More info for the terms: competition, cover, density, natural
Population Status and Trends: In the early 1900's the range of mountain
bluebird expanded east into the Great Plains [45]. Herlugson [28]
suggested that in this century, mountain bluebird has replaced western
bluebird as the predominant bluebird in the Northwest. Changes in
relative abundance of mountain bluebird and western bluebird in areas of
sympatry are probably caused by changes in the openness of the
landscape. Grazing reduces herb density and may benefit mountain
bluebird at the expense of western bluebird. Mountain bluebird probably
benefits more from logging than either eastern or western bluebird [45].
In Arizona Szaro [58] recorded the replacement of western bluebird by
mountain bluebird following clearcutting in ponderosa pine forests.
Sharp [54] indicated that mountain bluebird populations increased in
juniper woodlands in Oregon between 1899 and 1983. Johnson [34]
reported an increasing trend for mountain bluebird in Nevada between
1939 and 1973. DeSante and George [16], however, listed mountain
bluebirds as decreasing in Alberta and Nevada in the last 100 years. In
northern Idaho populations of secondary cavity nesters including
mountain bluebird have been declining since the early 1970's as
suitable breeding areas are lost to agricultural expansion [67]. Hejl
[26] hypothesized that species associated with burns and/or snags, such
as mountain bluebird, are less abundant than they were 100 years ago;
nest site availability is a limiting factor in mountain bluebird
productivity [29].
Nest-site Competition: Interspecific competition for nest cavities has
probably contributed to the decline of some mountain bluebird
populations in this century. Primary competitors include northern
flicker (Cloaptes auratus), swallows, and, since their introduction from
Europe, house sparrows and European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris)
[18,29]. Competition with European starlings for nest sites has
probably contributed to mountain bluebird population decline in Utah
[25]. Nest boxes in south-central Washington are used by other species
including violet-green swallows (Tachycinera thalassina), deer mice, and
yellow-pine chipmunks (Tamias amoenus) [29]. Other nest-site
competitors include eastern and western bluebirds in areas of sympatry,
particularly in the Great Plains grasslands where eastern and mountain
bluebirds have expanded their ranges [45].
Management Recommendations: Mountain bluebirds prefer open habitats;
throughout their range they are always more abundant in recent clearcuts
than in uncut forest [27]. In northern Utah mountain bluebirds were
visitors on quaking aspen study sites prior to timber harvest but
returned as breeders to clearcut areas. Apparently, clearcutting small
patches provides more open habitat adjacent to uncut forest; this
improves foraging habitat for mountain bluebirds while retaining
sufficient numbers of cavities for nesting [15]. Also in Utah mountain
bluebirds were only observed in a 17-year-old clearcut that had been
bulldozed and broadcast burned after harvest. At the time of the census
the stand consisted of lodgepole pine about 6 to 15 feet (1.8-4.6 m)
tall with a moderately dense, forb-dominated ground cover. Mountain
bluebirds were not observed in a 37-year-old clearcut, mature forest,
stagnated forest, wet meadow, or dry meadow [5]. An unpublished report
described by Astroth and Frischknecht [3] indicated that mountain
bluebirds declined immediately after removal of pinyon (Pinus
spp.)-juniper woodlands (for range improvement) but returned to
pretreatment levels in 1 year. Szaro and Balda [59] suggested that for
northern Arizona ponderosa pine communities, removal of one-sixth to
two-thirds of available foliage either in strips or by thinning is not
detrimental to breeding bird communities in terms of species richness,
density, or diversity. The species present in disturbed communities
are, however, different from those of undisturbed communities.
Any management plan should consider the importance of snags for wildlife
[39]. Hutto [32] emphasized the importance of snags for cavity nesters.
It is generally recommended that all natural snags be left during timber
harvest operations unless they pose immediate safety hazards [32,45,52].
Mature and decadent living trees should be left as well to provide snags
in the future [45]. Salvage cutting of burned forest is detrimental to
cavity nesting species, particularly woodpeckers and secondary cavity
nesters such as mountain bluebirds [32]. McClelland and others [40]
recommend leaving old-growth components within harvested areas. For
example for every 1,000 acres (405 ha) management unit, they recommended
leaving 50 to 100 acres (20-40.5 ha) uncut (old growth) for wildlife
feeding areas; on the remaining acreage logs, snags, and cull trees
should be left. Firewood cutting should be limited to snags less than
15 inches (38 cm) d.b.h. [40].
Nest Box Programs: Nest boxes resulted in a substantial increase in
breeding mountain bluebird densities in northern Idaho study plots [67].
In south-central Washington nest box placements have also resulted in
breeding density increases. Nest box fidelity is fairly high,
particularly among successful breeders (68.2%). Unsuccessful breeders
(5 individuals in this study) had a lower rate of nest box fidelity:
two used the same box, one changed territory but not box type, and two
changed territory and box type [30]. Nest boxes for mountain bluebirds
in southwestern ponderosa pine forests should be placed along forest
edges or in grassy glades within open forests. Mountain bluebirds use
large nest boxes with 3-inch (7.6 cm) holes if no other sites are
available [21].
REFERENCES :
NO-ENTRY