Provide nesting habitat for birds that is safe from extreme weather

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 3
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

28%
Certainty

23%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

In habitats prone to flooding, inundation with water may be a significant cause of mortality. Providing nests or nesting habitat that is protected from water (e.g. by being raised) may therefore increase reproductive success.

Study locations

Key messages

A small from New Zealand found Chatham Island oystercatchers Haematopus chathamensis used raised nest platforms made from car tyres (designed to raise nests above the level of storm surges). The success of these nests is not reported.
Two replicated, controlled studies from the USA found that the nesting success of terns and waders was no higher on specially raised areas of nesting substrate, compared to unraised areas, with one study finding that a similar proportion of nests were lost to flooding in raised and unraised areas.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A replicated, controlled trial in on alkaline flats in Oklahoma, USA, between 1991 and 1994 (Koenen et al. 1996), found that nesting success of least terns Sterna antillarum and snowy plovers Charadrius alexandrinus was not higher on nesting ridges designed to protect nests from flooding, compared to nests not on ridges (terns: 53% of 32 nests on ridges vs. 53% of 28 nests off ridges; plovers: 79% of 22 nests on ridges vs. 62% of 26 nests off ridges). The proportions of nests lost to flooding were similar on and off the ridges for both species. This study is also discussed in ‘Protect bird nests using electric fencing’.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Koenen M.T., Utych R.B. & Leslie D.M. Jr. (1996) Methods used to improve least tern and snowy plover nesting success on alkaline flats. Journal of Field Ornithology, 67, 281-291.
A randomised, replicated and controlled paired study on three saltmarsh islands in Virginia, USA, in 2002 (Rounds et al. 2004) found that hatching success of four ground-nesting bird species (American oystercatchers Haematopus palliatus, common terns Sterna hirundo gull-billed terns S. nilotica, and black skimmers Rynchops niger) was no higher sections of oyster shell piles artificially raised by 15-20 cm than on control (unraised) areas of piles (common terns: 60% of 15 nests hatching at least one egg on raised areas vs. 42% of 26 on control areas; gull-billed terns: 62% of 13 nests on raised areas vs. 89% of nine on control areas). Too few oystercatchers or skimmers nested for comparisons to be made. No species showed a significant preference for either raised or control areas. The authors note that whilst there were no significant differences between hatching successes, raised nests at three of the five shell piles studied survived flooding whilst unraised nests did not.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Rounds R.A., Erwin R.M. & Porter J.H. (2004) Nest-site selection and hatching success of waterbirds in coastal Virginia: some results of habitat manipulation. Journal of Field Ornithology, 75, 317-329.
A small study on Chatham Island, New Zealand between 1998 and 2004 (Moore & Williams 2005) found that up to seven pairs of Chatham Island oystercatcher Haematopus chathamensis used raised nest platforms made from car tyres (designed to raise nests above the level of storm surges). The success of these nests is not reported. The effect of moving the nests up the beach is discussed in ‘Move nests whilst birds are using them’.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Moore P. & Williams R (2005) Storm surge protection of Chatham Island oystercatcher Haematopus chathamensis by moving nests, Chatham Islands, New Zealand. Conservation Evidence, 2, 50-52.

Please cite as:

Williams, D.R., Child, M.F., Dicks, L.V., Ockendon, N., Pople, R.G., Showler, D.A., Walsh, J.C., zu Ermgassen, E.K.H.J. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Bird Conservation. Pages 137-281 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Bird Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Provide artificial nesting sites for woodpeckers Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	11	Synopsis Link
Remove eggs from wild nests to increase reproductive output Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	3	Synopsis Link
Use artificial visual and auditory stimuli to induce breeding in wild populations Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link