This study aimed to examine and compare the breeding biology of two sympatric woodpecker species, Picus canus and Dendrocopos major, in the midwestern region of South Korea, with the goal of elucidating interspecific differences in breeding strategies among closely related taxa. From 2018 to 2021, a total of 106 breeding nests (57 belonging to P. canus and 49 to D. major) were identified within forested areas of Seocheon and Gunsan. Data were collected on the species of nest trees and their structural characteristics, alongside breeding parameters such as egg-laying date, clutch size, period of incubation and nestling, and rates of hatching and fledging success. Observations were conducted through external nest monitoring supplemented by internal inspections using an endoscopic camera. Both species primarily selected Paulownia coreana, Prunus sargentii, and Castanea crenata as nesting cavities; however, P. canus preferred nest trees with greater height and diameter at breast height compared to those chosen by D. major. The mean egg-laying date for D. major occurred approximately two weeks earlier than that of P. canus, while clutch size and incubation period were significantly larger and longer, respectively, in P. canus. In contrast, no significant interspecific differences were detected in nestling period or in hatching and fledging success rates. This suggests that a larger clutch size does not necessarily lead to higher breeding success under similar nesting conditions. These results indicate that sympatric woodpecker species may share overlapping nesting resources yet exhibit distinct species-specific differences in nest tree structural selection, and breeding traits. This study provides foundational insights into the breeding biology of woodpeckers inhabiting temperate East Asian forests and advances understanding of breeding strategies and coexistence mechanisms among cavity-nesting avian species.
Macías-TorresPAlerstamTAnderssonAet al.Activity patterns throughout the annual cycle in a long-distance migratory songbird, the red-backed shrike Lanius collurio. Mov Ecol2022; 10, 55. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40462-022-00355-0
2.
del HoyoJElliottASargatalJ. Hand-book of the Birds of the World. Vol. 7: Jacamars to Woodpeckers. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, 2002.
3.
HogstadO. Reproductive differences between woodpeckers and secondary hole-nesters. Ornis Nor2006; 29, 110-123. https://doi.org/10.15845/on.v29i0.183
4.
MazgajskiTD. Nesting phenology and breeding success in great spotted woodpecker Picoides major near Warsaw (Central Poland). Acta Ornithol2002; 37, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.3161/068.037.0101
5.
HebdaG.Nesting sites of the Great Spotted Woodpecker Dendrocopos major L. in Poland: analysis of nest cards. Pol J Ecol2009; 57, 149-158.
6.
GlueEDBoswellT. Comparative nesting ecology of the three British breeding woodpeckers. British Birds1994; 87, 253-269.
7.
LeeSYLeeJSungHC. The impact of forest characteristics, and bird and insect diversity on the occurrence of the Great Spotted Woodpecker Dendrocopos major and Grey-headed Woodpecker Picus canus in South Korea. Bird Study2023; 70, 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/00063657.2023.2245192
8.
KimSKimY. Breeding biology and chick food analysis of breeding birds in Korea. Research Reports of the Forest Research Institute1972; 19, 71-81. (in Korean with English abstract).
9.
KooTHWonPO. The reproductive success of the Grey-headed green woodpecker, Picus canus griseoviridis (Clark). Bulletin of the Institute of Ornithology Kyung Hee University1986; 1, 57-67. (In Korean with English abstract).
10.
WonPOWooHCHamKWet al.Chick food analysis of some Korean birds (III). Journal of the Yamashina Institute for Ornithology1968; 5, 363-369.
11.
OhTHHeoJWBaekCYet al.A study on the use of habitats by the Woodpecker (Dendrocopos kizuki, D. leucotos, D. major and Picus canus) in Gyeryong Mountain, Korea. Kor J Ornithol2016; 23, 29-38.
12.
MartinTD. Avian life history evolution in relation to nest sites, nest predation, and food. Ecol Monogr1995; 65, 101–127. https://doi.org/10.2307/2937160
13.
RamstackJMMurphyMTPalmerMR. Comparative reproductive biology of three species of swallows in a common environment. Wilson Bulletin1998; 110, 233–243.
14.
MezquidaETMaroneL.Comparison of the reproductive biology of two Poospiza warbling-finches of Argentina in wet and dry years. Ardea2003; 91, 251–262.
15.
National Institute of Ecology (NIE). The 4th National Ecosystem Survey (2017): vegetation of the Seocheon–Gunsan region. Seocheon, South Korea; 2018.
16.
LeeSYLeeJHSungHC. Differences in drum cadence and responsiveness of Dendrocopos major and Picus canus in South Korea. Wilson J Ornith2025; 137, 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/15594491.2025.2463836
Korea Forestry Promotion Institute (KOFPY). The production of forest type map: development of a manual for DB version 3.1. Seoul, South Korea; 2017. (in Korean).
19.
KosińskiZKsitP. Comparative reproductive biology of Middle Spotted Woodpeckers Dendrocopos medius and Great Spotted Woodpeckers D. major in a riverine forest. Bird Study2006; 53, 237-246. https://doi.org/10.1080/00063650609461438
20.
Scott-BaumannJFMorganERCoganTA. Effects of nest-box environment on fledgling success rate and pathogen load. Parasitol2022; 149, 1186-1192. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031182022000695
21.
VirtanenPGommersROliphantTEet al.SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nat Methods2020; 17, 261-272. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2
22.
CandanZKorkutSUnsalO. Effect of thermal modification by hot pressing on performance properties of Paulownia wood boards. Ind Crops Prod2013; 45, 461-464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2012.12.024
23.
AkyildizMHKol SahinH. Some technological properties and uses of paulownia (Paulownia tomentosa Steud.) wood. J Environ Biol2010; 31, 351-355. https://doi.org/10.22438/jeb/31/3(M)/MI-10
24.
ScheppsJLohrSMartinTE. Does tree hardness influence nest-tree selection by primary cavity nesters?The auk1999; 116, 658-665. https://doi.org/10.2307/4089327
25.
KosińskiZWinieckiA. Nest-site selection and niche partitioning among the Great Spotted Woodpecker Dendrocopos major and Middle Spotted Woodpecker Dendrocopos medius in riverine forest of Central Europe. Ornis Fenn2004; 81, 145-156.
26.
VirkkalaR. Why study woodpeckers? The significance of woodpeckers in forest ecosystems. Ann Zool Fenn2006; 43, 82-85.
27.
KosińskiZKempaM. Density, distribution and nest-sites of woodpeckers Picidae, in a managed forest of Western Poland. Pol J Ecol2007; 55, 519-533.
28.
MatsuokaS.Great Spotted Woodpeckers Dendrocopos major detect variation in wood hardness before excavating nest holes. Ornithol Sci2010; 9, 67-74. https://doi.org/10.2326/osj.9.67
29.
CockleKLMartinKWesołowskiT. Woodpeckers, decay, and the future of cavity-nesting vertebrate communities worldwide. Front Ecol Environ2011; 9, 377-382. https://doi.org/10.1890/110013
30.
LorenzTJVierlingKTJohnsonTRFischerPC. The role of wood hardness in limiting nest site selection in avian cavity excavators. Ecol Appl2015; 25, 1016-1033. https://doi.org/10.1890/14-1042.1
31.
HebdaGWesołowskiTRowińskiP. Nest sites of a strong excavator, the Great Spotted Woodpecker Dendrocopos major, in a primeval forest. Ardea2017; 105: 61-71. https://doi.org/10.2478/arde-2017-0008
32.
TurnerBGregoryYRobyneDet al.Effect of acidity on germination and seedling growth of Paulownia tomentosa. J Appl Ecol1988; 25, 561-567. https://doi.org/10.2307/2403844
MillerEMillerDR. Snag use by birds. In: DegraafRM (ed). Management for non-game birds. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Utah, 1980, pp. 337-356.
35.
HarrisRD. Decay characteristics of Pileated Woodpecker nest trees. In: ThomasJWAndersonRGMaserC (eds). Snag habitat management: proceedings of the symposium. USDA For Service, Flagstaff, 1983, pp. 125–129.
36.
PaclíkMMisíkJWeidingerK. Nest predation and nest defence in European and North American woodpeckers: a review. Ann Zool Fenn2009; 46, 361-379. https://doi.org/10.5735/086.046.0503
37.
WiebeKL. Microclimate of tree cavity nests: is it important for reproductive success in Northern Flickers?The Auk2001; 118, 412-421. https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/118.2.412
38.
JacksonJAJacksonBJS. Ecological relationships between fungi and woodpecker cavity starts. The Condor2004; 106, 37-49. https://doi.org/10.1650/7483
39.
WesołowskiT.“Lifespan” of woodpecker-made holes in a primeval temperate forest: a thirty year study. For Ecol Manage2011; 262, 1846-1852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.08.001
40.
ShafaeipourA, Michalczuk and FathiniaB. Habitat preferences and nest site selection by sympatric populations of Middle Spotted Woodpecker (Dendrocoptes medius) and Syrian Woodpecker (Dendrocopos syriacus) in natural mountain forests of Southwest Iran. Avian Res2024; 15, 100167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avrs.2024.100167
41.
GarciaMTheunissenFSèbeFet al.Evolution of communication signals and information during species radiation. Nat Commun2020; 11, 4970.
42.
KumarRShahabuddinGKumarA. How good are managed forests at conserving native woodpecker communities? A study in sub-Himalayan dipterocarp forests of northwest India. Biol Conserv2011; 144, 1876-1884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.02.025
43.
PakkalaTTiainenJPakkalaHet al.Nest tree characteristics of Grey-headed Woodpeckers (Picus canus) in boreal forests. Ornis Fenn2020; 97, 89-100. https://doi.org/10.51812/of.133969
44.
MatsuokaS.Ecological significance of the early breeding in White-backed Woodpeckers Dendrocopos leucotos. Jap J Ornithol1979; 28, 63-75. https://doi.org/10.3838/jjo1915.28.63
45.
DaanSDijkstraCDrentRet al.1988. Food supply and the annual timing of avian reproduction. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Ornithological Congress, Ottawa, Canada. University of Ottawa Press, Ottawa, 1988, pp. 392–407.
46.
SvenssonE. Natural selection on avian breeding time: causality, fecundity-dependent, and fecundity-independent selection. Evolution1997; 51, 1276-1283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1997.tb03897.x
WinklerHChristieDANurneyD. Woodpeckers. Pica Press, East Sussex, 1995.
49.
WesołowskiT.Nest-sites of hole-nesters in a primeval temperate forest (Białowieża National Park, Poland). Acta Ornithol1989; 25, 321-351.
50.
HanssonL.Requirements by the great spotted woodpecker Dendrocopos major for a suburban life. Ornis Svec1992; 2, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.34080/os.v2.23062
51.
SüdbeckP.Beitrag zur Höhlenökologie des Grau-spechts Picus canus. Osnabrücker Naturwissenschaftliche Mitteilungen2009; 35, 263-274. (In German with English abstract).
MartinTE. Evolutionary determinants of clutch size in cavity-nesting birds: nest predation or limited breeding opportunities?Am Nat1993; 142, 937-946. https://doi.org/10.1086/285582
54.
KoenigWD. Geographical ecology of clutch size variation in North American woodpeckers. The Condor1986; 88, 499-504. https://doi.org/10.2307/1368278
55.
FisherTJWiebeKL. Effects of sex and age on survival of northern flickers: a six year field study. The Condor2006; 108, 193-200. https://doi.org/10.1093/condor/108.1.193
56.
WiebeKLKoenigWDMartinK. Evolution of clutch size in cavity-excavating birds: the nest site limitation hypothesis revisited. Am Nat2006; 167, 343-353. https://doi.org/10.1086/499373
57.
HamKHWonPO. Ecology and Conservation of the Tristram's Woodpecker, Dryocopus javensis richardsi Tristram in Korea. Journal of the Yamashina Institute for Ornithology1982; 14, 254-269. https://doi.org/10.3312/jyio1952.14.254
SnowDWGillmorRPerrinsCM. The birds of the Western Palearctic: Non-passerines. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998.
60.
JacksonJA. Niche concepts and woodpecker conservation: Understanding why some species are endangered. In: UtschickHWössnerW (eds). Proceedings of the International Woodpecker Symposium. Forschungsbericht 48, Nationalparkverwaltung Berchtesgaden, 2002, pp. 87–96.
