Hubbry Logo
Tree hollowTree hollowMain
Open search
Tree hollow
Community hub
Tree hollow
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Tree hollow
Tree hollow
Tree hollow
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
A naturally formed tree hollow at the base of the tree.
Multiple tree hollows in a plane tree in Baden, Austria

A tree hollow or tree hole is a semi-enclosed cavity which has naturally formed in the trunk or branch of a tree. They are found mainly in old trees, whether living or not. Hollows form in many species of trees. They are a prominent feature of natural forests and woodlands, and act as a resource or habitat for fungi and a number of vertebrate and invertebrate animals.[1][2]

Hollows may form as the result of physiological stress from natural forces causing the excavating and exposure of the heartwood. Forces may include wind, fire, heat, lightning, rain, attack from insects (such as ants or beetles), bacteria, or fungi. Also, trees may self-prune, dropping lower branches as they reach maturity, exposing the area where the branch was attached. Many animals further develop the hollows using instruments such as their beak, teeth or claws.[1][3]

The size of hollows may depend on the age of the tree. For example, eucalypts develop hollows at all ages, but only from when the trees are 120 years old do they form hollows suitable for vertebrates, and it may take 220 years for hollows suitable for larger species to form.[1]

Hollows in fallen timber are also very important for animals such as echidnas, numbats, chuditch and many reptiles. In streams, hollow logs may be important to aquatic animals for shelter and egg attachment.

Hollows are an important habitat for many wildlife species, especially where the use of hollows is obligate, as this means no other resource would be a feasible substitute. Animals may use hollows as diurnal or nocturnal shelter sites, as well as for rearing young, feeding, thermoregulation, and to facilitate ranging behaviour and dispersal. While use may also be opportunistic, rather than obligate, it may be difficult to determine the nature of a species' relationship to hollows—it may vary across a species' range, or depend on climatic conditions.[1]

Animals will select a hollow based on factors including entrance size and shape, depth, and degree of insulation. Such factors greatly affect the frequency and seasonality of hollow use.[4]

Especially in Europe, entomologists are interested in the use of hollows by invertebrates. One beetle associated with hollow trees, Osmoderma eremita, has been given the highest priority by the European Union's Habitat Directive.

Description

[edit]
Indian spotted owlet in tree hollow

A tree hollow is a cavity in a living tree. Tree holes can be caused when an injury to the tree, such as breakage of a limb, creates an opening through the bark and exposes the sapwood. The sapwood is attacked by fungi and bacteria, which form a cavity in the bole of the tree. The resulting cavity can fill with water, thus becoming a type of phytotelma. Therefore, there are wet and dry tree holes. Tree holes are important habitats for many animals, such as Ceratopogonidae, Chironomidae, the common merganser, toucans, woodpeckers, and bluebirds. Tree holes can be important in the maintenance and spread of some diseases, for example La Crosse encephalitis.[5][6][7] Hollows may be an adaptive trait for trees as animals provide the host tree with fertilizer.[8]

Non-excavated hollows

[edit]

Contrary to excavated hollows that are directly caused by animals such as woodpeckers, non-excavated hollows are hollows that are created after a tree has been damaged and decays because of fungal growth. This damage can be caused by insects, foraging birds, fire, lightning, snow, frost, and physical abrasion from rocks, falling trees, dendrotelms, and, circumstantially, large herbivores such as red deer (Cervus elaphus) or the European bison (Bison bonasus). In North America, woodpeckers play a keystone role creating holes for other birds or mammals. In Asia, data is deficient but here woodpeckers do not seem to be as much of a keystone group. In Europe, woodpeckers are not seen as keystone species, as most cavities are non-excavated and these are where the majority of hole-nesting songbirds choose to nest.[2]

Types of non-excavated hollows

[edit]

Source:[2]

  • Knotholes: Created from a branch snapping off of a main stem
  • Chimneys: Created when a stem snaps and makes an upward-facing entrance
  • Cracks: Created when a trunk splits
  • Trunk holes: Created when a cavity forms in the main stem. If it is narrow and elongate, it is called a slit.

Artificial hollows

[edit]

Animals have been found to use artificial structures as substitutes for hollows. For example, pygmy possums in the chute of a grain silo; or pardalotes in the top, horizontal pipe of a children's swing. Purpose-built nest boxes, such as birdhouses and bat tubes,[9] are also constructed for conservation and for wildlife observation. The size of the nest box, entry hole and placement height may be chosen in consideration of certain species.[10] However, nestboxes have different microclimatic conditions and can therefore not be treated as direct substitutes.[2] Natural hollows are generally preferred for habitat conservation.[10]

Actual tree hollows can be created artificially by cutting into trees with chainsaws and partly covering the resulting hollows with timber faceplates.[11][12] These are readily used by arboreal animals including mammals and birds.[11][12] Compared to nest boxes, they last longer and give better protection from external temperatures.[11]

Around the world

[edit]

Conservation of hollow-using fauna is an issue in many parts of the world. In North America, recovery of the eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis) has required nest boxes due to the loss of natural hollows. The scarcity of dead, hollow-bearing trees in Scandinavian forests is a key threatening process to native bird life. In Sweden, almost half of red-listed species are dependent on dead hollow-bearing trees or logs.[1]

Australia

[edit]

In Australia, 304 vertebrate species are known to use tree hollows in Australia: 29 amphibians, 78 reptiles, 111 birds, 86 mammals.[3] Approximately 100 of these are now rare, threatened or near-threatened on Australian State or Commonwealth legislation, in part because of the removal of hollow-bearing trees.[1][10]

Threats to hollows include: native forest silviculture, firewood collection, rural dieback (such as from inundation and salinity), grazing by cattle, and land clearing. Additionally, pest and introduced species such as the common myna and western honey bee (Apis mellifera) compete with native species for hollows; domestic and feral cats and black rats prey on hollow-using animals and have been damaging especially to island populations; and some native hollow-using species have increased population densities or expanded their ranges since European settlement, such as the galah, common brushtail possum and the little corella and compete with less common native species.[1]

Russia, China, Korea

[edit]

Asian black bears, also known as Himalayan bears (Lat.: Ursus thibetanus), in northern parts of their range, such as Russian province Primorye, China, and both Koreas, prefer spend winter periods in large tree hollows, where females also give birth to cubs. Threats include massive deforestation in these countries, combined with direct poaching of wintering bears—with selective destruction of the best hollow trees. In Russia, attempts (sometimes successful) are made to restore such broken trees.[13] Unfortunately, only a small portion of all damaged trees can be restored in Primorye, where forests are basically logged without taking to account needs of large fauna.[citation needed]

[edit]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Tree hollow

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

A hollow is a cavity that develops in the trunk or of a living or dead , primarily through the gradual decay of heartwood initiated by , loss, or natural aging, with wood-decay playing a central role in the process. This formation is a slow phenomenon, often requiring centuries in species like eucalypts, as and microorganisms break down internal wood while the outer layers remain structurally sound. hollows serve as critical microhabitats, offering shelter, breeding sites, and protection from predators and for diverse including birds, mammals, bats, and reptiles. Their scarcity in younger forests underscores their status as keystone features in mature ecosystems, where loss from land clearing exacerbates declines in hollow-dependent species.

Formation and Characteristics

Natural Formation Mechanisms

Tree hollows arise primarily from the progressive decay of heartwood, the non-living central core of the trunk or branches, which trees do not actively defend against microbial invasion due to the low structural and functional cost of such loss. This decay is typically initiated by wounds that breach the protective sapwood and bark, allowing entry for wood-decaying and . Abiotic factors, such as strikes, wind-induced branch breakage, scorch, and cracking, commonly create these initial entry points by damaging outer tissues and exposing inner wood to environmental and pathogens. Biotic agents accelerate and shape hollow development once decay commences. Fungi, including basidiomycetes specialized in lignocellulose breakdown, colonize and enzymatically degrade the heartwood, often in with like or beetles that further fragment the wood. Woodpeckers and other cavity-excavating birds exploit pre-softened wood, pecking to enlarge cavities; certain species, such as the (Picoides borealis), actively disseminate decay fungi on their beaks to facilitate excavation in living trees. This mutualism enhances cavity formation rates, as fungi weaken wood fibers while birds remove debris, though primary hollows in old-growth forests often originate from unaided fungal rot over decades. Hollow maturation is gradual, requiring trees of advanced age—typically over 100–200 years depending on and site conditions—for sufficient heartwood accumulation and decay progression. In fire-prone ecosystems, recurrent low-intensity burns can promote hollow formation by bark and stimulating compartmentalization responses that isolate decay to inner zones, preserving longevity while fostering cavity development. Variability in formation stems from , nutrients, and , with faster decay in humid environments versus slower progression in arid ones.

Influencing Factors and Variability

Tree species significantly influence hollow formation due to variations in wood durability, heartwood chemistry, and branching patterns; species with denser, more decay-resistant heartwood, such as certain oaks, develop hollows more slowly compared to softer-wooded eucalypts prone to fungal ingress. Age and diameter at breast height (DBH) are key intrinsic factors, with hollow prevalence rising sharply beyond DBH of 40-50 cm and tree ages exceeding 100-150 years, as larger branches shed and expose heartwood to decay. Fast-growing individuals form hollows earlier than slow-growers, since larger early branches create entry points for pathogens upon abscission. Extrinsic biological agents, including wood-decay fungi and , drive decay once wounds occur, with fungal inoculation via branch breaks or injuries initiating heartwood rot that expands into cavities over decades. Physical disturbances like strikes, wind damage, scarring, or activity provide initial breaches, accelerating hollow development in otherwise resistant trees; for example, cyclones and fires in Australian savannas boost hollow abundance by compromising bark integrity. modulates decay rates, with warmer, humid conditions in tropical or wet forests promoting faster fungal activity and higher hollow incidence than in arid or cold-temperate zones where slows . Variability manifests spatially across forest types and regions; wet eucalypt forests exhibit greater hollow occurrence than dry counterparts due to sustained moisture favoring decay, while urban proximity may reduce it through altered microclimates and reduced disturbance regimes. Temporal dynamics show hollow formation lagging maturity by 50-200 years depending on and site, with ongoing variability from events like storms introducing patchiness in hollow distribution within stands. Site-specific and further contribute, as hummock-hollow microtopography alters local and thus decay susceptibility.

Classification of Hollows

Non-Excavated Hollows

Non-excavated hollows, also referred to as decay-formed or passive cavities, develop through the gradual decomposition of heartwood in living trees, primarily driven by fungal activity without intervention from excavating animals. This process typically initiates when mechanical damage, such as breakage or trunk wounds, exposes inner to wood-decay fungi, which colonize and break down the non-functional heartwood while the outer sapwood layers continue to provide and . Fungal heart-rot fungi are the primary agents, releasing enzymes that degrade and , leading to cavity enlargement over time. Formation of these hollows occurs predominantly in mature or trees, often requiring 100 to 200 years or more to produce cavities suitable for use, depending on and environmental conditions. For instance, in temperate , hollow development via decay and physical alone can span centuries in the absence of excavators, with abundance increasing in larger, older trees on productive soils. In Afromontane forests, such as those in Rwanda's , fungal decay accounts for the majority of cavities (83%), concentrated in like Hagenia abyssinica, facilitated by high that promotes microbial activity. Physical factors like storms, lightning, or fire can accelerate initiation by creating entry points for fungi, but the core mechanism remains biological decay rather than active removal of wood. Unlike excavated hollows, non-excavated ones often form as basal or side cavities, with side cavities emerging from stubs after over a century of decay. These cavities contribute to longevity by compartmentalizing decay, preventing spread to vital sapwood, though extensive hollowing can eventually compromise stability in advanced stages.

Excavated Hollows

Excavated hollows, also known as primary cavities, form through the chiseling action of certain vertebrates that actively into tree trunks or branches using specialized bills. These structures differ from decay-induced hollows by originating directly from mechanical excavation rather than fungal or bacterial alone. Primary excavators preferentially target dead, dying, or partially decayed wood, where softer heartwood facilitates penetration, often beginning in snags or trees infected by pathogens that weaken structural integrity. Woodpeckers of the family Picidae dominate as primary excavators worldwide, excavating cavities for nesting, roosting, or on within the wood. Species such as the (Dryocopus pileatus) in create large cavities up to 45 cm deep in snags, while the three-toed (Picoides tridactylus) in boreal forests excavates smaller holes in with lifespans exceeding several years post-abandonment. Other excavators include certain and chickadees, though less extensively; for instance, white-breasted (Sitta carolinensis) occasionally drill into soft wood. These birds may produce multiple cavities annually, selecting sites based on food availability and decay stage, with aspen hosting 96% of cavities in some ecosystems due to rapid sapwood decay. Characteristics of excavated hollows include oval or rectangular entrances tailored to the excavator's body size, with internal chambers smoothed by repeated use and debris removal. Entrance diameters range from 3-15 cm depending on , and cavities often extend downward to prevent flooding. In regions like , primary excavators are absent, relying instead on decay processes, highlighting regional variability in hollow formation. These cavities persist after initial use, providing substrate for secondary colonizers and contributing to complexity, though their availability declines in intensively managed forests lacking mature snags.

Artificial Hollows

Artificial hollows are human-engineered cavities intended to substitute for or supplement scarce natural tree hollows, primarily to support cavity-dependent in ecosystems altered by , , or fires. These structures mimic the shelter, nesting, and roosting functions of natural hollows but are constructed using materials like , , or composites, or by modifying living trees through mechanical means. Deployment occurs in restoration projects, with designs tailored to species requirements such as entrance size, depth, and internal volume to reduce predation and optimize . Nest boxes represent the most widespread form of artificial hollows, installed on trunks or branches at heights of 3-15 meters to emulate arboreal cavities. In , where approximately 300 —about 15% of the total—rely on hollows for breeding or refuge, nest boxes have been deployed extensively for birds like and parrots, mammals such as squirrel gliders, and bats. For example, Wildlife has installed carved hollows and boxes for endangered mahogany gliders, achieving occupancy rates by target within months. However, nest boxes often exhibit higher exposure to weather and predators compared to hollows, with studies reporting drier but less thermally stable interiors that can lead to chick mortality in extreme conditions. is critical, as untreated boxes degrade within 5-10 years, and improper design attracts like feral honeybees or starlings. Direct excavation techniques create cavities by drilling or chainsaw-cutting into live , accelerating provision without full reliance on decay processes that take decades. A 2021 Australian using specialized drills produced hollows in eucalypts within hours, targeting post-2019-2020 bushfire recovery to generate up to one million sites for displaced like possums and micro-bats. Peer-reviewed trials of mechanically excavated hollows in eucalypt forests demonstrated uptake by multiple species, including woodpeckers and , within one year, though success depends on tree health and fungal inoculation to promote internal decay. Inoculation with wood-decay fungi, such as , further hastens cavity maturation by simulating natural rot, with field experiments showing enhanced saproxylic insect colonization. These methods prioritize live over snags to minimize structural risk, but they require expertise to avoid compromising tree stability. Emerging approaches include 3D-printed hollows and modular inserts that replicate spout or shapes preferred by certain birds, offering customizable decay resistance. Lifecycle assessments of these designs emphasize , favoring recyclable materials over to extend lifespan beyond 20 years in humid climates. While artificial hollows provide short-term —evidenced by occupancy in 20-50% of units within 2-3 years in Australian studies—they do not fully replicate the of mature hollows, which support complex food webs via detritus accumulation. Long-term efficacy hinges on integration with protection, as isolated installations fail without surrounding and connectivity.

Ecological Importance

Role as Wildlife Habitat

Tree hollows serve as critical microhabitats for diverse wildlife, providing sheltered sites for breeding, roosting, denning, hibernation, and protection from predators and extreme weather conditions. These cavities enable species lacking the ability to excavate their own shelters to persist, functioning as a keystone resource that supports high levels of biodiversity in forest ecosystems. Among birds, tree hollows are primary nesting and roosting sites for cavity-dependent species, including woodpeckers, , , and parrots, which rear young in these secure environments. In , at least 81 bird species in depend on hollows for such purposes. Mammals, such as squirrels, possums, gliders, martens, porcupines, and bats, utilize hollows for dens, , and refuge, with 46 species in relying on them. Reptiles and amphibians also inhabit these spaces; for instance, 34 species and 8 species in use hollows for shelter and egg-laying. Invertebrates further contribute to the habitat's complexity, with hollows hosting nutrient-rich communities that sustain food webs for occupants. The availability of hollows influences wildlife , as their scarcity limits breeding success and , underscoring their role in maintaining ecological balance.

Contributions to Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function

Tree hollows function as keystone habitats that disproportionately support biodiversity in forest ecosystems by providing shelter, nesting, and roosting sites for a wide array of species, including cavity-nesting birds, mammals, bats, and reptiles. These structures host specialized saproxylic communities, such as beetles and invertebrates, which rely on the decaying wood within hollows for development and reproduction, thereby increasing local species richness. Studies indicate that hollow-bearing trees sustain rich assemblages of often highly specialized organisms, contributing to overall habitat heterogeneity and facilitating coexistence among taxa that cannot utilize ground-level or foliar resources. Beyond habitat provision, tree hollows enhance functioning through nutrient cycling and dynamics. The accumulation of and in hollows supports processes driven by fungi and , recycling nutrients back into the and broader . Complex s within these nutrient-rich microhabitats promote stability, as evidenced by interactions among predators, prey, and decomposers that maintain diversity and prevent dominance by generalist species. This internal processing aids in and , with hollows acting as long-term repositories for turnover. Hollows also influence surrounding vegetation and microclimates, indirectly bolstering . By harboring epiphytes and moisture-retaining , they create localized conditions that support additional plant and microbial life, altering and profiles around host trees. In managed or fragmented landscapes, the scarcity of natural hollows underscores their role in ecosystem resilience, where retention of such features correlates with higher occupancy and reduced risks for dependent . Empirical data from surveys of thousands of trees confirm that cavity abundance drives diversity, linking structural availability to functional outcomes like and pest regulation.

Threats and Population Dynamics

Anthropogenic Pressures

Human activities, particularly commercial and , have significantly reduced the abundance of hollow-bearing trees by targeting mature and senescent individuals that develop cavities over centuries. In ecologically unsustainable practices, operations directly remove and damage trees with hollows, exacerbating shortages for dependent such as birds and mammals. For instance, in Australian native forests, contributes to a continuing net loss of these trees, with associated road-building and extraction further fragmenting habitats and preventing hollow formation in regenerating stands. Land conversion for and compounds this decline by clearing vast areas of old-growth forests where hollow prevalence is highest. In the Neotropics, for farming has destroyed nesting cavities essential for cavity-nesting birds, potentially leading to local extirpations of species reliant on large-diameter trees. Urban forest fragments retain fewer hollow-bearing trees due to historical clearing and ongoing development, limiting integrity despite the presence of remnant veterans. In , , more than half of native forests and woodlands have been lost to such pressures, with persistent accelerating risks for hollow-dependent . Firewood harvesting and for or aesthetics further deplete hollow resources, especially in rural and peri-urban woodlands. Selective removal of dead or decaying branches eliminates potential cavity sites, while unregulated collection targets snags and veterans critical for long-term hollow supply. In regions like , combined logging and hunting disrupt cavity availability, destroying breeding refuges for arboreal species. In managed urban environments, hollow-bearing trees face removal due to perceived structural hazards, despite that decay compartmentalization often stabilizes them. Safety assessments frequently prioritize human over retention, leading to proactive of cavity hosts that pose minimal actual risk. This practice, informed by conservative risk models, diminishes urban hotspots where alternative habitats are scarce.

Natural Disturbances and Long-Term Decline

Natural disturbances, including wildfires, , outbreaks, and pathogenic infections, exert a dual influence on tree hollow formation and persistence by damaging bark and to initiate decay while also felling mature trees that already bear cavities. In temperate forests, such events generate tree-related microhabitats like rot-holes and cavities, which peak in abundance 100–150 years post-disturbance during low-severity or late-seral stages, as surviving trees accumulate structural legacies conducive to fungal ingress and heartwood . However, high-severity disturbances disproportionately eliminate large-diameter individuals, reducing the substrate for future hollow development. Wildfires exemplify this dynamic, promoting hollows through basal scarring and limb breakage that expose inner wood to decomposers, yet excessive frequency or intensity yields net losses. In southeastern Australian forests, hollow density exhibits a unimodal response to fire frequency, peaking at intermediate intervals of 7–30 years where medium-sized cavities increase by up to 1.82 per site from one to two fires, but declining beyond three events due to cumulative mortality. Similarly, large hollows correlate positively with moderate fire severity (gains of 1.75 per site from moderate to high), but very high severity erodes availability by felling hollow-bearing trees (HBTs), with no significant short-term difference in HBT abundance post-single burns but reductions under repeated high-severity regimes. Insect infestations and wind events further modulate hollow stocks; bark beetles and wood-borers facilitate rot by colonizing wounded tissues, yet outbreaks synchronized with can synchronize tree die-off, curtailing HBT recruitment. contribute snags and fractured crowns that evolve into cavities over decades, but in disturbance-prone stands, they compound effects by increasing fuel loads and vulnerability to subsequent burns. Long-term declines in hollow availability arise when disturbance intervals shorten relative to hollow , which demands 100–200+ years for viable cavities in non-excavated trees, engendering lag effects where depleted old-growth cohorts fail to replenish supply. Climatic shifts amplify this by elevating drought and fire severity, negatively associating with basal scars (declines of up to 8.47 trees per site at higher temperatures) and constraining growth rates needed for durable wood accrual. In fire-adapted systems, projections indicate sustained HBT erosion if regimes trend toward extremes, limiting for obligate cavity users and underscoring disturbances' role in balancing formation against attrition.

Conservation and Management

Protective Strategies

Protective strategies for tree hollows emphasize the retention of mature, defective, and senescent trees during forestry operations and land management to sustain long-term habitat availability for wildlife. In managed forests, practices such as variable retention harvesting preserve aggregates of old-growth trees, ensuring a continuous supply of cavity-bearing structures across decay classes and mitigating declines from clear-cutting. Forest managers prioritize selecting cull trees—those exhibiting early decay indicators like fungal conks, dead branch stubs, or soft wood—for protection, as these are poised to form hollows within decades. Regulatory frameworks in various regions mandate the identification and safeguarding of hollow-bearing trees prior to or development, often requiring assessments to balance safety risks against ecological value. For instance, in some jurisdictions, trees reaching approximately 67% of their ' maximum are flagged for to preempt hollow loss from premature . Limiting post-disturbance salvage of fire-killed or storm-damaged snags further prevents acute shortages, as these provide immediate cavity resources while live trees mature. In fragmented landscapes, including urban areas, and policy enforcement discourage the removal of hazardous yet habitable trees, favoring structural reinforcement over felling where feasible. Integrated plans distribute retained snags and cavities evenly across , targeting 4–10 per in woodlands to support cavity-dependent without compromising timber yields. Monitoring via sampling from hollows aids in verifying usage and refining retention priorities, enhancing strategy efficacy amid ongoing habitat pressures.

Mitigation and Restoration Approaches

Retention of hollow-bearing trees during timber harvesting operations serves as a primary mitigation strategy to counteract losses from . Forestry guidelines in regions like , , mandate retaining at least 10 hollow-bearing trees and 10 recruitment trees (those likely to develop hollows) per 2 hectares in native forests to sustain availability. Similar retention practices in alternatives to emphasize preserving large, old trees to maintain structural legacy elements essential for cavity-dependent species. These measures address the slow natural formation of hollows, which can require over 100 years in many eucalypt species, by prioritizing trees already containing cavities or showing decay. Active restoration often employs artificial hollow creation to provide immediate where natural cavities are scarce, particularly in regenerating or second-growth forests. Chainsaw-carved hollows installed in medium-sized live have demonstrated increased visitation rates by hollow-dependent , such as birds and mammals, within short periods post-installation, facilitating faster habitat recovery in revegetation projects. Techniques involve excavating cavities mimicking natural dimensions and entrances, with studies reporting rapid colonization by multiple species, though long-term persistence depends on health and environmental conditions. Complementary approaches include selective snag creation—killing healthy to form standing dead wood—while avoiding interference with existing hollows, targeting trees over 10 inches in for durability. In broader ecosystem restoration, legacy tree selection prioritizes individuals with pre-existing cavities to accelerate the development of old-growth characteristics in managed woodlands. Such strategies integrate with snag management in upland and riparian areas, promoting fungal decay and excavation to enhance future hollow formation without relying solely on artificial interventions. Empirical monitoring post-restoration, including thermal profiling of artificial versus natural hollows during wildfires, underscores the need for designs that match native microclimates to ensure viability under disturbances. While artificial structures offer temporary mitigation, their efficacy as substitutes diminishes over decades, necessitating coupled long-term silvicultural planning to foster self-sustaining hollow abundance.

Global Patterns and Regional Variations

Temperate and Boreal Forests

In temperate forests of and , tree hollows primarily form through fungal decay of heartwood, often accelerated by mechanical damage from storms, , or branch failure, requiring 50 to 100 years or more for significant cavities to develop in mature trees such as oaks and beeches. excavation contributes secondary hollows, but decay-driven processes dominate, leading to larger, more persistent cavities compared to faster-forming but shallower bird-excavated ones. These hollows are critical microhabitats, supporting cavity-nesting birds like and woodpeckers, as well as mammals such as bats and squirrels, though abundance is reduced in managed forests where harvesting removes old-growth trees before hollow formation completes. In Central European managed stands, hollows constitute rare habitats, limiting dependent on them. Boreal forests, dominated by like pines and spruces alongside aspen and , exhibit lower proportions of decay-formed hollows, with most cavities resulting from primary excavation by woodpeckers and subsequent reuse by other species. Broadleaf trees, particularly trembling aspen, serve as key substrates for cavity formation due to their susceptibility to heart rot fungi, providing essential roosting and nesting sites for bats and cavity-nesting birds amid the biome's harsh winters. Densities can reach approximately 30 hollows per in primeval boreal stands, as observed in Mongolian , though occupancy rates for wildlife remain moderate at 42-46% in natural cavities versus higher in artificial nest boxes. disturbances and influence hollow persistence, with decaying retention trees enhancing nesting opportunities for birds across both temperate and boreal zones, underscoring the role of deadwood in sustaining cavity-dependent communities. Regional variations highlight that temperate forests often feature more diverse hollow types due to longer-lived hardwoods, fostering greater structural complexity, whereas boreal systems rely more on dynamic cavity turnover driven by avian excavators and periodic stand-replacing fires, resulting in fewer but functionally vital large cavities in aspen-dominated patches. In both biomes, intensive reduces hollow-bearing abundance, with meta-analyses indicating that retained decaying trees significantly boost cavity-nester populations, emphasizing the need for legacy preservation to mimic natural dynamics. Unlike tropical regions with abundant rapid-decay hollows, temperate and boreal hollows demand extended timelines for development, making them vulnerable to short-rotation management that prioritizes even-aged stands over uneven-aged, old-growth conditions essential for their formation.

Tropical and Savanna Ecosystems

In tropical and ecosystems, tree hollows form primarily through interactions between biological decay agents like and fungi, physical damage from cyclones or , and environmental factors such as regimes. activity significantly accelerates hollow development by hollowing out tree cores, with surveys in northern Australian tropical savannas indicating that most eucalypt trees develop internal hollows due to this process. In mesic savanna woodlands, hollow abundance reaches approximately 88 per , influenced by higher rainfall and deeper soils that support larger, older trees. , prevalent in savannas, can inhibit hollow formation by killing large trees and reducing recruitment of hollow-bearing individuals, though moderate fire intervals may promote decay in surviving trees. Tropical rainforests exhibit hollow formation via branch breakage, heartwood decay from fungi and , and buttress root damage, creating refuges that support a succession of colonizers from to vertebrates. In these dense forests, large emergent provide deep cavities offering thermal refuge from humidity and predators, essential for arboreal species. hollows, often in scattered like baobabs or eucalypts, contrast with the clustered availability in rainforests but sustain disproportionately high relative to tree density, as isolated hollow-bearing act as biodiversity hotspots. West African develop external splits and internal hollows through synergistic fire scarring and excavation, with fire creating entry points for to degrade heartwood. Hollow-dependent fauna in these ecosystems include a wide array of (e.g., and owlets), mammals (e.g., bats, possums, and small carnivores), and reptiles, with up to 77% of surveyed bird utilizing hollows in some tropical studies. In Australian tropical , overlapping use by declining arboreal mammals like possums highlights for limited large cavities, exacerbated by termite-enhanced but fire-limited supply. Neotropical psittacids, such as the , rely heavily on large cavities for nesting, with 93% of globally dependent on them, underscoring vulnerability in logged or fragmented . These structures contribute to function by facilitating multi-species interactions, including predation and within cavities, thereby maintaining trophic diversity in resource-scarce matrices. Compared to temperate forests, tropical and hollow abundance per can exceed that in eucalypt-dominated temperate woodlands, driven by rapid tropical decay rates despite shorter lifespans in fire-prone areas.

Urban and Fragmented Landscapes

In urban landscapes, the availability of tree hollows is often limited by the predominance of younger, fast-growing street trees and intensive management practices that prioritize safety and aesthetics over retention of mature or defective specimens. Large old trees, which disproportionately provide hollows essential for cavity-dependent , constitute a declining proportion of urban canopies, with models projecting an 87% reduction in hollow-bearing trees over 300 years under conventional replacement regimes that favor rapid-maturing species lacking decay-prone heartwood. Empirical surveys along urban gradients reveal variable densities, such as a mean of 37.5 hollow-bearing trees per , but standing dead trees—key contributors to hollow abundance—are frequently removed due to perceived hazards, exacerbating shortages for species like , bats, and . Fragmented landscapes, characterized by isolated patches of remnant vegetation amid agricultural or developed matrices, compound hollow scarcity through disrupted succession and reduced gene flow for hollow-forming processes like fungal decay and woodpecker excavation. In such habitats, the loss of contiguous old-growth stands hinders the recruitment of replacement hollow trees, which require centuries of uninterrupted growth; studies indicate that fragmentation elevates edge effects, accelerating windthrow and decay but also increasing removal rates for safety, thereby limiting habitat for obligate users. Wildlife reliant on hollows, including near-threatened pythons and woodpeckers, face heightened extinction risks in these settings, as isolation restricts dispersal and foraging, with cavity-nesting birds showing sensitivity to patch size and connectivity deficits. Despite these pressures, urban and fragmented hollows sustain disproportionate value, hosting taxa absent from non-decayed trees and supporting services like pest regulation via insectivorous residents. Risk assessments highlight that hollow prevalence correlates with escalating structural instability categories (A to C), underscoring the need for targeted retention where feasible, such as in parks or cemeteries, to bolster urban resilience without compromising public safety. Management data from municipal surveys affirm that conserving select hollow trees enhances perceived ecological benefits, countering biases in traditional that undervalue decay as a rather than a driver.

References

  1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351989421005175
  2. https://www.nrs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/gtr/gtr_nrs97.pdf
  3. https://wilderness.org.au/protecting-nature/endangered-animals-and-plants/hollow-bearing-trees-explained
  4. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2435.12566
  5. https://library.dbca.wa.gov.au/static/Journals/080346/080346-15.pdf
  6. https://bioone.org/journals/Wildlife-Biology/volume-22/issue-6/wlb.00210/Deep-tree-hollows-important-refuges-from-extreme-temperatures/10.2981/wlb.00210.pdf
  7. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378112724005486
  8. https://www.landscape.sa.gov.au/mr/blog/into-the-hollow-exploring-the-value-and-role-of-naturally-occurring-tree-hollows
  9. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4261855/
  10. https://www.scielo.br/j/cerne/a/RLfJtDXVfMfFTs559vRHBDC/
  11. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2435.14727
  12. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2016.0106
  13. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8717277/
  14. https://www.fs.usda.gov/nrs/pubs/jrnl/2018/nrs_2018_oberle_001.pdf
  15. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281227851_Hollows_in_living_trees_develop_slowly_but_considerably_influence_the_estimate_of_forest_biomass
  16. https://www.academia.edu/91980411/Development_of_tree_hollows_in_pedunculate_oak_Quercus_robur_?auto=download
  17. https://www.academia.edu/9049051/Does_hollow_occurrence_vary_with_forest_type_A_case_study_in_wet_and_dry_Eucalyptus_obliqua_forest?uc-g-sw=29936551
  18. https://fireecology.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s42408-024-00274-y
  19. https://www.fs.usda.gov/nrs/pubs/jrnl/2019/nrs_2019_fien_001.pdf
  20. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/tree-cavities
  21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9608801/
  22. https://www.fs.usda.gov/ne/newtown_square/publications/technical_reports/pdfs/scanned/gtr101.pdf
  23. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2656.13626
  24. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112717319667
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8366857/
  26. https://bioone.org/journals/wildlife-biology/volume-2020/issue-1/wlb.00564/Woodpecker-cavity-establishment-in-managed-forests--relative-rather-than/10.2981/wlb.00564.full
  27. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1890/110013
  28. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320714002547
  29. https://www.sgaonline.org.au/artificial-tree-hollows-for-animal-habitat/
  30. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112717310101
  31. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ee1904395e26646fbba9e79/t/6369bdb17a3d7f3af507cee9/1667874242021/Nest%2BBox%2BGuidelines%2B-%2BDesignDoc-V2.pdf
  32. https://wildlife.org.au/wildlife-queensland-creates-artificial-tree-hollows-for-endangered-gliders/
  33. https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.416
  34. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-13/invention-speeds-up-tree-hollows-for-wildlife-habitat/100446560
  35. https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.70084
  36. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2435.14146
  37. https://www.brrvln.org.au/artificial-hollows
  38. https://bioone.org/journals/wildlife-biology/volume-22/issue-6/wlb.00210/Deep-tree-hollows-important-refuges-from-extreme-temperatures/10.2981/wlb.00210.full
  39. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112725003640
  40. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0041864
  41. https://www.nwf.org/Magazines/National-Wildlife/2021/Oct-Nov/Gardening/Tree-Snags
  42. https://australian.museum/blog-archive/amri-news/hollows-as-homes/
  43. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0060456
  44. https://resjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/icad.12825
  45. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11284-017-1468-x
  46. https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/biodiversity/threatened/nominations/ineligible-ktp/loss-of-trees-due-to-ecologically-unsustainable-forestry-practices
  47. https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/biodiversity/threatened/nominations/ineligible-ktp/continuing-loss-trees-due-to-firewood-harvesting-practices
  48. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3465306/
  49. https://www.ucdavis.edu/climate/news/deforestation-neotropics-limits-nesting-habitat-cavity-nesting-birds
  50. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1618866715000850
  51. https://science.anu.edu.au/news-events/news/more-half-nsws-forests-and-woodlands-are-gone-ongoing-logging-increases-extinction
  52. https://news.mongabay.com/2013/12/new-guinea-animals-losing-vital-tree-cavities-to-logging-hunting-practices/
  53. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-25946-0
  54. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10721860/
  55. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10021-023-00830-8
  56. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112725006188
  57. https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/14/7/1372
  58. https://treesforlife.org.uk/into-the-forest/habitats-and-ecology/ecology/natural-disturbance/
  59. https://www.usfa.fema.gov/blog/how-deadfall-from-windstorms-can-affect-wildfire-behavior/
  60. https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jwmg.526
  61. https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/snags-cavity-trees-and-downed-logs.html
  62. https://woodlandstewards.osu.edu/sites/woodlands/files/imce/0001.pdf
  63. https://conservationcouncil.org.au/blog/2017/05/12/save-our-native-mature-trees-pillars-of-biodiversity/
  64. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378112708002806
  65. https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/FNR/FNR-102.pdf
  66. https://wildlife.org.au/protect-threatened-tree-hollows/
  67. https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/140444pnfhols.pdf
  68. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378112720311592
  69. https://www.putke.nl/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Installing-chainsaw-carved-hollows-in-medium-sized-live-trees-increases-rates-of-visitation-by-hollow-dependent-fauna.pdf
  70. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378112717310101
  71. https://www.ncwildlife.gov/wildlife-habitat/private-lands-management/wildlife-conservation-land-program
  72. https://harvardforest.fas.harvard.edu/publications/pdfs/Damato_umassextension_2007.pdf
  73. https://dnr.wa.gov/publications/lm_hcp_interaction_cavity_nesters.pdf
  74. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10045291/
  75. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/fee.2470
  76. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/am-pdf/10.1111/1365-2435.12566
  77. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35003651/
  78. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378112702004486
  79. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274666936_The_Abundance_of_Tree_Holes_and_Their_Utilization_by_Hole-Nesting_Birds_in_a_Primeval_Boreal_Forest_of_Mongolia
  80. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02827581.2023.2235272
  81. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6144968/
  82. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02827581.2025.2497364
  83. https://www.nespthreatenedspecies.edu.au/media/x1yndczo/1-1-1-tree-hollow-abundance-in-tropical-savannas-reseearch-findings-factsheet.pdf
  84. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378112718301956
  85. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112724007151
  86. https://www.britannica.com/topic/rainforest-tree-hollows-1673047
  87. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318186728_The_importance_of_scattered_trees_for_biodiversity_conservation_A_global_meta-analysis
  88. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-tropical-ecology/article/origin-of-trunk-damage-in-west-african-savanna-trees-the-interaction-of-fire-and-termites/ED8C0797DC2079F5150B8185F8E9FA12
  89. https://academic.oup.com/jmammal/article/101/4/1165/5896750
  90. https://journal.afonet.org/vol96/iss3/art4/
  91. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11542994/
  92. https://environment.nt.gov.au/media/docs/flora-and-fauna/flora-and-fauna-publications/2008/2008WoinarskiJ.C.Z.andWestawayJ.pdf
  93. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4062419/
  94. https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au/bitstream/handle/10072/367782/Treby_2014_02Thesis.pdf?sequence=1
  95. https://academic.oup.com/jue/article/5/1/juy030/5298915
  96. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351989424005705
  97. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-49419-0
  98. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8760855/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.