Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
JASBB Baner text

No. ONLINE FIRST

Articles

Role of corvids and foxes in predation on artificial nests of the common pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) in urban and agricultural environments

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24326/jasbb.2026.5625
Submitted: October 17, 2025
Published: 22.07.2026

Abstract

Given the numerous factors negatively affecting small game populations, including ground-nesting birds, it is im-portant to assess the potential impact of individual predators on the breeding success of these species. The study aimed to determine the predation pressure of corvids (Corvidae) and the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) on artificial nests of the common pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) in urban and agricultural areas using artificial nest experiments. The study was conducted in urban and agrarian areas from 2024 to 2025. A total of 60 artificial nests were analysed. The nests were located in typical pheasant breeding habitats, such as urban thickets, allotment gardens, field mar-gins, fallow lands, and mid-field woodlots. In urban areas, the main predator responsible for nest destruction was the Eurasian magpie (Pica pica), accounting for 72% of destroyed nests. In agricultural landscapes, most nest dam-age was caused by the red fox (Vulpes vulpes), responsible for 66% of cases. The differences in the composition of predator groups between habitats indicate that landscape structure and the degree of human transformation de-termine both the composition and intensity of predation pressure, and consequently, the level of risk to pheasant nesting success.

References

  1. Baker P., Furlong M., Southern S. et al., 2006. The potential impact of red fox Vulpes vulpes predation in agricultural land-scapes in lowland Britain. Wildl. Biol. 12(1), 39–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2981/0909-6396(2006)12[39:TPIORF]2.0.CO;2
  2. Bazewicz K., Czyżowski P., 2019. Wpływ lokalizacji stanowiska lęgowego na potencjalny sukces reprodukcyjny bażantów. J. Anim. Sci. Biol. Bioecon. 37(2), 21–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.24326/jasbb.2019.2.3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24326/jasbb.2019.2.3
  3. Benmazouz I., Jokimäki J., Lengyel S. et al., 2021. Corvids in urban environments: a systematic global literature review. Animals 11(11), 3226. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11113226 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11113226
  4. Burke D.M., Elliott K.E.N., Moore L. et al., 2004. Patterns of nest predation on artificial and natural nests in forests. Conserv. Biol. 18(2), 381–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00014.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00014.x
  5. Capstick L.A., Sage R.B., Madden J.R., 2019. Predation of artificial nests in UK farmland by magpies (Pica pica): interacting environmental, temporal, and social factors influence a nest’s risk. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 65(3), 50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-019-1290-6
  6. Czyżowski P., Karpiński M., Drozd L., 2006. Porównanie presji drapieżników na lęgi bażantów na terenie miejskim i terenie rolniczym. Ann. UMCS, sec. EE Zootechnica 24, 429–435.
  7. Czyżowski P., Nawłatyna P., Beeger S. et al., 2025. Long term assessment of predator pressure on artificial nests of com-mon pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) in urban and agricultural areas of Lublin (Poland). Ecol. Evol. 15(10), e72336. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.72336 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.72336
  8. Czyżowski P., Tajchman K., Drozd L. et al., 2017. Rola gospodarki łowieckiej w kształtowaniu bioróżnorodności. Wiad. Zoo-tech. 55(5), 198–202.
  9. Ditchkoff S.S., Saalfeld S.T., Gibson C.J., 2006. Animal behavior in urban ecosystems: modifications due to human induced stress. Urban Ecosyst. 9, 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-006-3262-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-006-3262-3
  10. Draycott R.A., Hoodless A.N., Woodburn M.I. et al., 2008. Nest predation of common pheasants Phasianus colchicus. Ibis (Supl. 1) 150, 37–44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2008.00851.x
  11. Dupak V.S., Telizhenko V.S., 2023. Interactions between hooded crows (Corvus cornix) and Eurasian magpies (Pica pica) and their nesting site preferences in anthropogenic landscapes. Écoscience 30(3–4), 210–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/11956860.2023.2300758 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/11956860.2023.2300758
  12. Flis M., Rataj B., 2019. Drapieżnictwo psów i kotów na zwierzętach łownych. Stud. Mat. CEPL Rogowie 21(59/2), 122–123.
  13. Palencia P., Barroso P., 2024. Disentangling ground nest predation rates through an artificial nests experiment in an area with western capercaillie presence: martens are the key. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-024-01837 9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-024-01837-9
  14. Jokimäki J., Kaisanlahti-Jokimäki M.L., 2025. Nest predation pressure differs between urban ground-and hole-nesting birds: evidence from a multi-year artificial nest predation experiment. Birds 6(2), 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/birds6020022 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/birds6020022
  15. Kamieniarz R., 2022. Podstawy łowiectwa. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Przyrodniczego w Poznaniu, Poznań.
  16. Krüger H., Väänänen V.M., Holopainen S. et al., 2018. The new faces of nest predation in agricultural landscapes – a wildlife camera survey with artificial nests. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 64(6), 76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-018-1233-7
  17. Kurucz K., Purger J.J., Batary P., 2021. Urbanization shapes bird communities and nest survival, but not their food quantity. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 26, e01475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01475 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01475
  18. Luniak M., 2004. Synurbization – adaptation of animal wildlife to urban development. Proceedings of the 4th Urban Wild-life Symposium, University of Arizona, Tucson, 50–55.
  19. Ma L., Wen X., Liu Y. et al., 2025. Spatio temporal differentiation and potential homogenization of pheasant communities by human disturbance. Available: http://ssrn.com/abstract=5599493 [date of access: 17.10.2025]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5599493
  20. Major R.E., Kendal C.E., 1996. The contribution of artificial nest experiments to understanding avian reproductive success: a review of methods and conclusions. Ibis 138(2), 298–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.1996.tb04342.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.1996.tb04342.x
  21. Matysioková B., Remeš V., 2024. Nest predation decreases with increasing nest height in forest songbirds: a comparative study. J. Ornithol. 165(1), 257–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-023-02108-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-023-02108-1
  22. Morozov N.S., 2022. The role of predators in shaping urban bird populations: 2. Is predation pressure increased or de-creased in urban landscapes? Biol. Bull. 49(8), 1081–1104. https://doi.org/10.1134/S106235902208012X DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S106235902208012X
  23. Pass E., Lodjak J., Mägi M. et al., 2019. Complex habitat patterns create unpredictable nest predation risk – an artificial nest experiment. Ornis Fenn. 96(4), 182–193. https://doi.org/10.51812/of.133959 DOI: https://doi.org/10.51812/of.133959
  24. Ponce C., Salgado I., Bravo C. et al., 2018. Effects of farming practices on nesting success of steppe birds in dry cereal farm-land. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 64, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-018-1167-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-018-1167-0
  25. Sage R.B., Aebischer N.J., 2017. Does best practice crow Corvus corone and magpie Pica pica control on UK farmland im-prove nest success in hedgerow nesting songbirds? A field experiment. Wild. Biol. 1, wlb.00375, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00375 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00375
  26. Šálek M., Kreisinger J., Sedláček F. et al., 2010. Do prey densities determine preferences of mammalian predators for habi-tat edges in an agricultural landscape? Landsc. Urban Plann. 98(2), 86–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.07.013 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.07.013
  27. Storch I., Woitke E., Krieger S., 2005. Landscape scale edge effect in predation risk in forest–farmland mosaics of central Europe. Landsc. Ecol. 20, 927–940. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-005-7005-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-005-7005-2

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.