SHORT COMMUNICATIONS 
827 
Marsh Wrens and Yellow-headed Blackbirds spatially 
segregated? Auk 103:135-140. 
Lombardi. C. M. and S. H. Hurlbert. 2009. Misprescrip- 
Uon and misuse of one-tailed tests. Austral Ecology 
34:447-468. 
Montgomerie, R. D. and P. J. Weatherhead. 1988. Risks 
and rewards of nest defense by parent birds. Quarterly 
Review of Biology 63:167-187. 
PtCMAN, J. 1977. Destruction of eggs by the Long-billed 
Marsh Wren (Telmatodytes palusrri.i palustris). Cana¬ 
dian Journal of Zoology 55:1914-1920. 
Picman. J. and A. Isabelle. 1995. Sources of nesting 
mortality and correlates of nesting success in Yellow¬ 
headed Blackbirds. Auk 112:183-191. 
Pribil, S. and J. Picman. 1991. Why house wrens destroy 
clutches of other birds: a support for the nest site 
competition hypothesis. Condor 93:184-185. 
Quinn, M. S. and G. L. HolroYD, 1989. Nestling and egg 
destruction by House Wrens. Condor 91:206-207. 
Sealy. S. G, d. l. Neudorp. K. A. Hobson, .and S. A. 
Gill. 1998. Nest defense by potential hosts of 
the Brown-headed Cowbird: methodological ap¬ 
proaches, benefits of defense, and coevolution. Pages 
194-211 in Parasitic birds and their hosts: studies in 
coevolution (S. I Rothslein and S. K. Robinson, 
Editors). Oxford University Press. Oxford, United 
Kingdom. 
White. D. W. and E. D. Kennedy. 1997. Effect of egg 
covering and habitat on nest destruction by House 
Wrens. Condor 99:873-879. 
The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 123(4):827-830, 2011 
Artificial Nest Cavity Used Successfully by Native Species and Avoided by 
European Starlings 
Laura A. Tyson, 12 Bradley F. Blackwell , 1 and Thomas W. Seamans' 
ABSTRACT.—We describe a weather-durable cavity 
design used successfully by cavity-nesting species 
native to the eastern USA and, although accessible, 
avoided by European Starlings {Stumps vulgaris). The 
artificial nest cavity was constructed using 9.5-em 
inside diameter polyvinyl chloride tubes cut to 27.5-em 
lengths. The lubes were mounted horizontal I y with 5.1- 
1-111 entry holes drilled through one of the capped ends. 
Eastern Bluebirds ('Siulia siulis). House Wrens {Trog- 
lodytes aedon), and Tree Swallows (Tachycineta 
hicolor) nested in 49 of 100. newly mounted tubes on 
utility poles in north-central Ohio. USA from April 
through June 2009. These species nested in 85% of the 
lubes during the same period in 2010 and fledged young 
from 94.1% of nests. We added 10 nest tubes (27.5-cm 
lung x 17-cm inside diam) at sites similar lo the smaller 
tubes in 2010. Two of the larger tubes were used by 
testing starlings and six by native species. Cavity 
'«nical depth has been shown to be an important feature 
in Marling nest site selection, but our data from the 
larger tubes indicate that other factors are likely 
important. The smaller design could offer nesting 
opportunities for a range of native cavity-nesting 
species while limiting use by starlings. Received 3 
January 2011. Accepted 20 May 2011. 
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service. Wildlife Services, National 
Wildlife Research Center, Ohio Field Station, 6100 
Columbus Avenue, Sandusky. OH 44870. USA. 
'Corresponding author; e-mail: 
laura.a.tyson@aphis.usda.gov 
Providing artificial nest cavities to increase 
abundance of secondary cavity-nesting species is 
viewed as an effective tool (HamersLrom et al. 1973, 
Newton 1994, Smith et al. 2005. Catry et al. 2009), 
although questions remain as to effects on avian 
community structure (Van Balen et al. 1982, Purcell 
et al. 1997. Miller 2002. Mtind et al. 2005). A variety 
of studies (Kalmbach and Gabrielson 1921, Brush 
1983, Kerpez ancl Smith 1990, Cabe 1993) have 
concluded nest competition exists between native 
cavity-nesting species and European Starlings (Stur- 
nus vulgaris; hereafter starling), but the resulting 
effects on populations are unclear (Koenig 2003). 
Use of artificial nest cavities by secondary 
cavity-nesting birds can have conservation im¬ 
plications, and placement ol nest structures is 
both popular and educational from the public 
perspective (Cornell Laboratory ot Ornithology, 
Ithaca. NY, USA: http://www.allaboutbirds.org/ 
NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=l 139). Thus, artifi¬ 
cial cavity designs should consider not only 
requirements of the target species (Gehlbach 1994), 
but also should minimize competitive interactions 
between native and invasive cavity nesters. 
Our original experiment was designed to 
investigate a potential starling eavily repellent. 
We discovered avoidance by starlings of our 
artificial cavities prior to implementing treatments 
