This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
Nest Boxes as a Coppery-Tailed Trogon
M•nagtment Tool 1
Wendy A. Hakes
2
Abstract.--Thirty nest boxes designed for Copperytailed Trogons (Trogon elegans) were observed in the
Huachuca Mountains of southeastern Arizona from 1979-82. No
trogons used them, but 7 vertebrates did. This study indicates nest boxes may not be an important management tool for
trogons, but may be useful for other North American holenesters.
INTRODUCTION
used as a management tool to increase the population of Coppery-tailed Trogons in Ramsey and
Sunnyside Canyons in the Huachuca Mountains. A
secondary objective was to gain additional information about the effects of competition, predation,
and human disturbance on trogon nesting success.
The Coppery-tailed Trogon, a cavity-nesting
bird, breeds in southeastern Arizona and Mexico.
Approximately 100 trogons arrive in Arizona each
April to occupy the pine-oak woodlands adjacent
to the riparian habitats of the Chiricahua,
Huachuca, Santa Rita, and Atascosa Mountains
(Taylor 1980).
I gratefully acknowledge the help given by
the following people: J. Anderson for initiating
this study; S. Crabtree, S. Peckham, and Boy
Scout Troop 700 for building boxes; R. Taylor for
his suggestions; the staff of the Ramsey Canyon
Preserve, the Arizona Nature Conservancy, and
United States Forest Service for their cooperation
and assistance; bird-watChers and students for
their field observations; J. Anderson, J. Dunning,
J. Hardison, P. Krausman, S. Mills, and R. Taylor
for identifying box contents; and D. Fuller,
T. Huels, W. Mannan, and W. Shaw for editing
suggestions.
The human interest in Coppery-tailed Trogons
is great--approximately 25,000 bird-watchers visit
Arizona each year to see trogons and other birds
unique to southeastern Arizona (Taylor 1980). The
trogon population in Cave Creek Canyon of the
Chiricahua Mountains is the most accessible and
the most frequently visited by birders. Trogons,
apparently, will not re-nest during a season if
their eggs are destroyed.3 Concern about harrassment of the birds and resulting nest failures
prompted the U.S. Forest Service to prohibit the
use of tape recorders to attract wildlife in Cave
Creek Canyon since this disturbs breeding trogons.
METHODS
Nest boxes have been used as a management
tool for many North American vertebrates where
there is believed to be a deficiency of natural
cavities (Schemnitz 1980). Providing artificial
nest structures resulted in an increase in breeding density of several species (Strange, et al.
1971; Hamerstrom, et al. 1973). This study was
undertaken to determine if nest boxes could be
Thirty nest boxes were built to conform to
the average dimensions of known trogon nests
(table 1, fig. 1).3 Three-quarter inch pine and
fir were used to provide adequate insulation
(Kibler 1969). A traditional square and an
octagonal design were used. The 8-sided shape
made the boxes more tree-like in appearance. The
outside surfaces were painted with a brown nontoxic paint to decrease the conspicuousness of
the nest boxes. They were lined with an inch of
dry grass and leaves and this lining was changed
each season.
1Paper presented at the snag habitat management symposium. [Northern Arizona University,
Flagstaff, June 7-9, 1983].
Twelve boxes were erected in Ramsey Canyon fn
1979 at junctions of the main canyon with side
canyons. Previous studies indicated that these
locations are attractive nest sites for trogons.3
The remaining 18 boxes were erected in 1980 and
had smaller entrance holes to limit access to
predators (table 1). The 30 boxes were placed at
heights ranging from 14-26 feet. Predator deterrents were put on 4 boxes after evidence of use
lwendy A. Hakes is a senior in Wildlife
Ecology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz.
3Taylor, R. C. 1978. Preliminary report:
the distribution, population and breeding biology
of the coppery-tailed trogon in Arizona. Unpublished report.
147
Table 1.--Dimensions of Coppery-tailed Trogon
nest boxes.
Box
Dimension
Measurement
-(inches)--
1-30
1-30
1-30
1-12
13-22
23-30
depth
interior
exterior
entrance hole
entrance hole
entrance hole
16.0
5.5-6.0
6.3-6.8
3.5
2.5
2.4
by Ringtails (Bassariscus astutus) increase,l
(fig. 2). The boxes were checked every 2-3 weeks
from early April to mid-August and the contents
were examined after the young trogons in natural
cavities had fledged. In 1982, questionnaires
were given to bird-watchers at the Ramsey Canyon
Preserve to supplement these observations.
Birders were asked to provide information such as
the activity, location, sex, and age of trogons in
Ramsey and Sunnyside Canyons.
Figure 2.--Predator deterrent.
Use of Boxes by Other Animals
Although apparently not attractive to trogons,
the boxes were used by several other birds:
Flammulated Owls (Otus flammeolus), Whiskered
Screech-Owls (Q. triChopsis), Ash-throated Flycatchers (Myiarchus cinerascens), and Eastern
Bluebirds (Sialia sialis) nested in the boxes
(table 2). In 1982, Northern Flickers (Colaptes
auratus) used 2 boxes as dump sites to lay extra
eggs in.
No Coppery-tailed Trogons nested in the boxes
during the 4-year study, although 1 male did
investigate a box in Ramsey Canyon.4 The populations in both canyons fluctuat~d slightly between
years but did not increase. Ramsey Canyon had an
average of 2 males and 1 female, and Sunnyside
Canyon's population averaged 5 males and 3
females.5
The most frequent mammalian use of the nest
boxes was roosting by Ringtails. Arizona Gray
Squirrels (Sciurus arizonensis) also nested in at
least 1 box.
DISCUSSION
-- removable lid
Numerous variables co~ld explain why Copperytailed Trogons did not use the nest boxes. These
factors include statistical chance, population
dynamics, entrance hole size, location within
territories, competition, predation, human disturbance, nest tree status, physical attributes of
location, height, and an abundance of natural nest
sites.
--+--
~
inch hardware cloth
The lack of use by trogons possibly is due to
statistical chance. Compared with the number of
natural nest cavities, the number of nest boxes. is
very small and the lack of use by the few nesting
trogons simply may be due to chance. The population dynamics of Coppery-tailed Trogons in the
United States may also be a contributing factor to
the lack of use of the boxes. The Arizona population of trogons is small and is at the edge of its
range. As such, this population may already be
reproducing at its maximum potential. This idea
appears to be supported by the presence of unmated
males every year in all 4 mountain ranges.
identification number
Figure 1.--Coppery-tailed trogon nest box.
The small entrance holes (2.4 and 2.5 inches)
of 18 of the boxes may have discouraged use by
trogons. These holes were at the low end of the
range of hole sizes Taylor recorded for 38
natural nests. Only 2 nests have been recorded in
the United States with holes under 3 inches in
diameter.5
4
Rule, Virgil. 1982. Personal conversation.
The Arizona Nature Conservancy, Tucson, Ariz.
5
Taylor, R. C. 1982. The coppery-tailed
trogon in Arizona, 1962. Unpublished report.
148
Table 2.--Use of Coppery-tailed Trogon nest boxes in Ramsey and Sunnyside
Canyons, 1979-82.
Species
1979
1980
1981
1982
Total 1
Coppery-tailed Trogon
Flammulated Owl2
Whiskered Screech Owl2
Northern Flicker
Ash-throated Flycatcher2
Eastern Bluebird2
Ringtai13
Arizona Gray Squirrel2
Invertebrates
Investigated/roosted
Total
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
10
16
24
0
0
0
0
1
1
5
2
14
8
23
0
0
0
2
1
0
4
1
13
9
25
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
6
1
8
1
2
1
1
8
2
23
20
28
1Number of boxes used in 4 years.
2Boxes used for nesting.
3Boxes used for roosting.
In Sunnyside Canyon, most of the boxes were
placed in areas occupied by trogons. Successfully
breeding trogons keep other trogons out of their
territories and often re-use previously used nest
cavities. Consequently, other trogons may not
have had a chance to investigate the nest boxes
and the territorial pair continued using an old
site. The logical solution would be place the
boxes outside of trogon territories, but in Sunnyside Canyon, all suitable habitat appears to be
occupied.
cavities and, consequently, there is no reason to
assume it affected their potential use of the nest
boxes.
As secondary cavity-nesters, Coppery-tailed
Trogons use existing cavities instead of excavating
their own nests. Most natural nests are found in
dead and dying trees5, because it is easier for
woodpeckers, the original excavators, to drill in
the softer wood (Kilham 1971; Conner, et al. 1976)
that is a result of aging. I do not believe,
however, that the placement of the nest boxes in
live trees discouraged trogon use.
Competition between Coppery-tailed Trogons
and other species for nesting cavities may have
contributed to the lack of nest box use by trogons.
Steele (1966) recorded a pair of trogons preempting a Northern Flicker pair from a cavity with
2 entrances. In 1982, I watched a male trogon
drive a Sulphur-bellied Flycatcher (Myiodynastes
luteiventris) from a cavity where the female
trogon was incubating. Similar interactions
between this cavity-nesting flycatcher and trogons
have been observed in southeastern Arizona.3 A
Whiskered Screech Owl was found roosting in a
cavity previously used as a nest site by trogons
and this species also roosted in the nest boxes.
The other species that used the boxes also represent potential competitors for nest or roost sites,
and, in some instances, the competitor may also be
a predator. Heavy use of the nest boxes by Ringtails may present a threat to the trogons.
However, I have no first-hand evidence of predation on Coppery-tailed Trogons.
The physical attributes of the locations of
the boxes does not seem to have been an important
factor in the lack of use by trogons. All of the
nest boxes were situated in habitat that was similar to that in which trogons nest and therefore
presumably were suitable locations. The nest
boxes were placed within the know range of heights
for natural nests and consequently this should not
have discouraged use.
A final point that should be stressed is the
possibility that the availability of natural
cavities is not a limiting factor in Arizona
Coppery-tailed Trogon populations. The possibility
also exists that the trogons find artificial nest
cavities unsuitable for reasons we have not yet
identified.
CONCLUSIONS
Bent (1960), Steele (1966), and Taylor6
recorded nest failures due to human disturbances,
such as nest photography, harrassment, and shooting. Both Ramsey and Sunnyside Canyons are
heavily used areas for multiple purposes. However,
in this study, there was no evidence of human
activities influencing trogon use of natural
Coppery-tailed Trogons did not use any of 30
available nest boxes in 4 years. However, 5 bird
species, 2 mammal species, and numerous invertebrates did use them. Nest boxes do not appear to
have much potential as an important management
tool for Coppery-tailed Trogons in the United States.
Protection of trogon habitat no doubt is the most
important management strategy (Pratt 1979).
6Taylor, R. C. 1981. The coppery-tailed
trogon in Arizona, 1981. Unpublished report.
149
Kilham, L. 1971. Reproductive behavior of yellowbellied saps uckers. I. Preference for nesting
in Fames-infected aspens and nest hole interrelations with flying squirrel s, raccoons, and
other animal s . The \Vilson Bulletin 83: 159171.
LITERATURE CITED
Bent, A. C. 1964. Life historie s of North American cuckoos, goatsuckers, hummingbirds, and
their allies. 244 p. Dover Publications,
Inc., New York, NY .
Pratt, J. 1979. Exploiting the trogon.
Wildlife Views 22: 11.
Conner, R. N., 0. K. Miller, Jr., and C. S.
Adkisson . 1976. Woodpecker dependence on
trees infected by fungal heart rot. The
Wilson Bulletin 88: 575-581 .
Arizona
Schemnitz, S.D., ed. 1980. Wildlife management
techniques manual. 686 p. The Wildlife
Society, Washington, D. C.
Hamerstrom, F. 1 F. N. Hamerstrom , and J. Hart.
197 3. Nest boxes: an effective management
tool for kestrels . Journal of Wildlife
Management 37: 400-403.
St eele, E. 1966. Arizona 's mystery bi rd.
68: 167-170.
Kibler, L. F. 1969 . The establishment and
maintenance of a bluebi rd nest-box project:
a review and commentary. Bird-Banding 40:
114-129 .
Strange, T. H. , E. R. Cunningham, and .T. W. Goertz .
1971. Use of nest boxes by wood ducks in
Mississippi . Journal of Wildlife Management
35: 786-793.
Audubon
Taylor, C. 1980. The coppery-tail ed trogon:
Arizona's "bird of paradise." 48 p. Borderland Productions, Portal, Ariz.
150