Bulletin of Forestry Science / Volume 6 / Issue 2 / Pages 161-173
previous article | next article

Artificial nest predation investigations at a varied habitat in Somogy County, Hungary

Ferenc Jánoska, Péter Kemenszky, Attila Farkas, József Varju & Zsolt Horváth


Correspondence: Jánoska Ferenc

Postal address: H-9400 Sopron, Bajcsy-Zsilinszky E. u. 4.

e-mail: janoska.ferenc[at]nyme.hu


We made artificial ground nest predation investigations at a varied habitat in Somogy County, Hungary. During the investigation we were interested in determining which predator species pose a potential risk for the nests of small game species (pheasant and grey partridge) in a territory, where the habitats are suitable for both small game and big game. We monitored 20-20 artificial ground nests in April and May. In each nest we put 2 chicken eggs, 1 wax egg and 1 plasticine egg, respectively. We placed the artificial nests at the edge zones of different habitats and checked the predation every 4 days. We found the Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) (51%) and the Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) (37%) to be the most common predator species. We found in April the highest predation at the edges between the Alder forests and crop fields and the Alder forests and pastures and in May at inner micro edges of young afforestation, the differences were significant. The predation risk was also very high for artificial nests left at inner micro edges of young afforestation for 2 months, but the differences between the study periods were not significant.

Keywords: artificial ground nest, predation, Red Fox, Wild Boar, edge effect

  • Andersen, Ch. H. 2015: The effect of human disturbance on nest predation rate of ground-nesting birds. Master thesis. Telemark University College. Faculty of Arts and Science. Telemark. 25.
  • Báldi A. 1999: A fészekaljpredáció jelentősége, valamint kísérletes vizsgálatának előnyei, hátrányai és módszertana. Ornis Hungarica, 8-9: 39-55.
  • Báldi, A. and Batáry, P. 2000: Do predation rates of artificial nests differ between edge and interior reedbed habitats? Acta Ornithologica, 35: 53-56.
  • Báldi, A. and Batáry, P. 2005: Nest predation in European reedbeds: different losses in edges but similar losses in interiors. Folia Zoologica, 54 (3): 285-292.
  • Batáry P. 2001: Fészekaljpredációs vizsgálatok a Fertő-tó osztrák oldalán. Diplomamunka, Debrecen, KLTE.
  • Batáry P. 2004: A fészekpredáció szegélyhatásának vizsgálata. Doktori értekezés, Debreceni Egyetem, 91.
  • Batáry, P. and Báldi, A. 2005: Factors affecting the survival of real and artificial great reed warbler’s nests. Biologia, Bratislava, 60 (2): 215-219.
  • Carpio, A. J.; Hillström, L. and Tortosa, F. S. 2016: Effects of wild boar predation on nests of wading birds in various Swedis hhabitats. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 62 (4): 423-430. DOI: 10.1007/s10344-016-1016-y
  • Dawson, S. J.; Adams, P. J.; Huston, R. M. and Fleming, P. A. 2014: Environmental factors influence nest excavation by foxes. Journal of Zoology, 294 (2): 104-113. DOI: 10.1111/jzo.12158
  • DeGraaf, R. M. and Angelstam, P. 1993: Effects of timber size-class on predation of artificial nests in extensive forest. Forest Ecology and Management, 61 (1-2): 127-136. DOI: 10.1016/0378-1127(93)90194-r
  • Faragó S. 2012: Vadászati állattan. Mezőgazda Kiadó, Budapest.
  • Faragó S. és Náhlik A. 1997: A vadállomány szabályozása. A fenntartható vadgazdálkodás populáció-ökológiai alapjai. Mezőgazda Kiadó, Budapest.
  • Faragó S.; Csányi S.; Pechtol J.; Szemethy L. és Sztojkov V. 2000: Az apróvad-gazdálkodás stratégiai terve Magyarországon. In: Vadászévkönyv 2000. Dénes Natur Műhely kiadó, Budapest, 112-146.
  • Fazekas A. és Báldi A. 2000: A szegélyhatás és az énekesmadarak fészekaljpredációjának kísérletes vizsgálata a Tököli Parkerdőben. Ornis Hungarica, 10: 41-48.
  • Götmark, F. 1992: The effects of investigator disturbance on nesting birds. Current Ornithology, 9: 63-104. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4757-9921-7_3
  • Heim A. és Báldi A. 2009: Különböző élőhelyek szegélyeinek komparatív fészekaljpredációs vizsgálata. Természetvédelmi közlemények, 15: 291-303.
  • MaCivor, L. H.; Melvin, S. M and Griffin, C. R. 1990: Effects of research avtivity on piping plover nest predation. Journal of Wildlife Management, 54 (3): 443-447. DOI: 10.2307/3809656
  • Maier, T. J. and Degraaf, R. M. 2001: Differences in depredation by small predators limit the use of plasticine and zebra finch eggs in artificial-nest studies. The Condor, 103 (1): 180-183. DOI: 10.1650/0010-5422(2001)103[0180:didbsp]2.0.co;2
  • Medeiros, R.; Ramos, J. A.; Paiva, V. H.; Almeida, A.; Pedro, P. and Antunes, S. 2007: Signage reduces the impact of human disturbance on little tern nesting success in Portugal. Biological Conservation, 135 (1): 99-106. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.10.001
  • Panek, M. 2002: Space use, nesting sites and breeding success of grey partridge (Perdix perdix) in two agricultural management systems in western Poland. Game and Wildlife Science, 19: 313-326.
  • Potts, G. R. 1986: The Partridge: Pesticides, Predation and Conservation. Collins, London.
  • Potts, G. R. 2012: Partridges. Countryside Barometer. Collins, London.
  • Purger, J. J.; Csuka, Sz. and Kurucz, K. 2008: Predation survival of ground nesting birds in grass and wheat fields: Experiment with plasticine eggs and atrificial nests. Polish Journal of Ecology, 56 (3): 481-486.
  • Purger J.J.; Muzinic, J. and Purger D. 2012a: Survival chances of ground nest sin a meadow habitat: A case study in Vrana Lake Nature Park (Mediterranean region, Croatia). Polish Journal of Ecology, 60 (1): 207-212.
  • Purger J.J.; Kurucz K.; Tóth Á. and Batáry P. 2012b: Coating plasticine eggs can eliminate the overestimation of predation on artificial ground nests. Bird Study, 59 (3): 350-352. DOI: 10.1080/00063657.2012.684550
  • Small, M. F. and Hunter, M. L. 1988: Forest fragmentation and avian nest predation in forested landscapes. Oecologia, 76 (1): 62-64. DOI: 10.1007/bf00379601
  • Söderström, B.; Pärt, T. and Rydén, J. 1998: Different nest predator faunas and nest predation risk on ground and shrub nests at forest ecotones: an experiment and a review. Oecologia, 117 (1-2): 108-118. DOI: 10.1007/s004420050638
  • Starck, J. M. and Ricklefs, R. E. (Eds.) 1998: Avian Growth and Development. Evolution within the Altricial-Precocial Spectrum. Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford.
  • Sterbetz I. 1984: Fogoly. In: Haraszthy L. (Szerk.): Magyarország fészkelő madarai. Natura Budapest, 67-68.
  • Trinka, A.; Prokop, P. and Batáry, P. 2008: Dummy birds in artificial nest studies: An experiment with Red-backed Strike Lanius collurio. Bird Study, 55 (3): 329-331. DOI: 10.1080/00063650809461539
  • Weidinger, K. 2008: Nest monitoring does not increase nest predation in open-nesting songbirds: inference from continuous nest-survival data. The Auk, 125 (4): 859-868. DOI: 10.1525/auk.2008.07016
  • Open Acces

    For non-commercial purposes, let others distribute and copy the article, and include in a collective work, as long as they cite the author(s) and the journal, and provided they do not alter or modify the article.

    Cite this article as:

    Jánoska, F., Kemenszky, P., Farkas, A., Varju, J. & Horváth, Zs. (2016): Artificial nest predation investigations at a varied habitat in Somogy County, Hungary. Bulletin of Forestry Science, 6(2): 161-173. (in Hungarian) DOI: 10.17164/EK.2016.013

    Volume 6, Issue 2
    Pages: 161-173

    DOI: 10.17164/EK.2016.013

    First published:
    27 September 2016

    Related content


    More articles
    by this authors


    Related content in the Bulletin of Forestry Science*

    More articles by this authors in the Bulletin of Forestry Science

    * Automatically generated recommendations based on the occurrence of keywords given by authors in the titles and abstracts of other articles. For more detailed search please use the manual search.