DOCSLIB.ORG

Relationships Between Grazing and Birds with Particular Reference to Sheep in the British Uplands

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Relationships Between Grazing and Birds with Particular Reference to Sheep in the British Uplands BTO Research Report No. 164 Relationships Between Grazing and Birds With Particular Reference to Sheep in the British Uplands Author Robert J. Fuller December 1996 A report by the British Trust for Ornithology to the Joint Nature Conservation Committee © British Trust for Ornithology, The Nunnery, Thetford, Norfolk, IP24 2PU Registered Charity No. 216652 CONTENTS Page No. List of Tables & Figures .............................................................................................................. 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................... 7 1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 9 2. SHEEP STOCKING: PATTERNS IN TIME AND SPACE (with S.J. Gough)...... 13 2.1 Historical and Long-term Aspects............................................................................... 13 2.2 An Analysis of Sheep Numbers Since 1950................................................................. 14 2.3 Local Recent Changes in Sheep Numbers in the Uplands......................................... 16 2.4 Conclusions.................................................................................................................... 17 3. MECHANISMS BY WHICH GRAZING MAY AFFECT UPLAND BIRDS ........ 19 3.1 Population Changes of Upland Birds in Relation to Grazing................................... 19 3.2 Overview of Potential Mechanisms ............................................................................. 20 3.2.1 Modification of Vegetation.............................................................................. 21 3.2.2 Dung and Drugs ............................................................................................... 21 3.2.3 Carrion.............................................................................................................. 22 3.2.4 Predation by Sheep .......................................................................................... 23 3.2.5 Trampling of Nests and Chicks ...................................................................... 23 3.2.6 Disease............................................................................................................... 23 3.3 Vegetation Change - Alteration of Vegetation Succession and Structure................ 23 3.4 Vegetation Change - Loss of Heather.......................................................................... 24 3.5 Vegetation Change - Alteration of Mosaics ................................................................ 26 3.6 Vegetation Change - Alteration of Food Resources................................................... 28 3.6.1 Fruit ....................................................................................................................... 28 3.6.2 Invertebrates .................................................................................................... 28 3.6.3 Small Mammals................................................................................................ 30 3.7 A Link Between Grazing Pressure and Predation Rates?......................................... 30 3.8 Relationship Between Grazing and Other Habitat Changes .................................... 30 3.8.1 Burning ............................................................................................................. 31 3.8.2 Drainage and ‘Land Improvement’ ............................................................... 31 3.8.3 Forestry and Predator Control....................................................................... 31 3.8.4 Acidification and Air Pollution....................................................................... 32 3.9 Conclusions.................................................................................................................... 32 4. CHANGES IN GRAZING PRESSURE - A SPECIES PERSPECTIVE................. 35 4.1 Red-throated diver Gavia stellata ................................................................................ 35 4.2 Black-throated diver Gavia arctica.............................................................................. 35 4.3 Greylag goose Anser anser............................................................................................ 35 4.4 Wigeon Anas penelope .................................................................................................. 36 4.5 Teal Anas crecca............................................................................................................ 36 4.6 Mallard Anas platyrhynchos......................................................................................... 36 4.7 Common scoter Melanitta nigra................................................................................... 36 4.8 Red-breasted merganser Mergus serrator................................................................... 36 4.9 Goosander Mergus merganser...................................................................................... 36 4.10 Red kite Milvus milvus.................................................................................................. 36 4.11 Hen harrier Circus cyaneus.......................................................................................... 36 Page No. BTO Research Report No. 164 December 1996 1 4.12 Buzzard Buteo buteo ..................................................................................................... 37 4.13 Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos.................................................................................... 37 4.14 Kestrel Falco tinnunculus............................................................................................. 38 4.15 Merlin Falco columbarius............................................................................................. 38 4.16 Peregrine Falco peregrinus........................................................................................... 38 4.17 Red grouse Lagopus lagopus ........................................................................................ 38 4.18 Ptarmigan Lagopus mutus............................................................................................ 39 4.19 Black grouse Tetrao tetrix............................................................................................. 39 4.20 Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus......................................................................... 39 4.21 Ringed plover Charadrius hiaticula............................................................................. 39 4.22 Dotterel Charadrius morinellus.................................................................................... 40 4.23 Golden plover Pluvialis apricaria................................................................................. 40 4.24 Lapwing Vanellus vanellus........................................................................................... 40 4.25 Temminck’s stint Calidris temminckii ......................................................................... 40 4.26 Purple sandpiper Calidris maritima............................................................................. 41 4.27 Dunlin Calidris alpina ................................................................................................... 41 4.28 Ruff Philomachus pugnax............................................................................................. 41 4.29 Snipe Gallinago gallinago............................................................................................. 41 4.30 Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus .................................................................................... 41 4.31 Curlew Numenius arquata............................................................................................ 41 4.32 Redshank Tringa totanus.............................................................................................. 42 4.33 Greenshank Tringa nebularia ...................................................................................... 42 4.34 Wood sandpiper Tringa glareola ................................................................................. 42 4.35 Common sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos........................................................................ 42 4.36 Red-necked phalarope Phalaropus lobatus................................................................. 42 4.37 Stock dove Columba oenas ........................................................................................... 42 4.38 Cuckoo Cuculus canorus .............................................................................................. 42 4.39 Snowy owl Nyctea scandiaca ........................................................................................ 42 4.40 Short-eared owl Asio flammeus.................................................................................... 43 4.41 Nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus ................................................................................. 43 4.42 Skylark Alauda arvensis ............................................................................................... 43 4.43 Shore lark Eremophila alpestris ................................................................................... 43 4.44 Meadow pipit Anthus pratensis.................................................................................... 43 4.45 Grey wagtail Motacilla cinerea .................................................................................... 44 4.46 Pied wagtail
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Government Data Confirm That Grizzly Bears Have a Negligible Effect on U.S. Cattle and Sheep Industries
    Government data confirm that grizzly bears have a negligible effect on U.S. cattle and sheep industries In the United States, data show that grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) kill few cattle and sheep. Livestock predation data collected by various governmental bodies differ significantly, however. The most recent data published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA)1 indicate losses many times greater than those collected by states and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). For instance, the USDA claims grizzly bears killed 3,162 cattle in nine states (in 2015), while the FWS verified only 123 such losses in three states (in 2013). Montana’s Board of Livestock’s data show that between 2015 and 2018 cattle losses from grizzly bears numbered 61 or less annually. The USDA’s methodology involves collecting data from a few mostly unverified sources, which the USDA then extrapolated statewide without calculating standard errors or using models to test relationships among various mortality factors.2 This contravenes the scientific method and results in exaggerated livestock losses attributed to native carnivores and dogs. Unfortunately, this misinformation informs public policies that harm native carnivores, including countless legislative attacks on grizzly bears, wolves and the Endangered Species Act. The Humane Society of the United States analyzed the USDA’s embellished predation numbers. Their data show that farmers and ranchers lose nine times more cattle and sheep to health, weather, birthing and theft problems than to all predators combined. In the USDA reports, “predators” include mammalian carnivores (e.g., cougars, wolves and bears), avian carnivores (e.g., eagles and hawks) and domestic dogs.
    [Show full text]
  • Livestock Concerns with Feral Hogs
    Livestock Concerns with Feral Hogs Aaron Sumrall Newton Co. Extension Agent History of Feral Hogs • Introduce to New World by De Soto in 1539 as a food source. • Made it to Texas in 1680’s. • Population explosion beginning in 1930 thru now……Why? – Great Depression….hardship of the 30’s. – Imported for hunting opportunities. What is the Current Status? • Population estimates of >1 million. • Occupy 244 of 254 counties. • 2007- Caused $52 million in Ag only. • $200/Hog/Year in Damage. • 42 of 50 States. Feral Hog Biology • Life expectancy of 4-5 years. • Reproductively capable of 6 months if nutrition is available. – 1st litter can be weaned before 1st birthday of sow. • Gestation of 115 days. • Average littler size of 4-6 piglets. • What do you call a group of feral hogs? Feral Hog Biology….Continued • Sounders typically of 6-12 individuals can be >30. • Mature hogs from 110-300 lbs. • Come in 3 flavors. – Eurasian Wild Boar – Domesticated hogs released – Combination of the two Areas of Feral Hog Damage • Agricultural:$52 million in 2007. • Disease • Predation • Habitat Destruction • Accidents • Sensitive Areas……example Wetlands. • Residential • Recreational • $800 million animal in Ag/Environmental. Areas of Feral Hog Damage...Continued • Length of tie required for land recovery. • Loss of topsoil. • Destruction of sensitive habitat. • Predation of livestock and wildlife population. • Introduction of other invasive species. – Reduction or loss of native vegetation. • Reduced water quality. – Roadway damage, etc…. What are Legal Options? • Hunting • Trapping • Dogs • Snares • Ariel Gunning What else is Legal? • Are you required to hold a hunting license shoot/hunt hogs? –It Depends!!! Is it Legal to Raise Feral Hogs? • NO! It is not legal to posses or feed feral hogs without a permit.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Food Habits of Deer and Three Classes of Livestock Author(S): Craig A
    Comparative Food Habits of Deer and Three Classes of Livestock Author(s): Craig A. McMahan Reviewed work(s): Source: The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Oct., 1964), pp. 798-808 Published by: Allen Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3798797 . Accessed: 13/07/2012 12:15 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Allen Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Wildlife Management. http://www.jstor.org COMPARATIVEFOOD HABITSOF DEERAND THREECLASSES OF LIVESTOCK CRAIGA. McMAHAN,Texas Parksand Wildlife Department,Hunt Abstract: To observe forage competition between deer and livestock, the forage selections of a tame deer (Odocoileus virginianus), a goat, a sheep, and a cow were observed under four range conditions, using both stocked and unstocked experimental pastures, on the Kerr Wildlife Management Area in the Edwards Plateau region of Texas in 1959. The animals were trained in 2 months of preliminary testing. The technique employed consisted of recording the number of bites taken of each plant species by each animal during a 45-minute grazing period in each pasture each week for 1 year.
    [Show full text]
  • Patterns of Discovery of Birds in Kerala Breeding of Black-Winged
    Vol.14 (1-3) Jan-Dec. 2016 newsletter of malabar natural history society Akkulam Lake: Changes in the birdlife Breeding of in two decades Black-winged Patterns of Stilt Discovery of at Munderi Birds in Kerala Kadavu European Bee-eater Odonates from Thrissur of Kadavoor village District, Kerala Common Pochard Fulvous Whistling Duck A new duck species - An addition to the in Kerala Bird list of - Kerala for subscription scan this qr code Contents Vol.14 (1-3)Jan-Dec. 2016 Executive Committee Patterns of Discovery of Birds in Kerala ................................................... 6 President Mr. Sathyan Meppayur From the Field .......................................................................................................... 13 Secretary Akkulam Lake: Changes in the birdlife in two decades ..................... 14 Dr. Muhamed Jafer Palot A Checklist of Odonates of Kadavoor village, Vice President Mr. S. Arjun Ernakulam district, Kerala................................................................................ 21 Jt. Secretary Breeding of Black-winged Stilt At Munderi Kadavu, Mr. K.G. Bimalnath Kattampally Wetlands, Kannur ...................................................................... 23 Treasurer Common Pochard/ Aythya ferina Dr. Muhamed Rafeek A.P. M. A new duck species in Kerala .......................................................................... 25 Members Eurasian Coot / Fulica atra Dr.T.N. Vijayakumar affected by progressive greying ..................................................................... 27
    [Show full text]
  • Heraldic Terms
    HERALDIC TERMS The following terms, and their definitions, are used in heraldry. Some terms and practices were used in period real-world heraldry only. Some terms and practices are used in modern real-world heraldry only. Other terms and practices are used in SCA heraldry only. Most are used in both real-world and SCA heraldry. All are presented here as an aid to heraldic research and education. A LA CUISSE, A LA QUISE - at the thigh ABAISED, ABAISSÉ, ABASED - a charge or element depicted lower than its normal position ABATEMENTS - marks of disgrace placed on the shield of an offender of the law. There are extreme few records of such being employed, and then only noted in rolls. (As who would display their device if it had an abatement on it?) ABISME - a minor charge in the center of the shield drawn smaller than usual ABOUTÉ - end to end ABOVE - an ambiguous term which should be avoided in blazon. Generally, two charges one of which is above the other on the field can be blazoned better as "in pale an X and a Y" or "an A and in chief a B". See atop, ensigned. ABYSS - a minor charge in the center of the shield drawn smaller than usual ACCOLLÉ - (1) two shields side-by-side, sometimes united by their bottom tips overlapping or being connected to each other by their sides; (2) an animal with a crown, collar or other item around its neck; (3) keys, weapons or other implements placed saltirewise behind the shield in a heraldic display.
    [Show full text]
  • The Romance of Clan Crests and Mottoes
    For Private Circulation The Romance of Clan Crests and Mottoes BY A. POLSON, F.S.A., Scot. H./v . 4/^. )12f Ht 4^ J ^X^ ^ m^-t JfiUum,— The Romance of Clan Crests and Mottoes. This is not a paper on Heraldry, but only a small collec- tion of legends regarding the incidents which are said to account for the crests and mottoes of some of the Highland clans. It is hoped that the recital of these may induce some of the members of the clans not mentioned here to tell any story they may have heard regarding their crests, so that fellow clansmen may take a deeper interest in all that pertains to the crest which many of them so proudly wear. The innate vanity which has prompted men of all races and ages to don ornaments and decorations must, among other things, be held responsible for the armorial bearings which have been, and are, worn by individuals, families, and communities, all of whom seem peculiarly sensitive as to the right of any other to impinge on their privilege of wearing the peculiar design chosen by themselves or an ancestor. Heraldry is not itself an old science, but the desire for some distinguishing ornament accounts, among savages, for the painted designs their bodies and on their shields and on ; men bearing similar designs were, and are, regarded as brethren. There is ample evidence of the antiquity of these emblems. One wonders whether Jacob in blessing his sons had in mind the emblems of the tribes when he said: " Judah is a lion's whelp.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrating Deer and Cattle Management in the Post Oak Savannah by David W
    Integrating Deer and Cattle Management in the Post Oak Savannah by David W. Rideout, Wildlife Biologist, Texas Parks and Wildlife 1. Do not try to carry more cattle arrowleaf clover and ryegrass to than the land can support over the benefit cattle and deer. long term. Graze native pastures on a rotating basis wherever 5. Minimize use of herbicides in possible, resting pastures for at pastures. Mowing or spot treat- 9. Control feral (wild) hogs by least as long they are grazed. ment of undesirable weeds with shooting or trapping whenever Consider using stocker operation 2-4D (1 pt./acre) is preferred over possible. Winter months are most from March through August broadcast spraying. effective to control these direct instead of continuous cow/calf competitors of deer. operation. 6. In May, plant 1-5% of acreage in summer supplemental food plots 10. Do not try to carry more deer 2. Fence off or exclude wooded areas fenced-off/excluded from cattle. Plots than the land can support over the from cattle wherever possible from should be long and narrow, and at long term. Generally, one deer/ mid August through February, least five acres due to usually heavy 10 acres in bottomland and one especially bottomlands to prevent use by deer. Bottomland plots, not deer/25 acres in upland is the competition with deer for browse. subjected to standing water, are recommended carrying capacity in Include in fenced-off areas, one or more productive. A combination of the Post Oak Savannah, depending more acres of native pasture to iron and clay cowpeas, alyce clover on cattle stocking rates.
    [Show full text]
  • Feeding Broiler Litter to Beef Cattle
    MP-1773 February, 1996 Feeding Broiler Litter to Beef Cattle G. W. Evers, L. W. Greene, J. B. Carey and D. S. Doctorian* Broiler production in Texas has expanded at er litter to beef cattle utilizing information an annual rate of 7 percent since 1986 with from other states and two surveys on broiler 371 million broilers produced in 1994. Broiler litter feeding in the eastern half of Texas. litter (mixture of poultry excreta, bedding material, wasted feed and feathers) is usually Feed Quality Broiler Litter removed from the poultry houses on an annual Not all broiler litter is suitable for livestock basis. Because of its high nutrient content, feed. It is estimated that only about 35 percent poultry litter is usually applied to agricultural of the broiler litter produced in Alabama is of land as fertilizer with an economic value of $20 sufficient quality to be fed to cattle (Ruffin and to $30/ton. Broiler litter has a higher value as McCaskey, 1993). The composition of broiler a feed for beef cattle. Cattle are ruminants and litter is quite variable due to the amount of soil can digest material high in cellulose, hemicellu- contamination, type of litter, number of batch- lose and fiber. Byproducts of many grain and es of birds reared on the litter, and poultry food processing industries (i.e. citrus pulp, house management (McCaskey, 1995). The sugar beet pulp, brewers grain, corn gluten, nutrient and mineral variability of broiler litter fish meal, cotton hulls, and rice bran) are fed fed in Texas during the 1993-94 winter is to cattle.
    [Show full text]
  • Ruminant Animal? Many Different Species of Ruminant Animals Are Found Around the World
    What is a Ruminant Animal? Many different species of ruminant animals are found around the world. Ruminants include cattle, sheep, goats, buffalo, deer, elk, giraffes and camels. These animals all have a digestive system that is uniquely different from our own. Instead of one compartment to the stomach they have four. Of the four compartments the rumen is the largest section and the main digestive centre. The rumen is filled with billions of tiny microorganisms that are able to break down grass and other coarse vegetation that animals with one stomach (including humans, chickens and pigs) cannot digest. Ruminant animals do not completely chew the grass or vegetation they eat. The partially chewed grass goes into the large rumen where it is stored and broken down into balls of “cud”. When the animal has eaten its fill it will rest and “chew its cud”. The cud is then swallowed once again where it will pass into the next three compartments—the reticulum, the omasum and the true stomach, the abomasum. Dairy calves have a four-part stomach when they are born. However, they function primarily as a monogastric (simple-stomached) animal during the first part of their lives. At birth the first three compartments of a calf’s stomach—rumen, reticulum, and omasum—are inactive and undeveloped. As the calf grows and begins to eat a variety of feeds, its stomach compartments also begin to grow and change. The abomasum constitutes nearly 60 percent of the young calf’s stomach, decreasing to about 8 percent in the mature cow. The rumen comprises about 25 percent of the young calf’s stomach, increasing to 80 percent in the mature cow.
    [Show full text]
  • Know Your River Birds Guide
    Know Your River Birds River birds in Scotland are amazing. When you walk along the Water of Leith, or any river in Scotland, look out for a flash of the exotic orange- breasted kingfisher, the disco-dancing dipper or the lanky grey heron perching casually on just one foot. These are all birds for whom the river is their habitat, or home. Find out below how to identify these birds on your walk and learn about the amazing ways in which they are adapted to life on a river. Grey Heron Goosander (Ardea cinera) (Mergus The grey heron is the biggest merganser) bird you’ll see on the river, These birds are standing at 1 metre high. members of the They’ve been around for a sawbill duck stunning 7 million years and family, so named are closely related to storks because sawbills and cranes. They’re grey, black and white. Immature birds are largely grey without the black stripe on their head. have a long bill with little saw-like teeth which They’re incredible at fishing, standing still in the river until a fish helps them to hold their prey firmly. This photo comes along and then darting forwards to catch their prey with is of the male goosander. The female has a their long beak. With a small fish, they swallow it head first in greyer body and a brown head. the river but with larger prey like eels and small rodents they Goosanders make their nests in the hollows of carry them to the bank to beat them or stab them with their riverbank trees so they need to be near a long beaks.
    [Show full text]
  • Population Changes of Riparian Birds Along Rivers and Canals in the Severn-Trent Region Between 1989 and 1993
    BTO Research Report No. 148 Population changes of riparian birds along rivers and canals in the Severn-Trent region between 1989 and 1993 John H Marchant & Richard D Gregory A report to the Conservation Office of the National Rivers Authority, Severn-Trent Region, from the British Trust for Ornithology November 1994 BTO, National Centre for Ornithology, The Nunnery, Thetford, Norfolk, IP24 2PU Registered Charity No.216652 Marchant, J H & Gregory R D, 1994 Population changes of riparian birds along rivers and canals in the Severn-Trent region between 1989 and 1993 BTO Research Report No 148 Thetford (BTO). A report to the Conservation Office of the National Rivers Authority, Severn-Trent Region, from the British Trust for Ornithology November 1994 BTO, National Centre for Ornithology, The Nunnery, Thetford, Norfolk, UK Copyright © British Trust for Ornithology and National Rivers Authority 1994 ISBN 0-903793-50-4 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form, or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publishers. CONTENTS Summary ................................................................................................................................3 1. Introduction............................................................................................................................5 2. Methods..................................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Ticks of Japan, Korea, and the Ryukyu Islands Noboru Yamaguti Department of Parasitology, Tokyo Women's Medical College, Tokyo, Japan
    Brigham Young University Science Bulletin, Biological Series Volume 15 | Number 1 Article 1 8-1971 Ticks of Japan, Korea, and the Ryukyu Islands Noboru Yamaguti Department of Parasitology, Tokyo Women's Medical College, Tokyo, Japan Vernon J. Tipton Department of Zoology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah Hugh L. Keegan Department of Preventative Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Mississippi, Jackson, Mississippi Seiichi Toshioka Department of Entomology, 406th Medical Laboratory, U.S. Army Medical Command, APO San Francisco, 96343, USA Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byuscib Part of the Anatomy Commons, Botany Commons, Physiology Commons, and the Zoology Commons Recommended Citation Yamaguti, Noboru; Tipton, Vernon J.; Keegan, Hugh L.; and Toshioka, Seiichi (1971) "Ticks of Japan, Korea, and the Ryukyu Islands," Brigham Young University Science Bulletin, Biological Series: Vol. 15 : No. 1 , Article 1. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byuscib/vol15/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Brigham Young University Science Bulletin, Biological Series by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. MUS. CO MP. zooi_: c~- LIBRARY OCT 2 9 1971 HARVARD Brigham Young University UNIVERSITY Science Bulletin TICKS Of JAPAN, KOREA, AND THE RYUKYU ISLANDS by Noboru Yamaguti Vernon J. Tipton Hugh L. Keegan Seiichi Toshioka BIOLOGICAL SERIES — VOLUME XV, NUMBER 1 AUGUST 1971 BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY SCIENCE BULLETIN BIOLOGICAL SERIES Editor: Stanley L. Welsh, Department of Botany, Brigham Young University, Prove, Utah Members of the Editorial Board: Vernon J.
    [Show full text]