Are nest boxes a viable alternative source of cavities for hollow-dependent animals? Long-term monitoring of nest box occupancy, pest use and attrition

137 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Microclimate in tree cavities and nest-boxes: implications for hole-nesting birds (2017, background): “In the long term, the 397 retention of cavity-bearing trees is a more sustainable, cost-effective and less disruptive 398 measure (Goldingay and Stevens, 2009; Lindenmayer et al., 2009; Cockle et al., 2010; 399 Wesołowski and Martin, in press).”
The diversity, distribution and conservation status of the tree‐cavity‐nesting birds of the world (2017, background): “Conservation actions to ensure persistence of tree- cavity- nesting birds, through measures such as nest box addition for non- excavators (Cornelius et al., 2008; Lindenmayer et al., 2009; Pöysä & Pöysä, 2002) or community- based conservation initiatives (Poonswad et al.”
Contemporary forest restoration: A review emphasizing function (2014, background): “Alternatively, artificial cavities have been successfully created for some endangered species (Hooper and McAdie, 1996; Lindenmayer et al., 2009).”
Specific nest box designs can improve habitat restoration for cavity‐dependent arboreal mammals (2015, background): “Lindenmayer et al. (2009) concluded that nest boxes in their study had a limited “effective occupancy time” of approximately 5 years.”
How to make a common species rare: A case against conservation complacency (2011, background): “The Greater Glider is not known to use artificial nest sites such as nest boxes (Beyer and Goldingay, 2006; Lindenmayer et al., 2009b).”