ArticleOecologia2021
Use of anthropogenic-related nest material and nest parasite prevalence have increased over the past two centuries in Australian birds.
Article in Oecologia, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Why do some bird species incorporate more anthropogenic materials into their nests than others?Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Pooled it
- Tracing Human Footprint in Bird Nests: Plastic Occurrence and Drivers in the Long-Legged Buzzard (Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- The Neophobia Hypothesis: nest decoration in birds may reduce predation by corvids.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Differential use of nest materials and niche space among avian species within a single ecological community.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- The role of cognition in nesting.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Review
- Bird nest building: visions for the future.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Review
- The evolutionary ecology of nests: a cross-taxon approach.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Global plastic production has increased exponentially since the 1940s, resulting in the increased presence of anthropogenic debris in the environment. Recent studies have shown that birds incorporate anthropogenic debris into their nests, which can reduce nest ectoparasite loads. However, we know little about the long-term history of interactions among birds, anthropogenic debris, and ectoparasites. Our study took a unique approach to address this issue by determining the prevalence of anthropogenic debris and ectoparasitic nest flies (Protocalliphora and Passeromyia spp.) in 893 bird nests from 224 species between 1832 and 2018, which were sourced from Australian museum collections. The prevalence of anthropogenic material increased from approximately 4% in 1832 to almost 30% in 2018. This change was driven by an increase in the incorporation of synthetic rather than biodegradable anthropogenic debris (by 2018 ~ 25% of all nests contained synthetics), with the first synthetic item being found in a nest from 1956 in the city of Melbourne. Nest parasite prevalence increased over time but contrary to other studies, there was no relationship between habitat type or anthropogenic material and parasite presence. Our study is the first to use museum specimens to quantify temporal and spatial impacts of anthropogenic material on birds, the results of which justifies contemporary concerns regarding the ubiquitous nature of human impacts on terrestrial wildlife.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34236465What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.