Elizabeth Ostrowski Natural Resource Management Final Report The Addition of Bluebird Boxes to the Livingston Ecological Preserve

Abstract:In response to declining bluebird populations, we researched possible conservation efforts that could assist in providing conditions that will increase bluebird fecundity. Blue bird boxes placed in ideal environments such as managed fields provide a great nesting site for Eastern Bluebirds. We built these boxes to standards specified by Georgia Department of Natural Resources and placed them in two separate meadows at the livingston ecological preserve. Four boxes were built total, two placed in either meadow. The distance between the boxes was in attempt to prevent interspecific competition between bluebirds and house sparrows, where the distance of the meadows prevents intraspecific competition between other bluebirds. The boxes were made of cut wood planks and built by hand. They were mounted onto 6 foot metal poles at 5 foot height. Plastic predator guards were also mounted on the poles to prevent predation on the bluebirds. Introduction: Due to human activities, many grass and shrubland habitats have been severely altered, developed, or destroyed (Fink 2006). Not only has development caused a reduction of habitat, but an effort to preserve nature has also caused detriment; fire control has ceased the natural cycle of these grass habitats as they progress to full forests rather than remaining in a low height vegetation state. Furthermore, agricultural farm land, which is an ideal habitat for grassland birds, has decreased tremendously as these fields give way to malls and parking lots. Early successional habitats such as these are ideal for certain bird species. Due to this loss of ecosystems, many bird species have experienced populations declines (Fink 2006). Among them is the Eastern Bluebird, Sialia sialis. However, artificial habitats have been shown to provide suitable nesting spots for these birds as an alternative to their natural environments (Fiehler 2006). Nest boxes, or bird boxes, can provide safe places for blue birds to lay their eggs and raise fledglings, thus increasing the struggling population (Navara 2011). In our project, we attempted to provide a safe environment for these birds through building and placing nesting boxes in the maintained, and thus regularly disturbed, meadows of the Livingston Ecological Preserve (Rodewald 2005 ). By choosing this ideal habitat as a focus, we hope bluebirds will nest here and increase the population. Bluebirds are a native bird, but nonnative competitors such as the house sparrow make it difficult for bluebirds to rise in population. Our tactics reduce competition, and hopefully contribute to higher fecundity in bluebirds. As native populations fall and invasive and aggressive species dominate, it is our ecological responsibility to try and negate some of the negativity primarily caused by human interference and influence.

Methods: 4 (2 pairs) Bird boxes were built using the specifications stated by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. The following link contains the blueprints we followed for the bluebird nesting box; http://georgiawildlife.com/sites/default/files/uploads/wildlife/nongame/pdf/CreatingPerfectHome forBluebirds.pdf and for the pole attachment: http://www.treeswallowprojects.com/boxmount.html These houses were built to bluebird house specifications. We added a top hatch using 2 hinges on the roof of the box, connecting it to the backing.. The boxes were mounted onto a pipe and placed 5 feet above the ground. They were mounted using pipe straps. Using a pipe acts as a way to prevent raccoons and cats from climbing into the bluebird box and predating on the birds and eggs; height also assists in this defense. The pipes were put in the ground using a pole drive to drive the pole roughly 2 feet into the ground, allowing it to stand at 6 ft. This was achieved with the help of a 6 foot step ladder and sledge hammer. We added a plastic predator guard to each pole to prevent predation. The boxes were placed in pairs to reduce displacement by swallows and likewise birds, so that a bluebird pair can take one box and the other species may take the other, reducing interspecific competition with birds such as house sparrows. Each pair was placed over 100 meters apart, to prevent intraspecific competition (Fiehler 2006). This was achieved through placing one pair in the small meadow, and one pair in the large. The boxes were attached so that the opening faced a southeast direction, and near enough to shrubs that the young can fly safely when they leave (Navara 2011). This was accomplished with use of a compass. These shrubland birds prefer a short understory a distance away from edge ecotones (Fink 2006, Rodewald 2005 ). Grass measurements were recorded to make implications about the height of the surrounding vegetation. To decrease proximity from edge habitats, the boxes were placed 50+ feet away from any edges to ensure habitat quality.Locations were recorded via GPS. Measurements were made using measuring tape, along the tract and between the points. The materials we used included 4 1X6 lumber, nails, hammer, power drill, various sized galvanized screws, 8 hinges, 8 pipe straps, various bolts, Home Depot plastic predator guard, 4 8 foot 1 inch metal poles, compass, measuring tape, gps, pipe driver, step ladder and sledge hammer. Image 1: Construction This is the blueprint we used to construct the houses.

Results: The bird boxes were built over the course of a day with minimal difficulty. The wood was slightly warped, so this resulted in some places of the boxes fitting askew. We still considered the boxes usable, as the blueprint

calls for drainage holes. However, the building operation was successful. Hinges were placed on the top of the boxes, opening away from the viewer. The locations were picked prior to building, and we went out into the meadows and made measurements of the proper locations. . The length of the meadows were measured in the long direction. The Large Meadow (LM) was roughly 290 feet in length and the Small Meadow (SM) was 225 feet in length. We measured to a point a safe distance from the edge community and recorded the location so that we could recall and place the box there. This was supplemented with a compass check to be sure that a woody shrub or tree was within the south-east vicinity of the box. We also measured the distance between the two boxes. We recorded the tallest SM grass stems so that later individuals would have access to this data to compare the success of the boxes with previous studies. Using a GPS unit, we recorded the plot points of each pole. We recorded ground and canopy cover, at 95% grasses/herbaceous and 1% cover class, respectively. The bird boxes were attached to these poles using the previous addressed methods. Predator guards were first applied. Due to issues with the hardware and the screws not fitting the guard lock, we were forced to try an alternative method to secure the guard. Super glue did not work. Instead, we wedged sticks into the guard lock to secure it. We tested the security by applying pressure to the guard and noting any instability.

Table 1: Stem Height SM 1 2 3 Average: Table 2: Point Locations Box # 1 2 3 4 Coordinate 40.5158 40.5156 40.5175 40.5180 -74.4407 -74.4411 -74.4423 -74.4422 Distance Between Same Plot Box 44 m 44m 52 m 52 m Distance from Edge 15 m 11 m 4 ft 5 in 4 ft 2 in 3 ft 9 in 4 ft 1 in

Table 3: Predator Guard Stability

Box # 1 2 3 4 Image 2: Location

Predator Guard Stability Low High Medium-High High

Notes Guard lock would not fit over pole. Propped with stick Snugly fit Slight give Snugly Fit

This image shows the bases of the two meadows in relation to the eco preserve parking lot. Field 1 is the Small Meadow (SM) and Field 2 is the Large Meadow (F2)

Image 3: Location Details

This image shows the points of each bird feeder in reference to the meadows. The labels match with the above charts. Image 4: Completed Bird Box # 1, SM

Image 5: (LM) Large Meadow Plot, Box 3 in forefront

Image 6: (SM) Small Meadow Plot, Box 1 in forefront

Image 7: Completed Birdbox #2 SM

Discussion: Our experiment varied in numerous ways from our initial proposal, ultimately as a result of increased information and variation in supplies. We ultimately built the box with a slot opening rather than a circular, following the blueprint specified by the Georgia DNR. This was primarily a response to the difficulty of making a precise circular cut in all the boxes of a specific dimension. By using the slot method, we were able to ensure more consistency among the four boxes. This method works just as well for the bluebirds. We added predator guards to our list, and wound up purchasing them rather than building them. We ran into difficulty attaching the guards. The guard base would not fit properly on the pole, and the screws did not fit. We had to use sticks to hold the guard in place. Furthermore, we were unable to place the bird boxes within the SM pair at an ideal distance from each other due to image constraints. Instead, we focused on placing the pairs as far apart as possible without being too close to the edge forest.We did not paint the boxes, for fear of toxicity of the paint, and selected light colored wood instead. We also did not make a custom placard. This is because we were able to do so through the Natural Resources Management course without the extra expense. Instead of making a holder where passerbys could pick up a blueprint of the houses we used, we included a link on the sign that was adapted in class, as well as an android scan code. The sign attempted to summarize the information in a clear, categorical way that is informative as well as simple. Main points acted as categories, with factual information underneath. Even just by reading titles, a view can understand that what they are observing are Bluebird Nest

Boxes for eastern bluebirds, in the meadow, for babies and they are in pairs. Further reading allows for more explanation.

Future monitoring of the boxes and meadows is crucial for the success of our project. The meadows need to be maintained in an early successional stage, either through mowing or controlled burning. The edges of the forest habitat cannot be allowed to crawl inward towards the meadow. Additionally, galvanized hose clamps added to the poles below the predator guard base will hold the guards in place. The boxes need to be maintained and monitored throughout and after the breeding and nesting seasons. During the breeding season, any house sparrow nests need to be removed. Furthermore, monitoring the nests can provide insight on whether or not bluebirds are using the boxes, sizes of the clutches, success of the fledglings and overall implications of the health of the local bluebird population. After the breeding season, old nesting material needs to be removed to reduce mite parasitism for the next breeding pair and chicks (Mazgajski 2007). Summary and Conclusions: We built 4 birdboxes with the intent of providing nesting habitat to Eastern Bluebirds. We built these and placed them after doing extensive research through scientific papers on this topic. The boxes were set up in two pairs, a pair in both the large and small meadow located at the Livingston Ecological Preserve. With any luck, these nests should be inhabited by Eastern Bluebirds during the breeding season, and hopefully will produce healthy fledglings. These birds have been experiencing population decline due to loss of

grassland habitat, such as farms and meadows. Through our project, we hope to negate some of that loss. Image 8: Happy workers having finished building

Works Cited

Fiehler, C. R. (2006). Nesting success of western bluebirds (Sialia mexicana) using nest boxes in vineyard and oak-savannah habitats of California. Wilson Journal Of Ornithology, 118(4), 552. Fink, A. (2006). Songbird use of regenerating forest, glade, and edge habitat types. Journal Of Wildlife Management, 70(1), 180-188. Lowther, P. E. (2012). Does Nest-box Size Impact Clutch Size of House Sparrows?. Wilson Journal Of Ornithology, 124(2), 384-389. Mazgajski, T. D. (2007). Effect of old nest material in nestboxes on ectoparasite abundance and reproductive output in the European Starling Sturnus vulgaris (L.). Polish Journal Of Ecology, 55(2), 377-385. Navara, K. M. (2011). Eastern Bluebirds Choose Nest Boxes Based on Box Orientation. Southeastern Naturalist, 10(4), 713. Rodewald, A. (2005). Edge- and area-sensitivity of shrubland birds. Journal Of Wildlife Management, 69(2), 681-688.