1 We compiled a sample of 370 pine marten dens to test the hypothesis that a scarcity of sites leads to the use of suboptimal structures. 2 The sample was influenced by detection methods. Radio-tracking revealed cryptic dens but few natal dens; chance encounters revealed dens in buildings and other man-made structures. A total of 82.8% of natal dens were detected by chance encounters. 3 Most dens were associated with trees (44.3%), rocks (27.6%) and buildings (13.8%). The natal den subsample comprised buildings (44.3%), trees (22.8%), other man-made structures (17.1%) and rocks (14.3%). A total of 69.6% of dens were elevated and typically in structures offering limited shelter. Only 9.8% of all dens were in elevated tree cavities. 4 This diversity of dens reflects a scarcity of arboreal cavities. The alternative structures are suboptimal in terms of energetic costs and risks of predation, and this may limit breeding success in some populations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Birks et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: