Nest-dwelling ectoparasitic arthropods may have detrimental effects on avian breeding success and fitness. Birds should therefore be selected to avoid nest sites where the risk of being infested by ectoparasites is high. However, studies testing this hypothesis have produced mixed results. We performed an experiment in south Norway to test whether Pied Flycatchers Ficedula hypoleuca select nest site according to the presence of ectoparasites. We used artificial nest boxes in this experiment which had all been successfully used by conspecifics in the previous breeding season and still contained the old nest material. Five different groups of ectoparasites were recorded in flycatcher nests in the study area, of which the haematophagous hen flea Ceratophyllus gallinae and mites (Dermanyssus sp.) occurred in all examined nests. We offered each flycatcher pair (n = 13) a choice between 1) a box where ectoparasites had been removed by insecticide fumigation and 2) a box in which the old nest had not been fumigated. Flycatchers were highly selective in their choice of nest site, all but one settling in the fumigated, parasite-free nest box. This finding differs from a similar Swedish study (Olsson & Allander 1995) which did not find any evidence that Pied Flycatchers avoided nest boxes with ectoparasites. A likely explanation for this discrepancy is between-population differences in parasite abundance, as the mean number of hen fleas per infested nest was about five times higher in Norway than in Sweden.
Askenmo, C.E.H. 1984. Polygyny and nest site selection in the pied flycatcher. Animal Behaviour 32: 972–980.
Bauchau, V. 1997. Do parasitic mites decrease growth of nestling Pied Flycatchers Ficedula hypoleuca? Ardea 85: 243–247.
Brown, C.R. & Brown, M.B. 1986. Ectoparasitism as a cost of coloniality in Cliff Swallows (Hirundo pyrrhonota). Ecology 67: 1206–1218.
Clayton, D.H. & Walther, B.A. 1997. Collection and quantification of arthropod parasites of birds. Pp. 419-440 in: Clayton, D.H. and Moore, J. (eds.). Host-parasite evolution: general principles and avian models. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Cramp, S. & Perrins, C.M. (eds.) 1993. The Birds of the Western Palearctic. Vol VII, flycatchers to shrikes. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
D’Alba, L., Spencer, K.A., Nager, R.G. & Monaghan, P. 2011. State dependent effects of elevated hormone: nest site quality, corticosterone levels and reproductive performance in the common eider. Gener. Compar. Endocrinol. 172: 218–224.
de Lope, F., Gonzalez, G., Perez, J.J. & Møller, A.P. 1993. Increased detrimental effects of ectoparasites on their bird hosts during adverse environmental conditions. Oecologia 95: 234–240.
Dufva, R. & Allander, K. 1996. Variable effects of the hen flea Ceratophyllus gallinae on the breeding success of the Great Tit Parus major in relation to weather conditions. Ibis 138: 772–777.
Erckmann, W.J., Beletsky, L.D., Orians, G.H., Johnsen, T., Sharbaugh, S. & D’Antonio, C. 1990. Old nests as cue for nest-site selection: an experimental test with red-winged blackbirds. Condor 92: 113–117.
Fitze, P.S., Tschirren, B. & Richner, H. 2004. Life history and fitness consequences of ectoparasites. J. Anim. Ecol. 73: 216–226.
Heeb, P., Kölliker, M. & Richner, H. 2000. Bird-ectoparasite interactions, nest humidity, and ectoparasite community structure. Ecology 81: 958–968.
Hund, A.K., Blair, J.T. & Hund, F.W. 2015. A review of available methods and description of a new method for eliminating ectoparasites from bird nests. J. Field Ornithol. 86: 191–204.
Larison, B., Laymon, S.A., Williams, P.L. & Smith, T.B. 1998. Song Sparrows vs. cowbird brood parasites: impacts of forest structure and nest-site selection. Condor 100: 93–101.
López-Rull, I. & Garcia, C.M. 2015. Control of invertebrate occupants of nests. Pp. 82–96 in: Deeming, D.C. & Reynolds, S.J. (eds.). Nests, eggs, and incubation. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Loukola, O.J., Seppänen, J.-T. & Forsman, J.T. 2014. Pied flycatchers nest over other nests, but would prefer not to. Ornis Fennica 91: 201–208.
Loye, J.E. & Carroll, S.P. 1998. Ectoparasite behavior and its effects on avian nest site selection. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 91: 159–163.
Lundberg, A. & Alatalo, R.V. 1992. The Pied Flycatcher. T & AD Poyser Ltd, London.
Martin, T.E. 1993. Nest predation and nest sites: new per-spectives on old patterns. BioScience 43: 523–532.
Martin, T.E. 1995. Avian life history evolution in relation to nest sites, nest predation, and food. Ecol. Monogr. 65: 101–127.
Mazgajski, T. 2007. Effect of old nest material on nest site selection and breeding parameters in secondary hole nesters – a review. Acta Ornithologica 42: 1–14.
Mappes, T., Mappes, J. & Kotiaho, J. 1994. Ectoparasites, nest site choice and breeding success in the pied flycatcher. Oecologia 98: 147–149.
Merino, S. & Potti, J. 1995a. Mites and blowflies decrease growth and survival in nestling Pied Flycatchers. Oikos 73: 95–103.
Merino, S. & Potti, J. 1995b. Pied Flycatchers prefer to nest in clean nest boxes in an area with detrimental nest ectoparasites. Condor 97: 828–831.
Merino, S. & Potti, J. 1996. Weather dependent effects of nest ectoparasites on their bird hosts. Ecography 19: 107–113.
Moreno, J. Merino, S., Lobato, E., Ruiz-de-Castañeda, R., Martínez-De la Puente, J., Del Cerro, S. & Rivero-De Aguilar, J. 2009. Nest-dwelling ectoparasites of two sympatric hole-nesting passerines in relation to nest composition: An experimental study. Ecoscience 16: 418–427.
Møller, A.P., Allander, K. & Dufva, R. 1990. Fitness effects of parasites on passerine birds: a review. Pp. 269–280 in: Blondel, J., Gosler, A., Lebreton, J.-D. & McCleery, R. (eds.). Population biology of passerine birds. An integrated approach. Springer Verlag, Berlin.
Newton, I. 1994. The role of nest sites in limiting the numbers of hole-nesting birds: A review. Biological Conservation 70: 265–276.
Olsson, K. & Allander, K. 1995. Do fleas, and/or old nest material, influence nest-site preference in hole-nesting passerines? Ethology 101: 160–170.
Oppliger, A., Richner, H. & Christe, P. 1994. Effect of an ectoparasite on lay date, nest-site choice, desertion, and hatching success in the great tit (Parus major). Behavioral Ecology 5: 130–134.
Orell, M., Rytkönen, S. & Ilomäki, K. 1993. Do Pied Flycatchers prefer nest boxes with old nest material? Ann. Zool. Fennici 30: 313–316.
Pillmore, R.E. 1973. Toxicity of pyrethrum to fish and wildlife. Pp. 143–165 in: Casida, J.E. (ed.), Pyrethrum. The natural insecticide. Academic Press, New York.
Potti, J., Moreno, J., Merino, S. Frias, O. & Rodriguez, R. 1999. Environmental and genetic variation in the haematocrit of fledgling pied flycatchers Ficedula hypoleuca. Oecologia 120: 1–8.
Remeŝ, V. & Krist, M. 2005. Nest design and the abundance of parasitic Protocalliphora blow flies in two hole-nesting passerines. Ecoscience 12: 549–553.
Rendell, W.B. & Verbeek, N.A.M. 1996. Are avian ectoparasites more numerous in nest boxes with old nest material? Canadian Journal of Zoology 74: 1819–1825.
Rytkönen, S., Lehtonen, R. & Orell, M. 1998. Breeding Great Tits Parus major avoid nest boxes infested with fleas. Ibis 140: 687–690.
Slagsvold, T. 1986. Nest site settlement by the Pied Flycatcher: does the female choose her mate for the quality of his house or himself? Ornis Scandinavica 17: 210–220.
Slagsvold, T. & Lifjeld, J.T. 1988. Pied Flycatchers Ficedula hypoleuca prefer dry nest cavities. Fauna Norvegica Ser. C Cinclus 11: 67–70.
Siikamäki, P. 1995. Habitat quality and reproductive traits in the Pied Flycatchers – an experiment. Ecology 76: 308–312.
Southwood, T.R.E. 1978. Ecological methods: with particular reference to the study of insect populations. Chapman and Hall, London.
Tomás, G., Merino, S., Moreno, J. & Morales, J. 2007. Consequences of nest reuse for parasite burden and female health and condition in blue tits, Cyanistes caeruleus. Animal Behaviour 73: 805–814.
Articles published prior to September 2020 are subject to the following terms: https://boap.uib.no/index.php/ornis/copyright
Articles submitted from September 2020 are subject to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY 4.0 that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.