Jacob A Shurba, Kristi J Whitehead, Hannah L Schley, Beau A Bauer, Kyle Barrett, Greg K Yarrow, James T Anderson
{"title":"Does Nesting Material Affect Wood Duck (Aix sponsa) Nest Box Selection, Reproduction, and Eggshell Bacteria?","authors":"Jacob A Shurba, Kristi J Whitehead, Hannah L Schley, Beau A Bauer, Kyle Barrett, Greg K Yarrow, James T Anderson","doi":"10.7589/JWD-D-23-00013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Wood Ducks (Aix sponsa) are secondary cavity nesters that use natural cavities and artificial nest boxes, the latter of which has been attributed to the recovery of populations across the southeastern US. Continual use of these boxes results in a buildup of bacteria, parasites, and other pathogens. To avoid the accumulation of these deleterious organisms, best management practices include the occasional removal of old nesting material (i.e., wood shavings) and replacement with fresh wood shavings. No studies have been performed on the effects of shaving material on nest box selection, nest success, and bacterial growth. We monitored 142 and 111 nest boxes in Florida and Georgia, USA, respectively, and filled a random sample with aspen or cedar shavings. We then swabbed the surface of 144 and 150 eggs during 2020 and 2021, respectively, to screen for culturable bacteria. We detected no effect of shaving type on nest box selection, nest success, or egg surface bacterial growth. We found 3-8 bacterial colony types (1-123 colony-forming units [CFU]/box) and 1-8 bacterial colony types (3-382 CFU/box) among the Georgia and Florida samples, respectively. We detected no effect from shaving type on Wood Duck reproduction or bacterial growth in the sampled nest boxes. We concluded that both shaving types are suitable nesting materials for box-nesting Wood Duck populations and the continued use of either would be a reasonable decision for managers.</p>","PeriodicalId":17602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Wildlife Diseases","volume":" ","pages":"615-620"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Wildlife Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7589/JWD-D-23-00013","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Wood Ducks (Aix sponsa) are secondary cavity nesters that use natural cavities and artificial nest boxes, the latter of which has been attributed to the recovery of populations across the southeastern US. Continual use of these boxes results in a buildup of bacteria, parasites, and other pathogens. To avoid the accumulation of these deleterious organisms, best management practices include the occasional removal of old nesting material (i.e., wood shavings) and replacement with fresh wood shavings. No studies have been performed on the effects of shaving material on nest box selection, nest success, and bacterial growth. We monitored 142 and 111 nest boxes in Florida and Georgia, USA, respectively, and filled a random sample with aspen or cedar shavings. We then swabbed the surface of 144 and 150 eggs during 2020 and 2021, respectively, to screen for culturable bacteria. We detected no effect of shaving type on nest box selection, nest success, or egg surface bacterial growth. We found 3-8 bacterial colony types (1-123 colony-forming units [CFU]/box) and 1-8 bacterial colony types (3-382 CFU/box) among the Georgia and Florida samples, respectively. We detected no effect from shaving type on Wood Duck reproduction or bacterial growth in the sampled nest boxes. We concluded that both shaving types are suitable nesting materials for box-nesting Wood Duck populations and the continued use of either would be a reasonable decision for managers.
期刊介绍:
The JWD publishes reports of wildlife disease investigations, research papers, brief research notes, case and epizootic reports, review articles, and book reviews. The JWD publishes the results of original research and observations dealing with all aspects of infectious, parasitic, toxic, nutritional, physiologic, developmental and neoplastic diseases, environmental contamination, and other factors impinging on the health and survival of free-living or occasionally captive populations of wild animals, including fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Papers on zoonoses involving wildlife and on chemical immobilization of wild animals are also published. Manuscripts dealing with surveys and case reports may be published in the Journal provided that they contain significant new information or have significance for better understanding health and disease in wild populations. Authors are encouraged to address the wildlife management implications of their studies, where appropriate.