1. Background
Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, extensive
logging and timber harvesting practices ruined
much of the available mature forests used by
cavity nesting species in the U. S. (Roy, et al.,
2007). Mature hardwood forest is needed for
natural cavity production. Cavities are produced
by weather related injuries such as, limb
breakage, excavation from woodpeckers, fire, or
insect damage (Roy, et al., 2007). These natural
cavities provide necessary sites for squirrels, bats,
owls, and cavity nesting ducks (Roy, et al., 2007).
Overharvesting of timber resulted in significant
loss of these natural cavities. Due to natural
cavity loss, wood duck (Aix sponsa) numbers
plummeted in the U. S. (Soulliere, 1986). To aid
in the regrowth of wood duck populations,
artificial wood duck houses were erected.
Efficacy of Artificial Nest Boxes Near Bemidji, MN
Michael Schleif, Mitchell Vollhaber, Kyle Kuechle
Dr. Brian J. Hiller, Biology Deptartment
Discussion
Due to the low use rate found in our 50 box
sample, the cost per hatchling could be higher
than other areas that use similar nest box
programs.
• To check the 50 nest boxes one time each year
would cost $410.41.
– That comes out to $3.91 per hatchling.
• If this was extrapolated out to the 500 boxes
roughly in place, it would cost $4,104.10.
– These findings are based on a $0.56 per mile
reimbursement based on federal standard mile rates
and a $15.00 hourly pay rate which is typical of a
wildlife technician in Minnesota who would be
preforming these duties.
• These findings do not include lumber costs
for new boxes and replacement parts.
Therefore, an assessment of natural cavity
abundance of a particular area should be
performed to determine if artificial nest boxes
are needed before a nest box program is
started.
References
Minnesota Forest Resources Council. (2003) Forest Resource Management Plan:
North Central Landscape. North Central Regional Landscape Committee.
Soulliere, G. J. (1988) Density of Suitable Wood Duck Nest Cavities in a Northern
Hardwood Forest. Journal of Wildlife Management. 52 (1), 86-89.
Soulliere, G. J. (1986) Cost and Significance of a Wood Duck Nest-House Program
in Wisconsin: An Evaluation. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 14 (3), 391-395.
Roy, C. L., Gates, R. J., and Zwicker, E. H. (2007) Project Availability of Natural
Cavities for Wood Ducks in Southern Illinois. Journal of Wildlife Management. 71
(3), 875-883.
Gorham, Rochelle. Northern Region Area Wildlife Supervisor, MN DNR.
Methods
The primary study area for this project is the
Bemidji area in South West Beltrami County,
Minnesota. During the Spring of 2014, 50 nest
boxes were sampled to determine species use
rates and cost effectiveness of maintenance. If the
box was in disrepair or missing it was refurbished
or replaced. Additionally, miles driven as well as
time spent hiking to and from nest box sites were
recorded In the Fall of 2014, the same 50 boxes
were revisited. The box was cleaned and
prepared for the following nesting season. Miles
and time were recorded again to determine
differences in access due to seasonality. Miles
and labor hours along with hatch rates were used
to assess effort and cost involved in maintaining
an artificial nest box program and the potential
contribution of the program to the local Wood
Duck population.
Results
• Out of the 17 successful boxes, 10 of the boxes were used by Common Goldeneye.
– Those 10 boxes yielded a total of 77 membranes.
– 5 more of the successful boxes were used by Hooded Merganser with a total of 24 membranes counted.
– The last 2 of the successful boxes were used by Wood Ducks, which totaled 4 membranes.
• A total of 3 boxes were classified as abandoned. Two of the three boxes were abandoned
Hooded Merganser nests.
• Comparing the total effort put in checking all nest boxes over the course of the year, the Fall of
2014 required less effort than the Spring checks. However, the distance traveled was less in the
Spring of 2014.
Boxes
Checked
Miles
Traveled
Time
(hours)
Spring 2014 50 198.0 31.08
Fall 2014 50 212.7 19.42
Common
Goldeneye
Hooded
Merganser
Wood
Duck
Total Percent
Successful/
Membranes
10/77 5/24 2/4 17 34%
Abandoned 0 3*/6 1*/12 3 6%
Depredated 2 0 0 2 4%
Table 1 shows the totals effort involved for checking nest boxes for each
checking period.
Table 2 shows the breakdown of each nest box category and how many membranes were
in each box. Boxes classified as “No use” are not included in Table 2. The * denotes the
remaining abandoned box which had a mixture of both Hooded Merganser and Wood
Duck eggs.
Figure 2 shows a box with
Hooded Merganser eggs.
Figure 3 shows a nest box
after cleaning.
Figure 4 displays a
Common Goldeneye
incubating her nest.
Figure 1 displays the nest box sample area.