Action Synopsis: Bird Conservation About Actions

Artificially incubate and hand-rear songbirds in captivity

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
  • Certainty
  • Harms

Study locations

Key messages

  • Four studies from the USA found high rates of success for artificial incubation and hand-rearing of songbirds.
  • The one study to compare techniques found that crow chicks fed more food had higher growth rates, but that these rates never matched those of wild birds.



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

  1. A small study at a captive-breeding centre in New York, USA (Cade 1992), found that eight loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus chicks removed from the wild and hand-reared from 8-9 days old survived. Two bred (see ‘Use captive breeding to increase or maintain populations’) and two of their chicks were removed, hand-reared and released. Both survived for several weeks until they disappeared.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated study on Hawaii, USA, in 1993-4 (Kuehler et al. 1995) found that a total of 12 Hawaiian crow (alala) Corvus hawaiiensis nestlings were successfully artificially incubated and hand-reared from 17 eggs taken from wild nests. Three eggs were infertile, one failed to hatch due to ‘embryonic malpositioning’ and one of the 13 successful hatchlings died as a result of a yolk sac infection. This gave a total of 93% hatchability and 92% survival to 30 days. The release of some of these birds is discussed in ‘Release captive-bred individuals’.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A replicated ex situ study in Idaho, USA (Whitmore & Marzluff 1998), found that hand-reared corvid (ravens Corvus corax, American crows C. brachyrynchos and black-billed magpies Pica pica) chicks fed large amounts of food regularly grew faster and were healthier than those fed less food, or less regularly (e.g. ravens fed 40% of their weight every hour grew the fastest, those fed 15% of their weight grew the slowest; crows fed unlimited amounts every hour grew fastest, those fed every two hours grew the slowest; magpies fed unlimited amounts every 30 minutes grew the fastest). However, no feeding regime allowed chicks to grow as fast as wild-raised birds. Crows and magpies were most affected by feeding frequency, whereas ravens were more influenced by the initial amount of food offered. Survival three months after release was positively related to feeding frequency. Eggs were collected from the wild after 0-18 days of incubation and incubated at 37.5oC (crows and ravens) or 38.0oC (magpies) and at 31-69% humidity. Overall, 72% of 430 eggs hatched. After hatching, chicks were transferred to heated aquaria and fed with minced meat, egg, insects and dog food. This study is also discussed in ‘Use puppets to increase the survival or growth of hand-reared chicks’.

    Study and other actions tested
  4. Two replicated studies from 1995-9 at breeding centres in Hawaii, USA (Kuehler et al. 2000), found that hatching rates for artificially incubated wild-laid eggs were 93% for 29 omao Myadestes obscurus (a thrush) and 91% for 43 puaiohi M. palmeri (eggs consisted of both captive-laid and wild). Two out of five parent-incubated puaiohi eggs also hatched, whilst an additional 15 eggs were not viable. Both species were hand-reared, with 93% of omao and 92% of puaiohi chicks surviving until 30 days old (producing a total of 38 fledged chicks during 1996-8). The two parent-hatched chicks also survived. Eggs were incubated under a 37.2oC dry bulb and a 26.7-31.1oC wet bulb. Chicks were fed a high protein diet of insects, egg and fruit, initially provided every hour but with decreasing frequency as chicks grew. This study is also discussed in ‘Use captive breeding to increase or maintain populations’ and ‘Release captive-bred individuals’.

    Study and other actions tested
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

Bird Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Bird Conservation
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust