great Tits the nest mass (but not nest depth) differed between study sites, with nests being heavier in the forest, while the nest depth differed between years. The nest mass from the same nestbox tended to be consistently similar in Great and Blue Tits and the nest depth did not show such a tendency. In general, we did not find any obvious linear patterns through the years—and this might have been expected if for example climate change was a factor.
In general, a large amount of variation in tit nest characteristics is hypothesized to have an adaptive basis (Heenan 2013), but there is no complete set of factors that fully explain such diversity and some of the effects shown are difficult to interpret and not conclusive. For example, experimental provisioning with supplementary food during nest building shortened the time of nest building and led to construction of shallower nests in Blue Tits (Smith et al. 2013), but caused that females constructed larger nests in another study (Mainwaring and Hartley 2009). Also predation in a particular nesting season may cause a reduction in nest height in the next breeding season (Kaliński et al. 2014). O’Neill et al. (2018) showed in Blue Tits that while individual females tend to build rather similar nests across years and there was no correlation between female nest size and nest size build by their genetic or cross-fostered mother. The low heritability of the nest parameters in Blue Tits was also shown by Järvinen et al. (2017b), and the high repeatability of particular females’ nest sizes across years was shown by Sonnenberg et al. (2020). On the other hand, Slagsvold et al. (2013) suggested that social learning and coping may be partly responsible for nest parameters. Some studies suggest that birds may build larger nest if their first nest did not successfully produced fledglings (Edwards et al. 2020). Chapman et al. (2022) showed their preliminary results (from Scotland) considering Blue Tit nests (86 nestboxes, between 2016 and 2022) that are similar to our findings on Blue Tits (a poster during the 9th International Hole-Nesting Birds Conference). In their study, naïve (younger) females tended to build heavier nests (adding more structural layer: moss and grass) than more experienced (older) females, and older females added more insulation than young females (insulation layer was found in many tit studies to be positively correlated with breeding success (Glądalski et al. 2016)). Chapman et al. (2022) and our present results (from Scotland and Poland) support previous studies that nest characteristics may be flexible to some extent and may have a learned component (at least in that context for Blue Tits). But Lambrechts et al. (2012, 2016a, 2017) conducting their long-term studies in warm and temperature-stable areas of Mediterranean areas of southern France did not find associations between nest size and female age (yearling versus older females); therefore, it is possible that ambient temperature (or climate) of the area may affect female building behaviour. As suggested by Chapman et al. (2022), the next question would be how previous reproductive success of a Blue Tit impacts nest design. The nest heights in Great Tits did not differ between older and younger females, and it may be a result of the difference between clutch sizes of both tit species. Blue Tits as smaller (and lighter) species but nonetheless having larger clutch (and larger number of nestlings in the nest) than Great Tits may be more thermally sensitive and/or predator-sensitive. More experimental work will be required to investigate this effect in both tit species.
The size of the nestbox may also affect the size and the composition of the nest (Deeming et al. 2019). Lambrechts et al. (2016b) suggested that the vast majority of nestbox studies usually use small nest chambers (Schwegler design) that impose physical constraints on the full expression of the nest. Our nestboxes are larger than used by the Lambrechts’ team, and the nests of our tits are on average 2 × larger (603 cm3 vs 1300 cm3 for Great Tits and 695 cm3 vs 1700 cm3 for Blue Tits) compared to the study by Lambrechts et al.’s (2014) study. In Lambrechts et al. (2017), four nestbox types differing in chamber size were placed along an urbanization gradient. Different measures of nest size (nest volume, nest depth and nest mass) were larger/heavier in the larger box types, whatever the habitat type (street versus park). The authors suggest that there was always enough material other than moss (e.g. wood sticks, pine needles, grass, straw, roots) to fill up the nest chambers. Therefore, it may be important to conduct research studies using more than one type of nestboxes during the whole study. On the other hand, our present study used only one nestbox type. Perhaps species or environmental effects on nest size might change with nestbox size, accepting that it is more costly to build larger than smaller nests.
Our long-term data confirm that Blue Tit nests are heavier and deeper than Great Tits nests. Lambrechts et al. (2014) suggest that Great Tits have smaller nest because parents may require longer safety distance (so it may be anti-predator behavioural adaptation). This suggestion may be supported by Kaliński et al. (2014), who showed that the difference in average height of fresh nests between Blue and Great Tits became significantly smaller when a tube was added that elongated the entrance hole (after a season with a very high rate of nest predation by European Pine Marten Martes martes). Simultaneously, the larger nest in Blue Tits may be more optimal for larger clutches in this species compared to Great Tits (with smaller clutch and shallower nest). But if there was such a relation, Blue Tits with smaller broods should have smaller nests and Great Tits with larger clutch should have larger nests, but Glądalski et al. (2016) found no relation of that kind. Still more experimental work will be needed to investigate why species-specific effects on the height of the nest exist.
In our study, the mass of the Great Tit nest (but not nest depth) differed between study sites, being heavier in the forest. Variation in nest parameters between both study sites could have resulted from the use of different materials and/or by the use of different proportions of the same materials by tits (Britt and Deeming 2011). Álvarez et al. (2013) conducted a comparative study on Great Tits in four different Mediterranean habitats and showed differences in nest mass and moss proportions. The authors explain some differences between nest characteristics by difficulties in obtaining moss in Orange Citrus aurantium plantations. Exploring species diversity of moss in Great and Blue Tits nests, Glądalski et al. (2021) showed that the nests (parkland vs forest) were similar, but with more bryophyte species in the nests from the forest study area than from the parkland study area. But given that there is a difference in weight between the nests in the Great Tit (parkland vs forest) and not between the Blue Tit nests (parkland vs forest), the species composition of the nests should not affect the nest weight of Great Tits. On the other hand, Harnist et al. (2020) showed that nest mass changes in relation to nesting stages, so that fresh nest (at the end of nest building phase) is lighter than the nest weighed at the post-fledging stage (the reason are probably brood size-dependent remnants like epidermis leftovers). But also in this case there were no differences in Blue Tit nest mass (parkland vs forest), which suggests that post-fledging remnants do not explain the differences. It seems that there are two options. Firstly, females during nest-building may compact the moss to form a dense structure (it may also be related to predation and larger safety distance in the forest), or secondly, tits in the forest may use a larger amount of small twigs at the bottom of the nest, and that sometimes happens in Great Tit nests (own observations). More studies will be required to investigate this effect in Great Tits.
We showed that the nest mass from the same nestbox tended to be consistently similar in Great and Blue Tits and the nest depth did not tended to be similar in the same nestbox in both tit species. Sonnenberg et al. (2020) showed that the nest depth is characterised by high repeatability in tit females. Our data (including Glądalski et al. 2021) suggest that breeding territory does not affect the depth of the nest, although the composition of bryophyte species of the nest is affected by the site (parkland vs forest). This may suggest that depth is rather dependent on individual bird preferences, but the general mass of the nest may be partly related to territory. Consistency in traits of nests constructed in particular nestboxes may result from special properties of the microhabitat in which a nestbox is located differing from properties of other microhabitats. Settlement in particular nestboxes is probably non-random with respect to both microhabitat properties and individual properties of the established birds (age-, experience-, quality-dependent) that may be reflected in nest characteristics. In this context, a combination of some subtle factors that vary between nestbox microhabitats may produce a detectable level of consistency in nest characteristics. In other words individual birds may use similar mass of the components during nest building on a breeding territory, but depending on individual predispositions in relation to nest depth a female may build a nest that is more or less compact/dense.
In conclusion we showed that the large amount of variation in nest parameters between and within populations of both tit species may be a result of many factors like female age, breeding area, breeding season, individual predispositions or the size of the nestbox/natural hole.
Data availability
Data are available from the author on request.
References
Alabrudzińska J, Kaliński A, Słomczyński R, Wawrzyniak J, Zieliński P, Bańbura J (2003) Effects of nest characteristics on breeding success of great tits Parus major. Acta Ornithol 38:151–154
Álvarez E, Barba E (2011) Nest characteristics and reproductive performance in Great Tits Parus major. Ardeola 58:125–136
Álvarez E, Belda EJ, Verdejo J, Barba E (2013) Variation in Great Tit nest mass and composition and its breeding consequences: a comparative study in four Mediterranean habitats. Avian Biol Res 6:39–46
Bańbura J, Zieliński P (1990) Within-clutch repeatability of egg dimensions in the Black-headed Gull Larus ridibundus. J Ornithol 131:305–310
Britt J, Deeming DC (2011) First-egg date and air temperature affect nest construction in Blue Tits Cyanistes caeruleus, but not in Great Tits Parus major. Bird Study 58:78–89
Chapman EG, Healy SD, Edwards SC (2022) Practice makes perfect? The role of reproductive experience on blue tit nest building. Poster; 9th International Hole-Nesting Birds Conference, Oxford, UK, September 7–9, 2022
Collias NE, Collias EC (1984) Nest building and bird behaviour. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Crawley MJ (2002) Statistical computing: an introduction to data analysis using S-Plus. Wiley, Chichester
Cruz A, Alvarez E, Barba E (2016) Nest insulation capacity during incubation and after fledgling are related. Avian Biol Res 9:22–27
Deeming DC (2013) Effects of female body size and phylogeny on avian nest dimensions. Avian Biol Res 6:1–11
Deeming DC, Mainwaring MC (2015) Functional properties of nests. In: Deeming DC, Reynolds SJ (eds) Nests, eggs, and incubation: new ideas about avian reproduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 29–49
Deeming DC, Mainwaring MC, Hartley IR, Reynolds SJ (2012) Local temperature and not latitude determines the design of Blue Tit and Great Tit nests. Avian Biol Res 5:203–208
Deeming DC, Morton FEM, Laverack KL (2019) Nestbox size affects mass and proportions of materials used in Blue Tit Cyanistes caeruleus nests. Bird Study 66:130–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/00063657.2019.1618243
Demongin L (2016) Identification Guide to Birds in the Hand. Laurent Demongin Press, London
Edwards SC, Shoot TT, Martin RJ, Sherry DF, Healy SD (2020) It’s not all about temperature: breeding success also affects nest design. Behav Ecol 31:1065–1072. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/araa052
Falconer DS (1989) Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. Longman, Harlow
Glądalski M, Bańbura M, Kaliński A, Markowski M, Skwarska J, Wawrzyniak J, Zieliński P, Cyżewska I, Bańbura J (2016) Effects of nest characteristics on reproductive performance in blue tits Cyanistes caeruleus and great tits Parus major. Avian Biol Res 9:37–43. https://doi.org/10.3184/175815516X14447556559088
Glądalski M, Bańbura M, Kaliński A, Markowski M, Skwarska J, Wawrzyniak J, Zieliński P, Cyżewska I, Bańbura J (2017) Differences in the breeding success of Blue Tits Cyanistes caeruleus between a forest and an urban area: a long-term study. Acta Ornithol 52:59–68
Glądalski M, Kaliński A, Wawrzyniak J, Bańbura M, Markowski M, Skwarska J, Bańbura J (2018) Physiological condition of nestling great tits Parus major in response to experimental reduction in nest micro- and macro-parasites. Conserv Physiol 6:coy062. https://doi.org/10.1093/conphys/coy062
Glądalski M, Bańbura M, Kaliński A, Markowski M, Skwarska J, Wawrzyniak J, Zieliński P, Bańbura J (2020) Consequences of experimental addition of fresh, aromatic plants into nests of blue tits (Cyanistes caeruleus) on the physiological condition of nestlings. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 74:29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-020-2812-7
Glądalski M, Wolski GJ, Bańbura M, Kaliński A, Markowski M, Skwarska J, Wawrzyniak J, Bańbura J (2021) Differences in use of bryophyte species in tit nests between two contrasting habitats: an urban park and a forest. Eur Zool J 88:807–815
Gosler A (1993) The Great Tit. Hamlyn Ltd., London
Hanmer HJ, Thomas RL, Beswick GJF, Collins BP, Fellowes MDE (2017) Use of anthropogenic material affects bird nestarthropod community structure: influence of urbanisation, and consequences for ectoparasites and fledging success. J Ornithol 158:1045–1059
Hansell M (2000) Bird nest and construction behaviour. Cambridge
Harnist I, Dubiec A, Mazgajski TD (2020) Changes of nest mass in relations to nesting stages in the Great Tit Parus major. Bird Study 67:292–299
Heenan CB (2013) An overview of the factors influencing the morphology and thermal properties of avian nests. Avian Biol Res 6:104–118
Holveck M-J, Grégoire A, Doutrelant C, Lambrechts MM (2019) Nest height is affected by lamppost lighting proximity in addition to nestbox size in urban great tits. J Avian Biol 50:e01798. https://doi.org/10.1111/jav.01798
Hurtrez-Boussès S, Garine-Wichatitsky M, Perret Ph, Blondel J, Renaud F (1999) Variations inprevalence and intensity of blow fly infestations in aninsular Mediterranean population of blue tits. Can J Zool 77:337–341
IBM SPSS Statistics. 22 (2013) SPSS for windows release 22.0. Armonk: IBM Corporation
Jagiełło Z, Corsini M, Dylewski Ł, Ibáñez-Álamo J, Szulkin M (2022) The extended avian urban phenotype: anthropogenic solid waste pollution, nest design, and fitness. Sci Total Environ 838:156034
Järvinen P, Kluen E, Brommer JE (2017a) Low heritability of nest construction in a wild bird. Biol Lett 13:20170246. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2017.0246
Järvinen PH, Kluen E, Tiiri M, Brommer JE (2017b) Experimental manipulation of Blue Tit nest height does not support the thermoregulation hypothesis. Ornis Fennica 94:82–92
Jenni L, Winkler R (2020) Moult and ageing of european passerines, 2nd edn. Helm/Bloomsbury, London
Kaliński A, Wawrzyniak J, Bańbura M, Skwarska J, Zieliński P, Glądalski M, Bańbura J (2014) Does the threat of European Pine Marten (Martes martes) predation influence the height of nests built by Blue Tits (Cyanistes caeruleus) and Great Tits (Parus major)? Avian Biol Res 7:83–90
Lambrechts MM, Caro SP (2018) Experimental manipulation of photoperiod and temperature does not influence nest size in blue and great tits. Auk 135:218–227
Lambrechts ML, Caro SP (2022) Egg cooling associated with nest size in a passerine bird. J Therm Biol 110:103383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtherbio.2022.103383
Lambrechts M, Adriaensen F, Ardia DR, Artemyev AV, Atiénzar F, Bańbura J 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 45:1–26
Lambrechts MM, Aimé C, Midamegbe A et al (2012) Nest size and breeding success in first and replacement clutches: an experimental study in Blue Tits Cyanistes caeruleus. J Ornithol 153:173–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-011-0722-1
Lambrechts MM, Abouladzé M, Bonnet M et al (2013) Nest-box size influences where secondary-cavity exploiters roost and nest: a choice experiment. J Ornithol 154:563–566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-012-0919-y
Lambrechts M, Demeyrier V, Fargevieille A, Giovannini P, Lucas A, Marrot P et al (2014) Great Tits build shallower nests than Blue Tits. Avian Biol Res 7:251–254
Lambrechts MM, Blondel J, Bernard C, Caro SP, Charmantier A, Demeyrier V et al (2016a) Exploring biotic and abiotic determinants of nest size in Mediterranean great tits (Parus major) and blue tits (Cyanistes caeruleus). Ethology 122:492–501. https://doi.org/10.1111/eth.12494
Lambrechts MM, Marrot P, Fargevieille A et al (2016b) Nest size is not closely related to breeding success in Blue Tits: a long-term nest-box study in a Mediterranean oak habitat. Auk 133:198–204
Lambrechts MM, Charmantier A, Demeyrier V et al (2017) Nest design in a changing world: great tit Parus major nests from a Mediterranean city environment as a case study. Urban Ecosyst 20:1181–1190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-017-0670-5
Mainwaring MC (2015) Nest construction and incubation in a changing climate. In: Deeming DC, Reynolds SJ (eds) Nests, eggs, and incubation: new ideas about avian reproduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 65–74
Mainwaring MC, Hartley IR (2009) Experimental evidence for state-dependent nest weight in the blue tit, Cyanistes caeruleus. Behav Proc 81:44–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2009.02.001
Mainwaring MC, Hartley IR, Lambrechts MM, Deeming DC (2014) The design and function of birds’ nests. Ecol Evol 20:3909–3928
Marciniak B, Nadolski J, Nowakowska M, Loga B, Bańbura J (2007) Habitat and annual variation in arthropod abundance affects Blue Tit Cyanistes caeruleus reproduction. Acta Ornithol 42:53–62
Maziarz M, Broughton RK, Wesołowski T (2017) Microclimate in tree cavities and nest-boxes: implications for hole-nesting birds. For Ecol Manag 389:306–313
McGowan A, Sharp SP, Hatchwell BJ (2004) The structure and function of nests of Long-tailed Tits Aegithalos caudatus. Funct Ecol 18:578–583
O’Neill L, Parker TH, Griffith SC (2018) Nest size is predicted by female identity and the local environment in the blue tit (Cyanistes caeruleus), but is not related to the nest size of the genetic or foster mother. R Soc Open Sci 5:172036. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.172036
Perez DM, Gardner JL, Medina I (2020) Climate as an evolutionary driver of nest morphology in birds: a review. Front Ecol Evol 8:1–11
Podkowa P, Surmacki A (2017) The importance of illumination in nest site choice and nest characteristics of cavity nesting birds. Sci Rep 7:1329. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-01430-y
Reynolds SJ, Ibáñez-Álamo JD, Sumasgutner P, Mainwaring MC (2019) Urbanization and nest building in birds: a review of threats and opportunities. J Ornithol 160:841–860. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-019-01657-8
Slagsvold T (1989) On the evolution of clutch size and nest size in passerine birds. Oecologia 79:300–305
Slagsvold T, Kleiven KW, Eriksen A, Johannessen LE (2013) Vertical and horizontal transmission of nest site preferences in titmice. Anim Behav 85:323–328
Smith JA, Harrison TJE, Martin GR, Reynolds SJ (2013) Feathering the nest: food supplementation influences nest construction by blue (Cyanistes caeruleus) and great tits (Parus major). Avian Biol Res 6:18–25. https://doi.org/10.3184/175815512X13530764553094
Sonnenberg BR, Branch CL, Benedict LM, Pitera AM, Pravosudov VV (2020) Nest construction, ambient temperature and reproductive success in a cavity-nesting bird. Animal Behav 165:43–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2020.04.011
Stenning M (2018) The Blue Tit. T & AD Poyser, London
TIBCO Statistica® 13.3.0 (2017) Data analysis software system, version 13.3.0, URL: http://www.tibco.com
Zar JH (2014) Biostatistical analysis, 5th edn. Pearson Education Ltd., Harlow
Acknowledgements
All procedures were approved by the Local Ethical Committee and the State Office for Environment Protection. We thank A. Jaksa, M. Winsche, D. Mańkowska, and J. Białek for their help and consent to conducting research in the areas under their administration. The study was founded by University of Łódź (No. 506/1145). We thank J. Sinclair for linguistic consultation. We thank both Reviewers for their very valuable and constructive comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by F. Bairlein.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Glądalski, M., Kaliński, A., Markowski, M. et al. Nest size parameters of Great Tits and Blue Tits: a long-term study. J Ornithol 165, 381–389 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-023-02106-3
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-023-02106-3