Next Article in Journal
Soil Fungal Activity and Microbial Response to Wildfire in a Dry Tropical Forest of Northern Colombia
Previous Article in Journal
Retractile Polyps of Soft Coral Gersemia rubiformis (Octocorallia: Alcyoniidae) Offer Protection to Developing Basket Stars (Gorgonocephalus sp.)
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Genus Tegonotus Nalepa (Acariformes: Eriophyidae: Phyllocoptinae): Description of a New Species and Key to Valid Species
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 17
Issue 8
10.3390/d17080544
diversity-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Remarkable Stability of Uropodina (Acari: Mesostigmata) Communities in Artificial Microhabitats: A Case Study of Bird Nest Boxes in Bory Tucholskie National Park

by
Marta Kulczak
1,
Jacek Wendzonka
1,
Karolina Lubińska
2,
Agnieszka Napierała
3,* and
Jerzy Błoszyk
3
1
Natural History Collections, Faculty of Biology, Adam Mickiewicz University, Uniwersytetu Poznańskiego 6, 61-614 Poznań, Poland
2
Bory Tucholskie National Park, 89-606 Charzykowy, Poland
3
Department of General Zoology, Faculty of Biology, Adam Mickiewicz University, Uniwersytetu Poznańskiego 6, 61-614 Poznań, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2025, 17(8), 544; https://doi.org/10.3390/d17080544 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 12 June 2025 / Revised: 28 July 2025 / Accepted: 28 July 2025 / Published: 1 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Diversity, Ecology, and Conservation of Mites)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

The presence of nest boxes not only increases the reproductive success of many passerine birds in transformed forest habitats, but they also constitute important artificial microhabitats for many groups of invertebrates. One of such groups which have been often found in this microhabitat is saprophagous mites from the suborder Uropodina (Acari: Mesostigmata). The current study was conducted in October 2023 and 2024 in Bory Tucholskie National Park (BTNP) (northern Poland), where material from 137 tit (Paridae) and nuthatch (Sitta europaea) nest boxes was collected. The aim of this study was to analyse the stability of the communities of Uropodina in nest boxes in the park in two seasons and to determine whether the mite community structure within these nest boxes is similar in each year. The second aim was to analyse the abundance of Uropodina in relation to the composition of the nest box bedding material. This study revealed that the community in the scrutinised nest boxes was formed in both seasons by two species of nidicolous Uropodina species, i.e., Leiodinychus orbicularis (C.L. Koch, 1839) and Chiropturopoda nidiphila (Wiśniewski and Hirschmann, 1993), and that the species composition and the community structure were also very similar in both years. This study revealed that Ch. nidiphila dominated in the nest boxes with moss and grass, whereas L. orbicularis was most abundant in the boxes where the bedding was a mixture of mammalian hair and grass. However, no statistically significant differences in the abundance of these two mite species in both cases were revealed.

1. Introduction

Many passerine birds, such as tits (Paridae) and nuthatches (Sitta europaea), prefer natural cavities in deciduous or mixed forests as nesting sites [1]. However, forest policies in Europe have resulted in the transformation of natural tree stands into areas dominated by monocultures of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris), and removal of older trees or decaying wood from such forests [2]. These practices force birds to choose sub-optimal habitats such as nest boxes (birdhouses). The use of nest boxes is a very common form of active nature conservation aimed to increase the availability of shelter for birds that naturally nest in tree hollows, which is particularly important in commercial forests [3]. Mänd et al. [4] showed that the provision of nest boxes in both deciduous and coniferous habitats increased the abundance of great tits (Parus major) by a similar number of additional pairs.
Properly constructed nests, including those in nest boxes, can determine birds’ reproductive success [2]. The different combinations of nesting materials used by birds are the result of a long evolutionary process, as it has an impact on reducing the negative effect of external factors on the offspring. The materials used for nest construction are usually elements of plants, e.g., moss, leaves, and plant roots, or of animal origin such as feathers, fur, hair, and other remains left in the nest of the host, e.g., faeces, food scraps, eggshells, etc. [5]. They can be divided into structural, which provide the overall shape and support of the nest, and cushioning materials, which create a suitable microclimate and protect the clutch [5,6]. Their use allows birds to build a structure that provides optimal strength of the nest, as well as temperature and humidity inside of it [7]. The appropriate type of material prevents from becoming wet and adjusts heat loss inside the nest [8,9]. It is thought that the type of materials used for nest construction reflects the need for thermal insulation and may therefore vary between environments [10].
The collected nesting material and organic residues left by the birds in the examined nest boxes provide habitats for many groups of invertebrates, including Arachnida, Isopoda, Gastropoda, Myriapoda, and numerous Insecta (especially species of Coleoptera, Diptera, Siphonaptera, Hemiptera, Hymenoptera and Lepidoptera) [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21]. Mites (Acari), which belong to the arachnids, are abundant and diverse in the nest boxes, both in terms of systematic and trophic groups. Predatory or parasitic mites of the order Mesostigmta or predatory Cheyletidae of the order Prostigmata also have been found in them [22,23,24,25,26]. Solarz et al. [27] enumerated a large number of Acaridae in nests inside birdhouses. Due to the fact that nest boxes may contain different types and a huge amount of organic matter [5], they also attract saprophagous mites [28]. Among the saprophagous Mesostigmata, there are a lot of species of the suborder Uropodina, which have been found in different types of bird nests and nest boxes of various bird species [15,22,23,25,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37]. In these types of habitats, there is a group of Uropodina species which are eurytopic and occur in different types of habitats, such as soil, litter, dead wood, but there are also specific nidicolous which prefer only bird and mammal nests [29]. These species are Apionoseius infirmus (Berlese, 1887), Nenteria pandioni (Wiśniewski and Hirschmann, 1985), Nenteria floralis (Karg, 1986) and two nidicolous species which have been found in nest boxes inhabited by birds and mammals, e.g., Leiodinychus orbicularis (C.L. Koch, 1839) and Chiropturopoda nidiphila Wisniewski & Hirschmann, 1993 [29,31,32,38]. The most frequent way of colonisation of nests and other types of microhabitats by Uropodina is probably phoresy [29]; however, these mechanisms are still insufficiently understood [32]. The structure of Uropodina communities in nests of birds depends on different factors, including the biology and ecology of the host species, duration of the nest existence and its location [29]. For example, a recent study has revealed the lack of typical nidicoles in the studied communities of Uropodina in nests of wood warbler (Phylloscopus sibilatrix (Bechstein, 1793)). This passerine species builds its nests on the ground [39], and this is why the community structure of Uropodina in its nests is much more similar to those found in the soil or nests of the common mole than to those recorded in other nests of birds [37].
In 2024, the first study on the communities of mites of the suborder Uropodina inhabiting bird nest boxes in the area Bory Tucholskie National Park (BTNP) was published [32]. Owing to the collaboration with the staff of BTNP, this study could be continued and the nesting material from the cleaned bird boxes was obtained again in autumn 2024. This allowed for another comparison between the current structure of the Uropodina communities with the samples obtained in 2023 [32]. In this study, we have analysed the stability of the communities of mites of the suborder Uropodina in nest boxes in BTNP. The aim of this study was to determine whether the mite community structure within the examined nest boxes was similar in the next season and to analyse the abundance of mites in relation to the bedding material of the nest boxes. We assumed that the nest box bedding restored by the birds provides similar conditions for the mites living there each season, and that the renewing Uropodina community inhabiting nest boxes in BTNP each year will be characterised by similar species composition and abundance each year.

2. Material and Methods

The study material was collected during the annual nest-box-cleaning campaign from sawdust–concrete nest boxes hung in 2018 in the area of BTNP. The examined nest boxes were mainly occupied by tits (96% of all boxes) and less frequently by the wood nuthatch (Sitta europaea) in both the first and second years of this study. In many cases, bat guano was also found in these boxes (Figure 1). In 2023, the study material was collected from 77 tit (Paridae) and nuthatch (Sitta europaea) nest boxes, collected on the 17–18th October, and in 2024, the material was collected from 60 boxes, collected on the 28th October. In 2024, the composition of the material (such as moss, grass, mammalian hair, pine needles and dry leaves) in the box bedding material was also analysed.
The collected nest material was placed in plastic string bags and transported to Poznań, where it was extracted for five to seven days using Berlese–Tullgren funnels. The extracted specimens were stored in 75% ethanol. The mites were sorted and identified with an Olympus SZX 16 stereoscopic microscope (Tokyo, Japan). The identification of the extracted mites was carried out by the first author on the basis of the publications by Karg [40], Błoszyk [41] and Mašán [42]. The preserved samples have been deposited in the Natural History Collections (Faculty of Biology) at Adam Mickiewicz University (AMU) in Poznań.

Data Analysis Methods

The structure of the analysed mite communities found in the examined nest boxes was described with the index of dominance (D), and the frequency of occurrence (F). The scale has the following classes: dominance: D5 eudominants (>30.0%), D4 dominants (15.1–30.0%), D3 subdominants (7.1–15.0%), D2 recedents (3.0–7.0%) and D1 subrecedents (<3.0%); frequency: F5 euconstants (>50.0%), F4 constants (30.1–50.0%), F3 subconstants (15.1–30.0%), F2 accessory species (5.0–15.0%) and F1 accidents (<5.0%) [41]. The statistical differences between the mean abundance of the found Uropodina species and their juvenile stages between each other and between the seasons were analysed with the Kruskal–Wallis test (H) and Dunn’s test (p < 0.001), whereas the statistical differences between the abundances of the two Uropodina species in the nests made out of different materials were tested with the Mann–Whitney U rank test; p > 0.05 and the Cochran-Cox test; p > 0.05.
The metadata for each nest box, including the species of the bird inhabiting the nest box, information on whether or not bats visit the box, and the composition of the material used to line the box, was stored in the Analizator 2.0 computer database in the Natural History Collections (Faculty of Biology, AMU, Poznań).

3. Results

3.1. Comparison of the Species Composition and Abundance of Uropodina Communities

The species composition and abundance of Uropodina in the surveyed boxes was compared between 2023 and 2024 (Table 1). In both cases, the boxes were occupied by two species, i.e., L. orbicularis and Ch. nidiphila. In the first and second years of this study, the community was dominated by L. orbicularis, which was super-dominant (D > 97%). In the second year of this study, the community was much more numerous, but despite the difference in the abundance of the two species, the dominance structure and frequency were very similar in both seasons. The differences in the number of particular species between the seasons were not statistically significant, but there were statistically significant differences in the number of each species in 2023 and 2024 (Table 2).

3.2. Sex Ratio and Age Structure of the Surveyed Uropodina Species

Both species of the suborder Uropodina found in the boxes reproduced sexually [40], hence the presence of both females and males in the community. For L. orbicularis, the sex ratio was 1 ♂:1.5 ♀ in 2023 and 1:1.6 in 2024, while for Ch. nidiphila, the ratio was 1:1.7 in both years. Furthermore, almost all developmental stages of the two Uropodina species were found in the examined nest boxes. In 2024, the abundance of all life stages, except the larvae of L. orbicularis, was higher than in the previous year. In general, the juvenile forms of this species outnumbered the adult specimens (Figure 2).
For Ch. nidiphila, nest boxes were dominated by adults and deutonymphs. No protonymphs were found and larvae were only recorded in 2024 (Figure 3).
The analysis of the differences in the mean abundance of juvenile stages (adults, deutonymphs, protonymphs and larvae) of both species and the analysis of the differences in the mean abundance of these stages between the seasons has revealed that there are no significant differences between the mean number of juvenile stages of the same species in the subsequent years, but there were significant differences the in mean abundance between the species (Table 3).

3.3. The Abundance of Mites in Relation to Nest Box Bedding Material

In the nesting material collected from the boxes in 2024, five types of components were found with different frequencies. This study revealed that moss was the most commonly used material by the birds because it was found in 59 boxes. Grass was also very common because it was found in most (46) of the surveyed boxes. Other materials, including mammalian hair (found in 24 boxes), needles (in 9 boxes), and dry leaves (in 6 boxes), were less commonly found in the examined boxes. All these components were usually mixed in different proportions and no box was found to contain all five types of components at the same time (Figure 4).
In five percent of the examined boxes, the bedding material contained four types of components, such as moss, grass, pine needles and mammal hair (in one case, pine needles were used instead of dry leaves) (K4, Figure 4). In the case of three components (K3) (40% of the boxes), the birds most commonly used moss, grass and mammalian hair; in two cases, it was moss, grass and pine needles, and in one box, it was moss, pine needles and mammalian hair. The most commonly used (in 45% of the boxes) bedding material consisted of two components (K2). There was usually moss and grass; only in two cases was there moss and leaves, and twice there was moss and mammalian hair. In 10% of the surveyed boxes, the bedding consisted of only one component; usually it was moss, and in only one box, it was grass (Figure 4).
This study revealed that Ch. nidiphila was most abundant in the nest box with moss and grass, whereas L. orbicularis was most abundant in boxes where the bedding was a mixture of mammalian hair and grass. However, the differences in the abundance of these two mite species in both cases were not statistically significant in both the Mann–Whitney U rank test, U = 138.5, z = 1.62, and the Cochran–Cox test, t’ = −1.21.

4. Discussion

The study has revealed that the Uropodina community in the examined bird houses in BTNP scrutinised in 2023 and 2024 was formed by two nidicolous species, i.e., L. orbicularis and Ch. nidiphila. The first one was shown to be super-dominant in the nest boxes in PNBT in both the previous [32] and the present study. The 2023/2024 survey also showed that the Uropodina communities in both seasons not only had identical species composition but also the same dominance structure and frequency (Table 1). The communities in both periods were similar not only in terms of the species composition, but also in the number of individual species and their developmental stages (Table 2 and Table 3). The obtained results confirmed the observations of an earlier study, which included two years of observations of nest boxes in the area of Mierzeja Wiślana. In that study, L. orbicularis was also dominant in the Uropodina communities of the examined nest boxes in 1983/1984 [35]. Thus, it seems that the nesting material collected by the birds in each breeding season provides similar conditions for mites of the suborder Uropodina living there.
The other Uropodina found in this study, Ch. nidiphila, is a species rarely found in woodpecker holes and is known only from three locations in Poland (Lower Silesia, Greater Poland and Bory Tucholskie National Park). To date, it has only been found in nest boxes in PNBT [30,32]. Leiodinychus orbicularis is a phoretic species, which disperses passively using insects [32,41]; so, it is possible it returns to the nest boxes each year by means of phoresy. The mode of dispersion of Ch. nidiphila is still unknown. It is possible that it is carried by bats, as bat guano was found in the examined boxes where the species were found in the last season, as well as in the past [30,32]. However, there is still no clear identification of the carrier and the way of transmission of this mite species. The occurrence of adults as well as juvenile stages (deutonymphs and larvae) of this species in the examined boxes supports the hypothesis that bird boxes may provide a substitute habitat for this species, and they also compensate for the lack of natural woodpecker cavities with which it is associated [30]. This hypothesis may be supported by the fact that after intensive studies of mite communities in bird nesting boxes at several sites around the country, no specimens of this species were found [23,31,32,38]. Another question to be addressed refers to the difference in the abundance of the communities in the two study seasons, which was about 1.5 times higher in the second year of this study and it affected both species. It is likely that this difference was due to the different atmospheric conditions in the two study periods. However, this issue requires further investigation, taking into account climatic data, which will be continued in BTNP in the coming years.
The analysis of the differences in the mean abundances of the two Uropodina species present in the examined nest boxes showed no statistically significant differences in the bedding made out of different materials in relation to the mite abundance. However, a preference of Ch. nidiphila for bedding composed of moss and grass and, in the case of L. orbicularis, for boxes where the nesting material contained grass mixed with mammalian hair was also observed. This result is consistent with the previous observations of Uropodina communities in mole nests, which have proved that the communities in nests built with grass were most diverse [43].
Based on the data from the literature, moss can be used as a regulator of humidity inside the nest boxes, by absorbing excess of water, but also as a water reservoir in order to prevent the lining from drying out too much [7]. In contrast, mammalian hair, fur and feathers can absorb smaller amounts of water and can dry relatively quickly [44,45]. Our observations have revealed that in all the studied boxes there was always grass, mammalian hair, pine needles or dry leaves in the bedding material. That is why the humidity inside the boxes was probably low. Most mite species of the suborder Uropodina are mesohygrophious [41], and they avoid both excessive dry and very humid habitats. That is probably why only xerophilous species or those with a broad ecological tolerance can survive there. It can be assumed that Ch. nidiphila, whose ecological requirements are unknown due to its rarity, is probably a xerophilous species. However, the dependence of bedding material composition in nest boxes and communities of Uropodina will be the subject of our subsequent research in BTNP.

5. Conclusions

The use of nest boxes, in combination with other nature conservation measures, can therefore have a real positive impact on the recovery and population growth of tits (Paridae), but also on the overall conservation of bird biodiversity and ecosystem functioning [3]. The presence of nest boxes in the examined forests has also helped to create artificial microhabitats for many groups of invertebrates, increasing their abundance and biodiversity in these ecosystems. Our research has revealed that nest boxes are the only habitat in BTNP for L. orbicularis and Ch. nidiphila in BTNP [32] and that the communities of these species in nest boxes are stable and are reconstructed each year. This phenomenon gives a survival possibility for rare species, e.g., Ch. nidiphila, for which nest boxes are currently the only known stable habitat, apart from natural woodpecker holes, which are becoming increasingly rare [32].

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, M.K., J.W. and J.B.; methodology, J.B. and J.W.; software, J.B.; validation, J.B. and M.K.; formal analysis, J.B., M.K. and A.N.; investigation J.B., J.W., K.L. and M.K.; resources, J.B. and M.K.; data curation, J.B.; writing—original draft preparation, M.K., J.B., J.W., K.L. and A.N.; writing—review and editing, M.K., J.B., J.W., K.L. and A.N.; visualisation, J.B. and K.L.; supervision, J.B.; project administration, A.N.; funding acquisition, A.N. and M.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by International Union for Conservation of Nature—IUCN (Grant number SMA-G00-GG-0000000779), Agnieszka Napierała has received research support. This research was conducted also within a project, “Inicjatywa Doskonałosci—Uczelnia badawcza” (No. 181/13/ID-UB/0022), carried out by Marta Kulczak.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study is stored in a computer database called AMUNATCOLL and openly available at: https://amunatcoll.pl/, accessed on 10 June 2025.

Acknowledgments

The authors of this study would like to thank the management staff and all employees of Bory Tucholskie National Park for collecting and providing material from the bird nest boxes in the area of the park. In particular, the authors would like to thank the foresters Sebastian Folega and Krzysztof Bosek, who collected the nests.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Mänd, R.; Tilgar, V.; Lõhmus, A.; Leivits, A. Providing nest boxes for hole-nesting birds—Does habitat matter? Biodivers. Conserv. 2005, 14, 1823–1840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Gutowski, J.M.; Bobiec, A.; Pawlaczyk, P.; Zub, K. Drugie Życie Drzewa; WWF: Warszawa, Poland, 2004; pp. 1–245. [Google Scholar]
  3. Thompson, E.K.; Keenan, R.J.; Kelly, L.T. The use of nest boxes to support bird conservation in commercially managed forests: A systematic review. For. Ecol. Manag. 2023, 550, 121504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Mänd, R.; Leivits, A.; Leivits, M.; Rodenhouse, N.L. Provision of nestboxes raises the breeding density of Great Tits Parus major equally in coniferous and deciduous woodland. Ibis 2009, 151, 487–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hansell, M.H. Bird Nests and Construction Behaviour; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  6. Hansell, M.H. Animal Architecture; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  7. Biddle, L.E.; Dickinson, A.M.; Broughton, R.E.; Gray, L.A.; Bennett, S.L.; Goodman, A.M.; Deeming, D.C. Construction materials affect the hydrological properties of bird nests. J. Zool. 2019, 309, 161–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Deeming, D.C.; Campion, E. Simulated rainfall reduces the insulative properties of bird nests. Acta. Ornithol. 2018, 53, 91–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hilton, G.M.; Hansell, M.H.; Ruxton, G.D.; Reid, J.M.; Monaghan, P.; Brittingham, M. Using artificial nests to test importance of nesting material and nest shelter for incubation energetics. Auk 2004, 121, 777–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Deeming, D.C.; Mainwaring, M.C. Functional properties of nests. In Nests, Eggs and Incubation: New Ideas About Avian Reproduction; Deeming, D.C., Reynolds, S.J., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2015; pp. 29–49. [Google Scholar]
  11. Boyes, D.H. Natural history of Lepidoptera associated with bird nests in Mid-Wales. Entomol. Rec. J. Var. 2018, 130, 249–259. [Google Scholar]
  12. Boyes, D.H.; Lewis, O.T. Ecology of Lepidoptera associated with bird nests in Mid-Wales. Ecol. Entomol. 2019, 44, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Broughton, R.K.; Hebda, G.; Maziarz, M.; Smith, K.W.; Smith, L.; Hinsley, S.A. Nest-site competition between bumblebees (Bombidae), social wasps (Vespidae) and cavity-nesting birds in Britain and the Western Palearctic. Bird Study 2015, 62, 427–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Jaworski, T.; Gryz, J.; Krauze-Gryz, D.; Plewa, R.; Bystrowski, C.; Dobosz, R.; Horák, J. My home is your home: Nest boxes for birds and mammals provide habitats for diverse insect communities. Insect Conserv. Divers. 2022, 15, 461–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Krištofík, J.; Mašán, P.; Šustek, Z.; Nuhličková, S. Arthropods (Acarina, Coleoptera, Siphonaptera) in nests of hoopoe (Upupa epops) in Central Europe. Biologia 2013, 68, 155–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. McComb, W.C.; Noble, R.E. Invertebrate use of natural tree cavities and vertebrate nest boxes. Am. Midl. Nat. 1982, 107, 163–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Nordberg, S. Biologisch-ökologische Untersuchungen über die Vogelnidicolen. Acta Zool. Fenn. 1936, 21, 1–168. [Google Scholar]
  18. Tajovský, K.; Mock, A.; Krumpál, M. Millipedes (Diplopoda) in birds’ nests. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2001, 37, 321–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Turienzo, P.; Di Iorio, O.; Mahnert, V. Global checklist of pseudoscorpions (Arachnida) found in birds’ nests. Rev. Suisse Zool. 2010, 117, 557–598. [Google Scholar]
  20. Woodroffe, G.E. An ecological study of the insects and mites in the nests of certain birds in Britain. Bull. Entomol. Res. 1953, 44, 739–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Pilskog, H.E.; Solhøy, T.; Gwiazdowicz, D.J.; Grytnes, J.-A.; Coulson, S.J. Invertebrate Communities Inhabiting Nests of Migrating Passerine, Wild Fowl and Sea Birds Breeding in the High Arctic, Svalbard. Polar Biol. 2014, 37, 981–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bajerlein, D.; Błoszyk, J.; Gwiazdowicz, D.J.; Ptaszyk, J.; Halliday, B. Community structure and dispersal of mites (Acari, Mesostigmata) in nests of the white stork (Ciconia ciconia). Biologia 2006, 61, 525–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Błoszyk, J.; Gwiazdowicz, D.J.; Kupczyk, M.; Książkiewicz-Parulska, Z. Parasitic mesostigmatid mites (Acari)—Common inhabitants of the nest boxes of starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) in a Polish urban habitat. Biologia 2016, 71, 1034–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gwiazdowicz, D.J.; Matysiak, K. Roztocze (Acari, Mesostigmata) wybranych mikrośrodowisk Parku Narodowego “Bory Tucholskie”. Acta Sci. Pol. Silvarum 2004, 3, 17–24. [Google Scholar]
  25. Gwiazdowicz, D.J.; Błoszyk, J.; Bajerlein, D.; Halliday, R.B.; Mizera, T. Mites (Acari: Mesostigmata) inhabiting nests of the white-tailed sea eagle Haliaeetus albicilla (L.) in Poland. Entomol. Fenn. 2006, 17, 366–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Mašán, P.; Fenda, P.; Krištofík, J.; Halliday, B. A review of the ectoparasitic mites (Acari: Dermanyssoidea) associated with birds and their nests in Slovakia, with notes on identification of some species. Zootaxa 2014, 3893, 77–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Solarz, K.; Szilman, P.; Szilman, E. Allergenic mites associated with bird nests in Poland (Astigmata: Pyroglyphidae, Acaridae, Glycyphagidae). In Ecology and Evolution of the Acari; Series Entomologica; Bruin, J., van der Geest, L.P.S., Sabelis, M.W., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1999; pp. 651–656. [Google Scholar]
  28. Roy, L.; Bouvier, J.C.; Lavigne, C.; Galès, M.; Buronfosse, T. Impact of pest control strategies on the arthropodofauna living in bird nests built in nestboxes in pear and apple orchards. Bull. Entomol. Res. 2013, 103, 458–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Błoszyk, J.; Bajerlein, D.; Gwiazdowicz, D.J.; Halliday, R.B.; Dylewska, M. Uropodine mite communities (Acari: Mesostigmata) in birds’ nests in Poland. Belg. J. Zool. 2006, 136, 145–153. [Google Scholar]
  30. Błoszyk, J.; Hebda, G.; Adamski, Z.; Zacharyasiewicz, M. Redescription of Chiropturopoda nidiphila Wiśniewski & Hirschmann (Acari: Uropodina) from a woodpecker’s tree holes, including all development stages and first notes on its ecology. Syst. Appl. Acarol. 2021, 26, 1867–1899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Błoszyk, J.; Olszanowski, Z. Materiały do znajomości fauny roztoczy gniazd i budek lęgowych ptaków. II. Różnice w liczebności i składzie gatunkowym populacji Uropodina (Acari, Anactinotrichida) budek lęgowych na Mierzei Wiślanej na podstawie dwuletnich obserwacji. Przegląd. Zool. 1986, 30, 63–66. [Google Scholar]
  32. Błoszyk, J.; Wendzonka, J.; Kulczak, M.; Lubińska, K.; Napierała, A. Bird nesting boxes as a specific artificial microenvironment increasing biodiversity of mites from the suborder Uropodina (Acari: Mesostigmata): A case study of Bory Tucholskie National Park. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2024, 93, 141–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Graczyk, R.; Indykiewicz, P.; Olszewski, A.; Tobółka, M. Mites Living in the Nests of the White Stork and Black Stork in Microhabitats of the Forest Environment and Agrocenoses. Animals 2023, 13, 3189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kamczyc, J.; Teodorowicz, E.; Gwiazdowicz, D.J. Mites (Acari, Mesostigmata) in the Red-Backed Shrike Lanius collurio and Great Grey Shrike Lanius excubitor Nests. Acta Sci. Pol. Silv. Colendar. Rat. Ind. Lignaria 2011, 10, 37–42. [Google Scholar]
  35. Mašán, P.; Krištofík, J. Mites and ticks (Acarina: Mesostigmata et Ixodida) from the nests of Riparia riparia L. in South Slovakia. Biologia 1993, 48, 155–162. [Google Scholar]
  36. Mašán, P.; Krištofík, J. Mesostigmatid mites (Acarina, Mesostigmata) in the nests of penduline tit (Remiz pendulinus). Biologia 1995, 50, 481–485. [Google Scholar]
  37. Napierała, A.; Maziarz, M.; Hebda, G.; Broughton, R.K.; Rutkowski, T.; Zacharyasiewicz, M.; Błoszyk, J. Lack of specialist nidicoles as a characteristic of mite assemblages inhabiting nests of the ground-nesting wood warbler, Phylloscopus sibilatrix (Aves: Passeriformes). Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2021, 84, 149–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Błoszyk, J.; Rutkowski, T.; Wojtaszyn, G.; Książkiewicz-Parulska, Z.; Zacharyasiewicz, M.; Napierała, A. Leiodinychus orbicularis (C.L. Koch, 1839) in bat boxes in Poland. Eur. J. Biol. Res. 2020, 10, 150–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cramp, S.; Brooks, D.J. Handbook of the Birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. In The Birds of the Western Palearctic, Vol. VI: Warblers; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  40. Karg, W. Acari (Acarina) Milben, Unterordnung Parasitiformes (Anactinochaeta). Uropodina Kramer, Schildkrötenmilben. In Die Tierwelt Deutschlands und der Angrenzenden Meeresteile; Senglaub, K., Hannemann, H.J., Schumann, H., Eds.; Jena: Thuringia, Germany, 1989; pp. 1–203. [Google Scholar]
  41. Błoszyk, J. Geograficzne i Ekologiczne Zróżnicowanie Zgrupowań Roztoczy z Kohoryty Uropodina (Acari: Mesostigmata) W Polsce: Uropodina Lasów Grądowych (Carpinion Betuli); Kontekst: Poznań, Poland, 1999; pp. 1–245. [Google Scholar]
  42. Mašán, P. Mites of the Cohort Uropodina (Acarina, Mesostigmata) in Slovenska. Annot. Zool. Bot. 2001, 223, 1–320. [Google Scholar]
  43. Napierała, A.; Mądra, A.; Leszczyńska-Deja, K.; Gwiazdowicz, D.J.; Gołdyn, B.; Błoszyk, J. Community structure variability of Uropodina mites (Acari: Mesostigmata) in nests of the common mole, Talpa europaea, in Central Europe. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2016, 68, 429–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Botero-Delgadillo, E.; Orellana, N.; Serrano, D.; Poblete, Y.; Vásquez, R.A. Interpopulation variation in nest architecture in a secondary cavity-nesting bird suggests site-specific strategies to cope with heat loss and humidity. Auk 2017, 134, 281–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Slagsvold, T. Experiments on clutch size and nest size in passerine birds. Oecologia 1989, 80, 297–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diversity 17 00544 g001
Figure 1. Distribution of examined nest boxes in the area of Bory Tucholskie National Park.
Figure 1. Distribution of examined nest boxes in the area of Bory Tucholskie National Park.
Diversity 17 00544 g001
Diversity 17 00544 g002
Figure 2. Abundance (N) of Leiodinychus orbicularis life stages (A—adults, D—deutonymphs, P—protonymphs, L—larvae) in nest boxes in the subsequent survey years (2023—blue, 2024—red).
Figure 2. Abundance (N) of Leiodinychus orbicularis life stages (A—adults, D—deutonymphs, P—protonymphs, L—larvae) in nest boxes in the subsequent survey years (2023—blue, 2024—red).
Diversity 17 00544 g002
Diversity 17 00544 g003
Figure 3. Abundance (N) of Chiropturopoda nidiphila life stages (A—adults, D—deutonymphs, P—protonymphs, L—larvae) in nest boxes in consecutive survey years (2023—blue, 2024—red).
Figure 3. Abundance (N) of Chiropturopoda nidiphila life stages (A—adults, D—deutonymphs, P—protonymphs, L—larvae) in nest boxes in consecutive survey years (2023—blue, 2024—red).
Diversity 17 00544 g003
Diversity 17 00544 g004
Figure 4. Number of boxes examined with different number of components: K1—one, K2—two, K3—three, K4—four.
Figure 4. Number of boxes examined with different number of components: K1—one, K2—two, K3—three, K4—four.
Diversity 17 00544 g004
Table 1. Dominance (D%), frequency (F%) and mean number of Uropodina specimens in positive sample ± standard deviation (Ave ± SD) in two seasons.
Table 1. Dominance (D%), frequency (F%) and mean number of Uropodina specimens in positive sample ± standard deviation (Ave ± SD) in two seasons.
SpeciesND%F%Ave ± SD
2023
Leiodinychus orbicularis (C.L. Koch, 1839)192499.244.256.6 ± 183.8
Chiropturopoda nidiphila Wisniewski & Hirschmann, 1993160.87.82.7 ± 2.7
2024
L. orbicularis338897.951.7109.3 ± 303.6
Ch. nidiphila732.15.024.3 ± 40.4
Table 2. The value of the Kruskal–Wallis test (H) and Dunn’s test for statistical significance of differences between the mean number of Leiodinychus orbicularis and Chiropturopoda nidiphila and in the number of these species in two seasons (2023 and 2024): 1—number of L. orbicularis in 2023, 2—number of L. orbicularis in 2024, 3—number of Ch. nidiphila in 2023, 4—number of Ch. nidiphila in 2024; ***—statistically significant differences for p < 0.001; ns—differences not significant.
Table 2. The value of the Kruskal–Wallis test (H) and Dunn’s test for statistical significance of differences between the mean number of Leiodinychus orbicularis and Chiropturopoda nidiphila and in the number of these species in two seasons (2023 and 2024): 1—number of L. orbicularis in 2023, 2—number of L. orbicularis in 2024, 3—number of Ch. nidiphila in 2023, 4—number of Ch. nidiphila in 2024; ***—statistically significant differences for p < 0.001; ns—differences not significant.
Kruskal–Wallis test value (H)H(3, N = 274) = 36.7; p < 0.001
1–21–31–42–32–43–4
Dunn’s testns************ns
Table 3. The value of the Kruskal–Wallis test (H) and Dunn’s test for statistical significance of differences in the mean number of all juvenile stages of the studied Uropodina species and in the number of these stages in the two seasons (2023 and 2024): 1—number of L. orbicularis juvenile stages in 2023, 2—number of Ch. nidiphila juvenile stages in 2024, 3—number of L. orbicularis juvenile stages in 2023, 4—number of Ch. nidiphila juvenile stages in 2024; ***—statistically significant differences for p < 0.001; ns—differences not significant.
Table 3. The value of the Kruskal–Wallis test (H) and Dunn’s test for statistical significance of differences in the mean number of all juvenile stages of the studied Uropodina species and in the number of these stages in the two seasons (2023 and 2024): 1—number of L. orbicularis juvenile stages in 2023, 2—number of Ch. nidiphila juvenile stages in 2024, 3—number of L. orbicularis juvenile stages in 2023, 4—number of Ch. nidiphila juvenile stages in 2024; ***—statistically significant differences for p < 0.001; ns—differences not significant.
Kruskal–Wallis test value (H)H(3, N= 822) = 36.47; p < 0.001
1–21–31–42–32–43–4
Dunn’s test***ns******ns***
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kulczak, M.; Wendzonka, J.; Lubińska, K.; Napierała, A.; Błoszyk, J. Remarkable Stability of Uropodina (Acari: Mesostigmata) Communities in Artificial Microhabitats: A Case Study of Bird Nest Boxes in Bory Tucholskie National Park. Diversity 2025, 17, 544. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17080544

AMA Style

Kulczak M, Wendzonka J, Lubińska K, Napierała A, Błoszyk J. Remarkable Stability of Uropodina (Acari: Mesostigmata) Communities in Artificial Microhabitats: A Case Study of Bird Nest Boxes in Bory Tucholskie National Park. Diversity. 2025; 17(8):544. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17080544

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kulczak, Marta, Jacek Wendzonka, Karolina Lubińska, Agnieszka Napierała, and Jerzy Błoszyk. 2025. "Remarkable Stability of Uropodina (Acari: Mesostigmata) Communities in Artificial Microhabitats: A Case Study of Bird Nest Boxes in Bory Tucholskie National Park" Diversity 17, no. 8: 544. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17080544

APA Style

Kulczak, M., Wendzonka, J., Lubińska, K., Napierała, A., & Błoszyk, J. (2025). Remarkable Stability of Uropodina (Acari: Mesostigmata) Communities in Artificial Microhabitats: A Case Study of Bird Nest Boxes in Bory Tucholskie National Park. Diversity, 17(8), 544. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17080544

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop