The Design of Artificial Nestboxes for the Study of Secondary Hole-Nesting Birds: A Review of Methodological Inconsistencies and Potential Biases

By M. Marcel, Lambrechts, Frank, Adriaensen, R. Daniel, Ardia, V. Alexandr, Artemyev, Francisco, Atienzar and 100 more. 2010

325 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): “Additionally, 94 compared to tree cavities, nest-boxes deployed in a given area are usually more uniform in 95 dimensions and location above the ground, and so offer a limited variety of nesting 96 possibilities for non-excavators (reviewed in Lambrechts et al., 2010).”
Growing in Cities: An Urban Penalty for Wild Birds? A Study of Phenotypic Differences between Urban and Rural Great Tit Chicks (Parus major) (2017, unknown): “Moreover, as cavity-nesters, the development of the chicks is very easy to follow (Lambrechts et al., 2010).”
The Energetic Costs of Nest Building in Birds (2013, background): “The evolution of avian life-histories is often studied in long-term monitoring programmes of nestboxbreeding passerines such as Blue Tits and Pied Flycatchers which has established them as model species (Lambrechts et al., 2010).”
Latitudinal variation in blue tit and great tit nest characteristics indicates environmental adjustment (2012, methodology): “At each site, nest boxes were visited at least weekly from the beginning of April to establish the date of clutch initiation, clutch size, brood size at hatching and brood size at fledging (Lambrechts et al., 2010).”