Biology Department Research Group Terrestrial Ecology EARLY
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Biology Department Research Group Terrestrial Ecology _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Academic year: 2019 – 2020 EARLY TERRITORY SELECTION BY THE THREATENED YELLOWHAMMER EMBERIZA CITRINELLA IN WEST FLANDERS Bram Catfolis Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Luc Lens, Ghent University Co-supervisor: Prof. Dr. Luc De Bruyn, Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) Scientific tutor: Olivier Dochy, Province of West Flanders Master’s dissertation submitted to obtain the degree of Master of Science in Biology Photo on front page: © Rini Lamboo © Faculty of Sciences – research group Terrestrial Ecology All rights reserved. This thesis contains confidential information and confidential research results that are property to the UGent. The contents of this master thesis may under no circumstances be made public, nor complete or partial, without the explicit and preceding permission of the UGent representative, i.e. the supervisor. The thesis may under no circumstances be copied or duplicated in any form, unless permission granted in written form. Any violation of the confidential nature of this thesis may impose irreparable damage to the UGent. In case of a dispute that may arise within the context of this declaration, the Judicial Court of Gent only is competent to be notified. Table of contents 1 INTRODUCTION 3 1.1 HISTORY OF THE EUROPEAN LOWLAND FARMLAND 3 1.1.1 COLLAPSE OF EUROPE’S FARMLAND BIRD POPULATIONS 3 1.1.2 EUROPEAN POLICIES AND LEGISLATION CONCERNING AGRICULTURAL INTENSIFICATION 4 1.2 CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FARMLAND BIRDS 4 1.2.1 LOSS OF MIXED FARMING 4 1.2.2 MECHANIZATION AND CHANGE OF CROPS 5 1.2.3 LOSS OF FIELD BOUNDARIES AND MARGINS 5 1.2.4 THE USE OF PESTICIDES 6 1.3 THE STRUGGLE OF OVERWINTER SURVIVAL 7 1.3.1 ‘WINTER BIRD CROPS’ TO THE RESCUE 7 1.4 YELLOWHAMMER PROJECT & THESIS FRAMEWORK 8 1.4.1 THE SPECIES ACTION PLAN 8 1.5 ENTERING THE BREEDING PERIOD 9 1.5.1 NEST SITE SELECTION 9 1.5.2 SURROUNDING HABITAT SPECIFICITY 10 1.5.3 CONSPECIFIC ATTRACTION 11 1.5.4 BEARING IN MIND: COUNTRY SPECIFIC ASPECTS 12 1.6 THE YELLOWHAMMER AS A STUDY SPECIES 12 1.6.1 CHARACTERISTICS 12 1.6.2 HABITAT 13 1.6.3 DIET 13 1.6.4 BEHAVIOUR 13 1.6.5 POPULATION TREND AND DISTRIBUTION 14 2 OBJECTIVES 15 2.1 OBJECTIVE 1: WHICH HABITAT FEATURES DETERMINE A PREFERRED YELLOWHAMMER TERRITORY? 15 2.2 OBJECTIVE 2: DO WINTER FOOD PLOTS HAVE AN INFLUENCE ON EARLY TERRITORY SETTLEMENT BY THE YELLOWHAMMER? 15 2.3 OBJECTIVE 3: ARE YELLOWHAMMER TERRITORIES SPATIALLY CLUSTERED? 16 3 MATERIAL & METHODS 17 3.1 STUDY SITE 17 3.2 DATA COLLECTION 17 3.2.1 COLOUR-RINGING 17 3.2.2 BIRD SURVEYS AND TERRITORY MAPPING 19 3.2.3 SURROUNDING HABITAT FEATURES 20 1 3.3 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 22 3.3.1 TERRITORY SETTLEMENT AND THE RELATION WITH SURROUNDING HABITAT FEATURES 22 3.3.2 INFLUENCE OF WINTER FOOD PLOTS ON EARLY TERRITORY SETTLEMENT 23 3.3.3 PATTERNS OF TERRITORY DISTRIBUTION 23 4 RESULTS 25 4.1 YELLOWHAMMER TERRITORIES 25 4.2 DATA EXPLORATION 25 4.3 TERRITORY SETTLEMENT IN RELATION TO HABITAT VARIABLES 27 4.4 INFLUENCE OF WINTER FOOD PLOTS ON EARLY TERRITORY SETTLEMENT 29 4.4.1 NEAREST WINTER FOOD PLOT 30 4.4.2 THREE NEAREST WINTER FOOD PLOTS 30 4.5 TERRITORY DISTRIBUTION 30 5 DISCUSSION 32 5.1 GENERAL 32 5.2 HABITAT FEATURES DETERMINING TERRITORY SELECTION 32 5.2.1 HEDGES 33 5.2.2 FIELD MARGINS 34 5.2.3 DITCHES 35 5.2.4 METHODOLOGICAL REMARKS ON DETERMINING HABITAT PREFERENCES 35 5.3 INFLUENCE OF WINTER FOOD PLOTS ON EARLY TERRITORY SETTLEMENT 36 5.4 CLUSTERED TERRITORY DISTRIBUTION 37 5.4.1 METHODOLOGICAL REMARKS ON CLUSTER ANALYSIS 39 5.5 IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT 39 5.6 GENERAL PROPOSAL FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 40 6 CONCLUSION 41 7 SUMMARY 42 7.1 ENGLISH SUMMARY 42 7.2 NEDERLANDSTALIGE SAMENVATTING 44 8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 46 9 REFERENCES 47 10 APPENDIX 57 2 1 Introduction 1.1 History of the European lowland farmland 1.1.1 Collapse of Europe’s farmland bird populations Traditionally, land use throughout much of western Europe is dominated by agriculture. Until the 60s of the twentieth century, farmland birds had no problems getting food all year round (Shrubb 2003). Countless fields with overwintered stubbles and spilled grain used to provide a seed source over the early and mid-winter periods (Potts 2003, Evans et al. 2004). Once the field was ploughed, new seeds from crops and weeds come to the surface. In the late winter, farmland birds were presumably dependent on these ploughing activities (Shrubb 2003). Sowing during spring, periods of fallow and varied crop rotation made it possible for every species to find suitable habitat at any time. But due to post-war changes in European agriculture, the availability of all of these has fallen dramatically (Shrubb 2003). Governmental policies and technological advances rapidly changed this sustainable and balanced land use (Robinson & Sutherland 2002). The changes caused by this agricultural intensification were of that nature that most farmland species, especially farmland birds, could not adapt (Chamberlain et al. 2000, Anderson et al. 2001, Donald et al. 2001). In the mid-1970s, many farmland species started to decline markedly (Siriwardena et al. 1998a). The suite of changes in the agricultural environment around that time adversely affected many species’ populations. Species, such as Wren (Troglodytes troglodytes), Pied wagtail (Motacilla alba yarrellii) and Treecreeper (Certhia familiaris) showed a similar trend in abundance decline, despite their different ecological requirements (Siriwardena et al. 1998a). Such coincidences in population trend are more likely to indicate that a large number of components of agricultural intensification changed at the same time, but the actual individual factors affecting population change differed from species to species (Chamberlain et al. 2000). However, some species like Stock dove (Columba oenas), Jackdaw (Corvus monedula) and Chaffinch (Fringella coelebs) showed increased abundances, indicating that certain agricultural changes can be beneficial for some species (Chamberlain et al. 2000). Usually, the species that benefit or experience little effect of this intensification are generalists which have more catholic habitat preferences in comparison with farmland specialists (Robinson & Sutherland 2002). These specialist species can thrive only in a narrow range of environmental conditions or have a limited diet, which makes them vulnerable to rapid and drastic habitat changes. If we want to avoid a biological impoverishment of our lowland farmland, we must counteract the negative consequences of intensified farming. For nearly 120 bird Species of European Conservation Concern, lowland farmland provides a breeding or wintering habitat. This is the largest number of such species supported by any habitat (Donald et al. 2001). In Flanders, 10% of the birds listed in the Red List of Flemish Breeding Birds are farmland birds (Devos et al. 2016). Granivorous species, those with a substantial seed component in the diet, experience the strongest decline compared to other farmland bird species (Wilson et al. 1999). Endangered species from agricultural landscape and farmland birds in particular hardly benefit from the traditional, reserve-oriented nature policy in Flanders (Devos et al. 2004). Even though the rate of change in agriculture has slowed, the majority of farmland specialists have continued to decline since the late 1980s (Fuller et al. 2000). A population recovery on a larger scale requires a thorough reform of the Flemish and European agricultural policy. Because farmland birds depend on a wide variety of landscape and nature factors for their survival, they are good indicators of landscape quality in general. 3 1.1.2 European policies and legislation concerning agricultural intensification In 1962, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) came into force and serves as the main agricultural policy tool of the European Union (Butler et al. 2010). It implements a system of agricultural subsidies and other programs to support farmers and improve agricultural productivity. The most important measure taken by CAP in 1992 are the so-called agri-environment schemes (AES). They are designed to encourage farmers to protect and enhance the environment on their farmland by paying them for the provision of environmental services. Farmers commit themselves, for a minimum period of at least five years, to adopt environmentally-friendly farming techniques that go beyond legal obligations and that try to support biodiversity, enhance the landscape, mitigate climate change, and improve the quality of water, air and soil. AES are a financially attractive form of environmental protection because at least 50% of the costs of approved agri-environment schemes flows from the European Union Common Agricultural Policy. The rest of the money is funded by the Member States themselves (Batáry et al. 2015). However, the effectiveness and efficiency of the AES are still heavily debated. While several studies have found positive effects on the biodiversity in response to changed agricultural practices under AES programs (MacDonald et al. 2012, Evans et al. 2019), others have shown mixed or limited benefits (Kleijn et al. 2001, Feehan et al. 2005, Princé et al. 2012), and even negative biodiversity outcomes (Besnard & Secondi 2014, Fuentes-Montemayor et al. 2011). Despite their mixed success, AES now represent the dominant policy instrument for conserving biodiversity in agricultural landscapes (Ansell et al. 2016). To improve the effectiveness of the AES, a continuous multidisciplinary evaluation of conservation programs is needed. 1.2 Changes in management and implications for farmland birds For more than 50 years, agricultural intensification leads to a population decline of bird species associated with agriculture on a European scale. This applies both to farmland birds and meadow birds. But intensification is not an unambiguous process. It consists of several components, which often occur simultaneously and are interlinked.