Nest box revealed habitat preferences of arboreal mammals in box‐ironbark forest

Habitat preferences need to be understood if species are to be adequately managed or conserved. Habitat preferences are presumed to reflect requirements for food, shelter and breeding, as well as interactions with predators and competitors. However, one or more of these requirements may dominate. Tree‐cavity‐dependent wildlife species are one example where shelter or breeding site requirements may dominate. We installed 120 nest boxes across 40 sites to target the vulnerable Brush‐tailed Phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa) and the non‐threatened Sugar Glider (Petaurus breviceps). The provision of shelter sites where few of quality are available may enable better resolution of habitat preferences. Over three years, we observed the Brush‐tailed Phascogale at 17 sites, whereas the Sugar Glider was observed at 39 sites. We tested four broad hypotheses (H1–H4) relating to habitat that may influence occupancy by these species. There was no influence of hollow (cavity) abundance (H1) on either species suggesting our nest boxes had satisfied their shelter requirements. There was no influence of habitat structure (canopy and tree proximity) (H2) immediately around the nest box trees. We found no influence of distance to the forest edge (H3). Variables at and away from the nest box site that appear to reflect foraging substrates (H4) were influential on the Brush‐tailed Phascogale. Sugar Glider occupancy was only influenced by a single variable at the nest box site. The lack of influence of any other variables is consistent with the very high occupancy observed, suggesting most of the forest habitat is suitable when shelter sites are available. We found no evidence that the Sugar Glider reduced site use by the Brush‐tailed Phascogale.     

Nest box contentions: Are nest boxes used by the species they target?

Nest boxes have grown in popularity as a habitat management tool in Australia during the last decade. This management use remains contentious because some studies suggest nest boxes are ineffective. There are three recent contentions: (i) nest boxes mostly benefit common species, (ii) exotic species may be dominant users of nest boxes, and (iii) species of conservation concern use nest boxes infrequently. We address these contentions using data from 1865 nest boxes involving eight nest box designs. These nest boxes were installed predominantly <200 m from a road in association with highway duplication and re‐alignment across 16 projects in New South Wales. The Common Brushtail Possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) is the species of most relevance to contention 1. It used 9% of boxes overall including 26% of ‘possum’ designated boxes. The most frequent nest box users were small petaurid gliders (mostly Sugar Gliders, Petaurus breviceps) which used 63% of ‘small glider’ designated boxes. This nest box and another suited to the Sugar Glider comprised 40% of all boxes installed, so it is not surprising that this species might be a common user. Exotic species were uncommon users of the nest boxes enabling contention 2 to be rejected. Active hives of Feral Honeybees (Apis mellifera) occupied just 1% of boxes, and another 1% of boxes were used by introduced rodents and birds. The Squirrel Glider (Petaurus norfolcensis) is the species most relevant to contention 3. It was seen in 80 boxes across 11 projects, representing 7% of the three types most frequently used. These observations are not consistent with the third contention. Nest boxes can provide many important insights about the requirements and interactions of hollow‐dependent fauna. However, they are not intended as an alternative to retaining hollow‐bearing trees.     

Natural cavity restoration as an alternative to nest box supplementation

Nest box supplementation is widely used to increase nest‐site availability for cavity nesting animals but the analysis of its effects on individuals breeding in natural cavities is often neglected. This study offers a novel restoration technique to revert abandonment of natural breeding sites by a secondary cavity avian bird, the European roller (Coracias garrulus), and other ecologically similar species. We found that, after a program of nest box supplementation with ensuing monitoring, rollers gradually abandon nesting in natural and seminatural cavities in favor of nest boxes because the latter are of higher quality. We examine whether reducing the entrance size of natural and seminatural cavities improves their suitability for rollers. A 6‐year program reduced the diameter of the entrance of sandstone cavities and cavities in bridges. This led to a high occupancy (59%) of manipulated nest‐sites. Manipulated sites were most frequently occupied by rollers and little owls (Athene noctua) (31 and 18% of sites, respectively). Manipulation did not affect clutch size or fledgling success. We suggest that nest‐site diversity and nesting in natural cavities should be preserved to reduce nest box dependence. Our study illustrates the value of nest boxes when used alongside restoration of natural breeding sites and provides insights for the management of natural cavities.     

Nest sites as limiting resources for cavity‐nesting birds in mature forest ecosystems: a review of the evidence

ABSTRACT Assumptions that populations of cavity‐nesting birds are limited by access to nest sites have largely been based on anecdotal reports or correlative data. Nest‐box‐addition experiments or tree‐cavity‐blocking experiments are potentially rigorous ways to investigate how densities of breeding birds are affected by access to nest cavities. Experimental evidence indicates that natural tree holes are limited in human‐altered landscapes, but the possibility that cavity nests are limited in old growth (unmanaged) forests is less clear. I reviewed 31 nest‐cavity‐removal or addition experiments conducted with 20 species of cavity‐nesting birds in mature forests. Of these 31 experiments conducted with a variety of different species of birds, only 19% reported statistically significant changes in breeding densities. However, none of these studies included data about the reproductive history of individuals colonizing the boxes (i.e., whether birds using the boxes would have otherwise been floaters or that birds excluded from blocked cavities on the plots did not simply move elsewhere), so they provided no strong evidence that the number of breeding pairs was limited by availability of nest sites at the population scale. Although some studies indicate that nest sites are limited at local (plot) scales in old growth forests, there is still little empirical evidence for nest‐site limitation at the population‐ and landscape‐level in mature, unmanaged forests. I review the challenges in designing and interpreting box‐addition experiments and highlight the main gaps in knowledge that should be targeted in the future.     

Specific nest box designs can improve habitat restoration for cavity‐dependent arboreal mammals

Tree‐cavity‐dependent wildlife faces future shortages of cavities due to a decline in the abundance of large, old trees in many parts of the world. Nest boxes are proposed as a tool to restore habitat value but evidence of their effectiveness for arboreal mammals remains equivocal. This may arise from a poor understanding of design preferences. We conducted investigations in two landscapes in eastern Australia to determine whether species show a preference for specific designs. We observed a preference by some mammal species for particular designs (33–78% occupied/used), suggesting that design refinement can improve the frequency with which nest boxes are used. Although feral species may out‐compete target species for nest boxes, we did not observe this. We recorded feral honeybees (Apis mellifera) in 6–9% of nest boxes but they did not remain, and many occupied boxes were later used by mammals. The introduced common myna bird (Acridotheres tristis) was prevalent in one landscape, but competition for nest boxes was localized. For nest boxes to be an effective habitat restoration tool, they must be able to be occupied over long periods of time. We investigated this for the squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis), an arboreal marsupial threatened through part of its geographic range. Squirrel gliders occupied and bred within nest boxes (100% used) at two locations continuously over a 10‐year period with minimal nest box maintenance. Individuals occupied boxes for up to 7 years. This confirms that targeted nest box programs can be an effective restoration tool for cavity‐dependent arboreal mammals.     

Bat boxes are not a silver bullet conservation tool

Nest boxes are often promoted as substitute structures for hollow‐dependent fauna, but are they generally effective? In a long‐term bat‐box monitoring project in south‐eastern Australia, box occupancy was dominated by one common and widespread urban‐adapted species, Gould's wattled bat Chalinolobus gouldii. In contrast, the 13 other bat species in the area made little or no use of the boxes. Policymakers, land managers and conservation professionals working in the field of biodiversity offsets should be aware that bat boxes are unlikely to compensate adequately for the broad‐scale loss of tree hollows caused by various forms of human disturbance.     

PVC nest boxes are less at risk of occupancy by feral honey bees than timber nest boxes and natural hollows

Feral European Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) has been identified as a potential nest competitor for Australian hollow nesting species, but few studies have investigated the impact of feral honey bee competition on Threatened species. Our study used data from Glossy Black‐cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami halmaturinus) nests on Kangaroo Island, monitored and managed over an 11‐year period, and found 12% of nests became occupied by feral honey bees during that period. Our results indicate that feral honey bees were less likely to occupy nest boxes made of PVC (5%) compared with wooden nest boxes (24%) or natural hollows in Eucalyptus trees (14%). The removal of feral honey bee hives from nests is a priority for long‐term conservation of glossy black‐cockatoos on Kangaroo Island. We recommend that PVC nest boxes are chosen for future nesting habitat restoration, due to the more frequent use of wooden nest boxes by feral honey bees.     

Exclosure fences around nests of imperiled Florida Grasshopper Sparrows reduce rates of predation by mammals

Increasing nest survival by excluding predators is a goal of many bird conservation programs. However, new exclosure projects should be carefully evaluated to assess the potential risks of disturbance. We tested the effectiveness of predator exclosure fences (hereafter, fences) for nests of critically endangered Florida Grasshopper Sparrows (Ammodramus savannarum floridanus) at a dry prairie site (Three Lakes; 2015–2018) and a pasture site (the Ranch; 2015–2016) in Osceola County, Florida, USA. We installed fences at nests an average of 8 days after the start of incubation, and nest abandonment after fence installation was rare (2 of 149 installations). Predation was the leading cause of failure for unfenced nests at both sites (48–73%). At Three Lakes, nest cameras revealed that mammals and snakes were responsible for 61.5% and 38.5% of predation events, respectively, at unfenced nests. Fences reduced the daily probability of predation (0.016 for fenced nests vs. 0.074 for unfenced nests). The probability that a fenced nest would survive from discovery to fledging was more than double that of unfenced nests (60.4% vs. 27.7%). However, we found no difference in daily nest survival at the Ranch between the year before nests were fenced (2015; 0.874) and the year when all but one nest were fenced (2016; 0.867) because red imported fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) were responsible for 86% of predation events at fenced nests at the Ranch. The use of cameras at fenced nests revealed that site‐specific differences in nest predators explained variation in fence efficiency between sites. Our fence design may be useful for other species of grassland birds, but site‐specific predator communities and species‐specific response of target bird species to fences should be assessed before installing fences at other sites.     

Do nest boxes in restored woodlands promote the conservation of hollow‐dependent fauna?

Vegetation restoration is considered as an important strategy for reversing biodiversity decline in agricultural areas. However, revegetated areas often lack key vegetation attributes like large old hollow‐bearing trees. As these trees take a long time to develop, artificial cavities such as nest boxes are sometimes provided to address lag effects. We conducted a 3‐year experiment using 150 nest boxes with 4 designs to quantify patterns of occupancy within 16 replanted areas and 14 patches of remnant old‐growth eucalypt woodland. We quantified patterns of occupancy of nest boxes in physically connected versus isolated remnants and plantings, and multiple covariate effects on nest box occupancy at the nest box, tree, patch, and landscape levels. Our analyses revealed a lower probability of nest box occupancy within remnants (vs. plantings) for 2 of the 6 response variables examined: any species and the Feral Honeybee. Nest boxes in connected remnants and plantings were more likely to be occupied than those in isolated plantings and remnants by any mammal and the Common Brushtail Possum. Nest boxes in restored woodlands are used by some hollow‐dependent fauna but principally already common species and not taxa of conservation concern. Nest boxes were also used by pest species. A key management consideration must be to create connected habitat to facilitate colonization of nest boxes by mammals. Approximately 15% of the cavity‐dependent vertebrates within the study area used next boxes, possibly because the diverse requirements of the array of other species were not met by the range of nest boxes deployed.     

Testing hypotheses about the function of repeated nest abandonment as a life history strategy in a passerine bird

Nest structures are essential for successful reproduction in most bird species. Nest construction costs time and energy, and most bird species typically build one nest per breeding attempt. Some species, however, build more than one nest, and the reason for this behaviour is often unclear. In the Grey Fantail Rhipidura albiscapa, nest abandonment before egg‐laying is very common. Fantails will build up to seven nests within a breeding season, and pairs abandon up to 71% of their nests before egg‐laying. We describe multiple nest‐building behaviour in the Grey Fantail and test four hypotheses explaining nest abandonment in this species: cryptic depredation, destruction of nests during storm events, and two anti‐predatory responses (construction of decoy nests to confuse predators, and increasing concealment to ‘hide’ nests more effectively). We found support for only one hypothesis – that abandonment is related to nest concealment. Abandoned nests were significantly less concealed than nests that received eggs. Most abandoned nests were not completely built and none received eggs, thus ruling out cryptic predation. Nests were not more likely to be abandoned following storm events. The decoy nest hypothesis was refuted as abandoned nests were constructed at any point during the breeding season and some nests were dismantled and the material used to build the subsequent nest. Thus, Grey Fantails are flexible about nest‐site locations during the nest‐building phase and readily abandon nest locations if they are found to have deficient security.     

Experimental old nest material predicts hoopoe Upupa epops eggshell and uropygial gland microbiota

Nest re‐use in birds has the potential cost of infection by parasites and pathogens but may also be a source of beneficial symbiotic bacteria transmitted horizontally. Eurasian hoopoes Upupa epops host antibiotic‐producing bacteria in their uropygial gland but only while breeding, which suggests that the nest‐hole may be a source of those symbionts. Interestingly, hoopoes do not build nests, thus might prefer for reproduction nest holes with soft materials from previous reproductions. Here, we tested experimentally this preference by installing in the field new nest boxes that were left empty or filled with either sawdust or a mixture of sawdust and hoopoe's nest material from the previous year. We explored the experimental effect on the composition of the uropygial secretion bacterial community, on eggshell bacterial loads, and on several proxies of reproductive success. Hoopoes bred significantly more often in nest boxes with nest material than in empty ones, but the type of nest material did not affect nest box occupancy. Eggs in nest boxes with old‐soft material harbored higher bacterial density on their shells, and the microbiota of the uropygial secretion of nestlings and females in these nest boxes differed from those in nest boxes without old‐soft material. Moreover, although the experiment did not affect breeding success or related proxies, several operational taxonomic units from female uropygial secretions were positively associated with hatching success. This is the first experimental evidence showing that re‐used nest material affects the bacterial community of the uropygial secretions of hoopoe females. This suggests that the nest material can be a source of strains for their incorporation to both the uropygial gland and eggshell communities, highlighting a possible advantage of nest re‐use previously unconsidered.     

Accuracy of nest fate classification and predator identification from evidence at nests of Least Terns and Piping Plovers

For federally listed species such as Least Tern Sternula antillarum and Piping Plover Charadrius melodus, correct determination of nest fates and causes of nest failure is crucial for understanding population dynamics and improving monitoring programmes. We used video cameras to evaluate nest fate misclassification rate and to identify factors that may cause researchers monitoring nests at different intervals to classify Least Tern and Piping Plover nest fates incorrectly. During the 2013–2015 breeding seasons, we installed miniature surveillance cameras at 65 of 294 Least Tern and 89 of 551 Piping Plover nests under observation on the Missouri River in North Dakota. Nest fates were assigned in the field from remains found at the nest‐site and then again by an independent researcher who reviewed camera footage. We used ordinal logistic regressions to examine whether monitoring interval, clutch age or temporal factors influenced a correct, partially misclassified (probable successful in the field vs. successful by camera) or misclassified nest fate classification. During a 7‐day monitoring interval between visits, 45% of nests were partially and 27.5% were fully misclassified. The percentage of partially (20%) and fully (8.0%) misclassified nests decreased with a more intensive (3‐day) monitoring schedule. Researchers were also less likely to correctly classify nest fates for Least Terns than for Piping Plovers, and as clutch age and monitoring interval increased for both species. Furthermore, causes of failure (e.g. predators, weather) as determined from field evidence vs. video disagreed for 53.5% of nests. The ability to identify accurately nest fate and cause of nest failure will facilitate a better understanding of factors that limit productivity and will lead to better informed management decisions for improving nest survival.     

Efficacy of intervention to relieve nest box competition for Orange‐bellied Parrot Neophema chrysogaster

We use an experimental approach to evaluate the effectiveness of removing nests of a dominant competitor to create vacant nest boxes for a critically endangered parrot. We compared the number of times that Tree Martin (Petrochelidon nigricans – the dominant competitor at nest boxes) perched at or entered nest boxes intended for Orange‐bellied Parrot (Neophema chrysogaster – the subordinate nest competitor) over three time periods (before, immediately after and one week after experimental nest destruction). In the before period, rates of nest attendance by martins in treatment and control nests were not explained by treatment group. After experimental nest destruction, total attendance at boxes by martins rose to a mean of 6.1 visits over three five‐minute surveys in the treatment group, compared with 3.3 visits at control boxes. Within individual surveys, martins visited treatment boxes 4.4 times per survey one week after nest destruction, compared with only 1.6 visits in the control group. Martins in the treatment group rapidly rebuilt their nests and laid replacement clutches, and within a week, all boxes were reoccupied. Nest destruction did not increase nesting opportunities for the parrot, and increased vigilance of the dominant competitor may in fact reduce nesting opportunities in nearby boxes. Our study suggests that removing martin nests is an ineffective management action for alleviating nest competition for this parrot.     

Nest boxes in planted and regrowth Forest Red‐gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis Sm.) ecosystems

Nest boxes were deployed in planted and regrowth areas in association with a revegetation project to restore Forest Red‐gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis) ecosystems on abandoned former agricultural land. A year after revegetation began, 36 boxes were installed in each of the planted and regrowth areas in 2003, and these were monitored to 2013. Sixteen vertebrate species utilised boxes, which included breeding by four species and two species that were not detected by other survey methods. More boxes were used by fauna in the planting compared to regrowth in all but one audit. Significantly, more boxes were used by reptiles in regrowth than planting, but significantly more by birds in planting than regrowth. Nearly 90 per cent of boxes remained intact over the 10‐year period. While the study's capacity to attribute results to habitat types was limited, the results do add weight to the possibility that nest boxes made of good quality materials can provide valuable habitat for a wide range of species during the early recovery phase of reforestation projects.     

Parent birds assess nest predation risk: influence of cavity condition and avian nest predator activity

Skutch hypothesized that nest predators visually assess parental activities to locate a prey nest, whereas parents modify fitness‐related traits to reduce the probability of nest predation. We examined how cavity condition and parental activity interact with avian nest predators to shape the nest success of two coexisting parid species, marsh tits Poecile palustris and oriental tits Parus minor, breeding in nest‐boxes during the incubation period. Nest‐boxes were manipulated to create a prolonged risk of nest predation (entrance diameter 2.6 cm control vs 5.5 cm treatment) soon after clutch completion. To measure changes in parental behavior, we also simultaneously simulated a pulsed risk of nest predation, using sound playbacks of a coexisting control bird and an avian nest predator. We found that the parent tits merely responded the pulsed risk, presumably due to an environment with high avian nest predator encounters, compared to the prolonged risk. Instead, both species spent more time on vigilance at the nest, only under prolonged risk conditions. The activity of corvids near the nest‐box was higher in the marsh tit than that in oriental tits. This activity was also higher in the treatment nest box than that in the control nest‐box. Nest predation during the incubation period was higher in marsh tits than in oriental tits, presumably due to higher and more plastic vigilance in oriental tits, compared to marsh tits. Our results highlight that the differences in cavity condition and parental activities at the nests of two coexisting non‐excavators may contribute to differential nest predation by attracting avian nest predators.     

同域分布下丝光椋鸟与灰椋鸟的繁殖行为

2011年3—6月,通过悬挂巢箱人工招引丝光椋鸟(Sturnus sericeus)及同域分布下的灰椋鸟(Sturnus cineraceus),并对其繁殖生态进行了初步研究。共设置椋鸟式巢箱40个,其中椋鸟的入住率是84.6%,营巢成功率是51.5%,利用摄像机对其中3巢丝光椋鸟与3巢灰椋鸟进行了系统的繁殖行为观察。结果显示:丝光椋鸟窝卵数为6～7枚,灰椋鸟窝卵数5～7枚,后者的卵显著大于前者;丝光椋鸟的育雏期(20d)较灰椋鸟(16d)长,且亲鸟的递食率明显较高;育雏期丝光椋鸟亲鸟的警戒频次也明显高于灰椋鸟。因此,相比于灰椋鸟,丝光椋鸟具有更完善的育雏行为机制。另外,本文还首次报道了丝光椋鸟的种内巢寄生现象。     

Comparative nest survival of three sympatric loon species breeding in the Arctic

Identifying factors influencing nest survival among sympatric species is important for understanding and managing sources of variation in population dynamics of individual species. Three species of loons nest sympatrically in northern Alaska and differ in body size, life history characteristics, and population trends. We tested the effects of competition, nest site selection, and water level variations on nest survival of Pacific Gavia pacifica, yellow‐billed G. adamsii, and red‐throated loons G. stellata on the Arctic Coastal Plain in Alaska. Although overall nest survival rates did not differ between species, the factors influencing nest survival varied. Nest site selection influenced nest survival for Pacific and yellow‐billed loons, with both species having high nest survival when nesting on islands and peninsulas, likely due to a reduction in access by terrestrial predators. However, on mainland shorelines, Pacific loons had lower nest survival than yellow‐billed loons, and used a higher proportion of vegetation mats for nest sites suggesting that their smaller body size makes them less adept at nest defense. Nest site selection did not influence nest survival of red‐throated loons corresponding to our result of no nest site preferences by this species. Initiation date had a strong influence on nest survival for Pacific and yellow‐billed loons with nests laid earlier having higher survival. Pacific and yellow‐billed loon nests were susceptible to flooding due to precipitation, which contrasted with red‐throated loons that nest on smaller lakes with lower water level variations. Competition did not affect nest survival for any of the species likely due to most territorial encounters occurring prior to incubation. The only influence we found on red‐throated loon nest survival was differences among years. Our results indicate that loons chose nest sites based on predation risk and that factors influencing breeding success of closely related species may differ under similar breeding conditions.     

Installing chainsaw‐carved hollows in medium‐sized live trees increases rates of visitation by hollow‐dependent fauna

Anthropogenic disturbance has resulted in a global reduction in the abundance of mature, hollow‐bearing trees. Nest boxes have long been used to provide supplementary shelter sites in revegetated and regenerating landscapes, but limitations in their effectiveness when offsetting the loss of mature trees has led to increased interest in novel designs of artificial hollows. For example, mechanically excavating cavities into the trunk or branches of trees. However, the effectiveness of artificial hollows in attracting wildlife to visit small‐ or medium‐sized, growing trees in human‐disturbed landscapes has received little attention. In this study, we installed chainsaw hollows that were designed for small, hollow‐dependent mammals and birds into the trunks of live medium‐sized trees. We conducted a before‐after control‐impact experiment using passive camera traps to monitor changes in visitations by wildlife to (1) mature hollow‐bearing trees, (2) developing trees without hollows (i.e. control trees), and (3) developing trees with newly installed chainsaw hollows. We found that, compared to large hollow‐bearing trees and control trees, the developing trees that were selected for chainsaw hollow construction showed the greatest visitation rates by hollow‐dependent wildlife (i.e. number of visits) during the “post‐impact” surveys. Our results suggest that chainsaw hollows designed to replicate the external physical characteristics of natural tree hollows could be effective in attracting target hollow‐dependent fauna to developing trees in regenerating and revegetated landscapes. Further studies are required to compare the effectiveness of natural hollows, chainsaw hollows, and nest boxes when deployed in a range of human‐disturbed landscapes.     

A push‐pull integrated pest management scheme for preventing use of parrot nest boxes by invasive Africanized honey bees

Africanized honey bees (Apis mellifera scutellata) compete with endangered parrots for nest boxes and can hamper conservation efforts. We tested an integrated pest management push‐pull protocol in the Atlantic Forest in São Paulo, Brazil, in an effort to prevent bee swarms from colonizing nest boxes (N = 30 in the forest plus five in aviaries) meant for use by Vinaceous‐breasted Amazons (Amazona vinacea). Fifteen parrot nest boxes were treated with a permethrin insecticide to “push” scout bees away and each parrot box was paired with a bee trap box containing a pheromone lure to “pull” bees. Over a 1‐yr period (March 2013 to March 2014), 29 insect colonies moved into 18 of the 35 trap boxes. Nine Africanized honey bee, three native Jatai bee (Tetragonisca sp.), and 17 wasp colonies occupied trap boxes. Only one experimental push‐pull pair untreated parrot box was invaded by bees and no parrot boxes in aviaries were colonized. Four of the parrot nest boxes were occupied by birds during our study. Although none were used by Vinaceous‐breasted Amazons, Southern House Wrens (Troglodytes musculus), Green‐winged Saltators (Saltator similis), and Plain Parakeets (Brotogeris tirica) nested in the boxes and all nests were successful. Although long‐term studies are needed before drawing conclusions about the effectiveness of trap boxes, our results suggest that a push‐pull protocol may prove useful for reducing the use of nest boxes meant for parrots and other cavity‐nesting birds by Africanized honey bees and other insects.     

Nest monitoring does not affect nesting success of Whinchats Saxicola rubetra

It is important to assess the effect that research activities may have on animals in the wild, especially when key parameters, such as breeding success, could potentially be influenced by observer activity. For birds, some studies have suggested that nest monitoring can increase the chances of nest failure due to predation, whereas others suggest that human nest visits may actually deter mammalian predators. Nest monitoring visits can also influence breeding success more indirectly by altering parental provisioning behaviour. Here, the influence of monitoring activities on nest success was examined in a ground‐nesting grassland bird, the Whinchat Saxicola rubetra. During the egg phase, a sample of nests were not visited between the initial finding event and the estimated hatching date; instead, the nest status was assessed at a distance. Daily survival rates (DSR) for these nests were compared with that of nests visited every 2 days. During the nestling phase, the effects of observer nest visits on parental provisioning behaviour were determined. Nest visits were found not to affect egg DSR significantly, and parental provisioning was disrupted for a maximum of 20 min (0.52% of the nestling period) following an observer visit. Given the variation in response to nest visits across species, we suggest that consideration should be given to observer impact in all studies where predation risk is high. Here, we illustrate a method for researchers to assess the impact of their nest visits to ensure they are not biasing estimates of breeding success.