DOCSLIB.ORG

The Effects of Upland Management Practices on Avian Diversity

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Effects of Upland Management Practices on Avian Diversity The Effects of Upland Management Practices on Avian diversity Bronwen Daniel September 2010 A Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science and the Diploma of Imperial College London 1 Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 3 2. Background................................................................................................................................. 11 2.1 Birds as indicators ................................................................................................................ 11 2.1.1 Upland birds ...................................................................................................................... 11 2.2 Management Practices......................................................................................................... 13 2.2.1 Grouse Moor Management........................................................................................... 15 2.2.2 Predator control ............................................................................................................ 16 2.2.3 Burning .......................................................................................................................... 17 2.2.4 Grazing Pressure............................................................................................................ 17 2.2.5 Implications of upland management for bird populations ........................................... 19 2.3. Diversity Indices .................................................................................................................. 21 2.3.1 Studies of Biodiversity ................................................................................................... 22 2.4 Survey Techniques ............................................................................................................... 23 2.5 Study Area ............................................................................................................................ 24 3. Methods ..................................................................................................................................... 25 3.1 Site selection ........................................................................................................................ 25 3.2 Field techniques ................................................................................................................... 26 3.2.1 Vegetation Plots to gauge grazing intensity ...................................................................... 26 3.2.2 Bird surveys for diversity measures .............................................................................. 28 3.2.3 Interviews for Management Intensity .......................................................................... 29 3.3 Statistical Analyses ............................................................................................................... 30 3.3.1 Response variables ........................................................................................................ 30 3.3.2 Explanatory variables .................................................................................................... 30 3.3.3 Model selection ............................................................................................................. 31 4. Results ........................................................................................................................................ 33 4.1 All Species ............................................................................................................................. 33 4.1.1 All species: Richness ...................................................................................................... 34 4.1.2 All Species: Simpson’s Index .......................................................................................... 34 4.2 Waders ................................................................................................................................. 34 4.2.1 Species richness for waders .......................................................................................... 34 2 4.2.2 Simpsons Dominance Index for Waders ....................................................................... 36 4.3 Passerines ............................................................................................................................. 38 4.3.1 Passerine Richness ........................................................................................................ 38 4.3.2 Passerine: Simpson’s index ........................................................................................... 39 5. Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 42 5.1 Overall species diversity ....................................................................................................... 42 5.2 Wader Diversity .................................................................................................................... 43 5.3 Passerine Diversity ............................................................................................................... 45 5.4 Limitations of the study ....................................................................................................... 46 5.5 Environmental Considerations ............................................................................................. 47 5.6 Recommendations for future research ................................................................................ 47 5.7 Concluding remarks .............................................................................................................. 48 List of tables Table 2.1 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12 Figure 2.1 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 14 Figure 2.3 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 16 Figure 2.4 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18 Table 3.1 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 20 Figure 3.1 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 25 Figure 3.2 a …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 25 Figure 3.2 b ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 27 Table 3.1 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 28 Table 4.1 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 32 Table 4.2 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 33 Table 4.3 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 34 Table 4.4 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 34 Figure 4.1 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 35 3 Table 4.5 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 37 Table 4.6 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 37 Figure 4.2 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 38 Table 4.7 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 38 Table 4.8 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 39 Figure 4.3 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 39 Table 4.9 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 40 Figure 4.4 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 40 List of Acronyms AIC: Akaike’s D: Simpson’s index MuMIn: Multi-model inference PC: Predator Control S: Species richness 4 Abstract Grouse shooting and deer stalking are traditional sports of the uplands. Coupled with sheep grazing, the management of grouse and deer estates maintains the heather-grass mosaics of the open moorland which has persisted for the last 150- 200 years. The Scottish uplands provides important habitat for birds of both national and international importance. Socio-economic and political drivers are causing shifts in upland management. The last century has seen a decrease in employment of game keepers and a decline in livestock grazing as land use shifts from management for sporting estates and livestock grazing to afforestation and conservation-recreation. The impacts of reduced grazing and management are a cause of concern for biodiversity. There has been much study on the impacts of over and under grazing on vegetation diversity. There is a need to address the knowledge gap concerning the implications of changing management practices on avian diversity. This study set out to examine links between bird species diversity and different heather moorland management practice types in the Scottish uplands and determine which management activities have the greatest impacts on avian diversity. Species richness and Simpson’s index were used as measures of diversity of the overall bird assemblage, as well for the functional groups of waders and passerines. The relationships between management practices and avian diversity were explored. Results from this study indicate that waders require higher levels of burning and predator control to support higher levels of species diversity. In contrast, passerines depend on lower levels of sheep grazing for higher levels of diversity. No one management practice supports a high diversity across all the functional groups. Rather, a mixture of management practices leads to maximum avian diversity. In order to support optimal levels of species diversity estates need to implement low levels of sheep grazing and burning practices, as well as practicing predator control. Word count: 11,167 5 Acknowledgements Firstly I would like to thank my supervisors
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bird Studies Overview
    Chapter 7. Bird Studies Overview teigerwald Lake National Wildlife Refuge provides a variety of habitats for many species of birds. Thousands of breeding birds rely on the resources of the refuge to Srest, eat, and raise their young. In addition, the refuge supports wetlands that are vital to the survival of migratory birds. The activities that follow offer an excellent opportunity for students to learn about and to observe the different species of birds — their behaviors and adaptations to the habitats on the refuge. Background The actively managed refuge wetlands and grasslands, when combined with the natural floodplain vegetative communities, provide habitat that supports over 200 species of birds. Hundreds of thousands of birds migrate along the lower Columbia River every year. The refuge hosts thousands of migratory birds that fly thousands of miles from their breeding grounds in Arctic Canada and Alaska to their wintering grounds in Baja California or South America, a route known as the Pacific Flyway. The few remaining areas of wetland habitat along the lower Columbia River are vital to the flyway. Some birds spend their winter on refuge wetlands, returning north to nest; some nest here but migrate to milder climates in the south for the winter; and some do not migrate at all but remain in the area as permanent residents. Several of the songbirds found in the summer spend our winters in Central and South America, migrating thousands of miles annually between their summer and winter habitats. Birds using the refuge are specifically adapted to the type of food they eat and the type of habitat they occupy (open water, freshwater wetland, field, riparian woodland, or upland woodland).
    [Show full text]
  • Scottish Birds 37:3 (2017)
    Contents Scottish Birds 37:3 (2017) 194 President’s Foreword J. Main PAPERS 195 Potential occurrence of the Long-tailed Skua subspecies Stercorarius longicaudus pallescens in Scotland C.J. McInerny & R.Y. McGowan 202 Amendments to The Scottish List: species and subspecies The Scottish Birds Records Committee 205 The status of the Pink-footed Goose at Cameron Reservoir, Fife from 1991/92 to 2015/16: the importance of regular monitoring A.W. Brown 216 Montagu’s Harrier breeding in Scotland - some observations on the historical records from the 1950s in Perthshire R.L. McMillan SHORT NOTES 221 Scotland’s Bean Geese and the spring 2017 migration C. Mitchell, L. Griffin, A. MacIver & B. Minshull 224 Scoters in Fife N. Elkins OBITUARIES 226 Sandy Anderson (1927–2017) A. Duncan & M. Gorman 227 Lance Leonard Joseph Vick (1938–2017) I. Andrews, J. Ballantyne & K. Bowler ARTICLES, NEWS & VIEWS 229 The conservation impacts of intensifying grouse moor management P.S. Thompson & J.D. Wilson 236 NEWS AND NOTICES 241 Memories of the three St Kilda visitors in July 1956 D.I.M. Wallace, D.G. Andrew & D. Wilson 244 Where have all the Merlins gone? A lament for the Lammermuirs A.W. Barker, I.R. Poxton & A. Heavisides 251 Gannets at St Abb’s Head and Bass Rock J. Cleaver 254 BOOK REVIEWS 256 RINGERS' ROUNDUP Iain Livingstone 261 The identification of an interesting Richard’s Pipit on Fair Isle in June 2016 I.J. Andrews 266 ‘Canada Geese’ from Canada: do we see vagrants of wild birds in Scotland? J. Steele & J.
    [Show full text]
  • Histories of Value Following Deer Populations Through the English Landscape from 1800 to the Present Day
    Holly Marriott Webb Histories of Value Following Deer Populations Through the English Landscape from 1800 to the Present Day Master’s thesis in Global Environmental History 1 Abstract Marriott Webb, H. 2019. Histories of Value: Following Deer Populations Through the English Landscape from 1800 to the Present Day. Uppsala, Department of Archaeology and Ancient His- tory. Imagining the English landscape as an assemblage entangling deer and people throughout history, this thesis explores how changes in deer population connect to the ways deer have been valued from 1800 to the present day. Its methods are mixed, its sources are conversations – human voices in the ongoing historical negotiations of the multispecies body politic, the moot of people, animals, plants and things which shapes and orders the landscape assemblage. These conversations include interviews with people whose lives revolve around deer, correspondence with the organisations that hold sway over deer lives, analysis of modern media discourse around deer issues and exchanges with the history books. It finds that a non-linear increase in deer population over the time period has been accompanied by multiple changes in the way deer are valued as part of the English landscape. Ending with a reflection on how this history of value fits in to wider debates about the proper representation of animals, the nature of non-human agency, and trajectories of the Anthropocene, this thesis seeks to open up new ways of exploring questions about human- animal relationships in environmental history. Keywords: Assemblages, Deer, Deer population, England, Hunting, Landscape, Making killable, Moots, Multispecies, Nativist paradigm, Olwig, Pests, Place, Trash Animals, Tsing, United Kingdom, Wildlife management.
    [Show full text]
  • Driven Grouse Shooting
    Driven grouse shooting RSPB Council updated our previous policy on driven grouse shooting in October 2020. Our policy is to support licensing of driven grouse shooting across the UK, following expected progress on this issue in Scotland in 2020. Unless substantial progress (including effective licensing, stopping raptor killing, cessation of burning on peat soils, and banning use of lead ammunition) is made in reforming driven grouse shooting by 2025 in line with RSPB principles for sustainable gamebird shooting, we will consequently call on governments to introduce a specific ban on driven grouse shooting. Background Driven grouse shooting is defined as where shooters sit in lines of grouse butts on open moorland, and red grouse are then driven by beaters and dogs over the guns to shoot. The activity usually involves shooting large grouse “bags” (where large numbers of grouse are shot in a day). It is a unique hunting type to the UK (mainly England and Scotland) and shooters will pay large sums of money for a day’s shooting. Typically, gamekeepers are employed to kill predators that eat grouse; heather is burned to create young heather (the main foodplant of red grouse); and other additional management techniques are employed to produce as many red grouse as possible for shooting. The red grouse shooting season opens on the 12 August (“the Glorious Twelfth”). The alternative walked up grouse shooting involves a small number of shooters accompanied by dogs. They generally take small and sustainable numbers of grouse, as walked up shooting is more about the hunting experience. This is much less of a conservation issue for us.
    [Show full text]
  • 03/16/2020 9:21 Am
    ACTION: Withdraw Proposed DATE: 03/16/2020 9:21 AM 1501:31-7-05 Seasons and limits on rail, common snipe (Wilson's snipe), woodcock, gallinules (common moorhens), teal, geese and mourning doves. (A) Throughout the state, it shall be unlawful for any person to hunt, kill, wound, take, or attempt to take, or to possess any of the migratory game birds specified in this rule except as provided in this rule or other rules of the Administrative Code. (1) It shall be unlawful for any person to hunt, take, or possess any rails except sora and Virginia, which may be hunted and taken from September 1, 20192020 through November 9, 20192020. (2) It shall be unlawful for any person to take or possess more than twenty-five rails singly or in the aggregate in one day, or to possess more than seventy-five rails singly or in the aggregate at anytime after the second day. (3) It shall be unlawful for any person to hunt, take, or possess common snipe (Wilson's snipe) at any time, except from September 1, 20192020 through November 26, 201924, 2020 and December 14, 201912, 2020 through January 2December 31, 2020. (4) It shall be unlawful for any person to hunt, take, or possess woodcock at any time, except from October 12, 201910, 2020 through November 25, 201923, 2020. (5) It shall be unlawful for any person to hunt or take rails, common snipe (Wilson's snipe), woodcock, or gallinules (common moorhens) at any time, except from sunrise to sunset daily during the open season.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Illegal Killing and Taking of Birds in Northern and Central Europe and the Caucasus
    Review of illegal killing and taking of birds in Northern and Central Europe and the Caucasus Overview of main outputs of the project The information collated and analysed during this project has been summarised in a variety of outputs: 1. This full report Presenting all the aspects of the project at regional and national levels http://www.birdlife.org/illegal-killing 2. Scientific paper Presenting results of the regional assessment of scope and scale of illegal killing and taking of birds in Northern and Central Europe and the Caucasus1 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bird-conservation-international 3. Legislation country factsheets Presenting a review of national legislation on hunting, trapping and trading of birds in each assessed country http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/country (under ‘resources’ tab) 4. ‘The Killing 2.0’ Layman’s report Short communications publication for publicity purposes with some key headlines of the results of the project and the previous one focussing on the Mediterranean region http://www.birdlife.org/illegal-killing Credits of front cover pictures 1 2 3 4 1 Hen harrier Circus cyaneus © RSPB 2 Illegal trapping of Hen Harrier in the UK © RSPB 3 Common Coot (Fulica atra) © MISIK 4 Illegal trade of waterbirds illegally killed in Azerbaijan © AOS Citation of the report BirdLife International (2017) Review of illegal killing and taking of birds in Northern and Central Europe and the Caucasus. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International. 1 Paper in revision process for publication in Bird Conservation International in October 2017 when this report is released 1 Executive Summary The illegal killing and taking of wild birds remains a major threat on a global scale.
    [Show full text]
  • Deer Legislation
    Introduction This guide describes the general principles of the law relating to wild deer, it is not a full description of It is therefore advisable to carry written permission that law. It is important to study the full legislation as proof of your right to be on the land. to which this guide relates (see Further Information) Practitioners need to be fully conversant with current Exemptions. An offence is not committed if the legislation in order to make informed management perpetrator did so in the belief that he would have decisions and be sure that their actions are legal. been given consent if the owner or occupier knew of his doing it and the circumstances, or he has other The following defi nitions apply: lawful authority. “Deer” means deer of any species and includes the Ownership of deer. Deer which can roam carcass or any part thereof freely are wild animals and are not owned by, or “Night” means the period between 1 hour after the responsibility of, anyone. A wild deer becomes sunset and 1 hour before sunrise the property of the landowner when “reduced into “Vehicle” includes any vehicle including aircraft, possession” i.e. killed or captured, thus a culled deer hovercraft or boat is the property of the owner of the land on which it dies, a deer killed in a road accident is the property The law specifi cally relating to deer in England and of the owner of the highway, verge or land on which Wales is contained in the Deer Act 1991(Deer Act) it falls.
    [Show full text]
  • RED GROUSE and Birds of Prey
    RED GROUSE and birds of prey This leaflet is supported ● by 17 voluntary bodies and addresses Illegal killing of birds of prey is limiting the concerns about the impact of predation population and distribution of several of red grouse by birds of prey (raptors). It species. explains how serious habitat loss and degradation have caused ● Management for grouse has helped to long-term declines in grouse bags, and how a high density of birds protect heather moors from forestry of prey can affect bags when grouse densities are low. It details plantations and livestock production, but why killing of birds of prey, illegally or under licence, and setting heavy grazing by sheep and deer is the quotas for birds of prey are not acceptable. It identifies measures main cause of declines in grouse bags. that can be taken to reduce the impact of predation on grouse and ● enhance heather moors for wildlife. ‘It is extremely unlikely that raptors were responsible for either the long-term decline or the fluctuations in grouse bags.’ Joint The concerns Raptor Study, Langholm.11 Conservation groups and the Government are ● ‘The raptor issue should be put on one side concerned because widespread killing of birds of because it is a diversion that has too often prey, especially on upland moorlands managed for resulted in managers taking their eyes off driven grouse-shooting, limits the population and the ball.’ The Heather Trust.25 distribution of several species. Killing birds of prey is ● Habitat management is fundamental to a a criminal activity involving hundreds of birds every long-term recovery of upland wildlife and year; for example: grouse shooting.
    [Show full text]
  • Your Essential Guide to Grouse Shooting and Moorland Management
    Your essential guide to grouse shooting and moorland management Who we are The Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) is a research and education charity conducting conservation science to enhance the British countryside for public benefit. For over 80 years we have been researching and developing game and wildlife management techniques and have had 135 scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals on issues relating to upland ecology over the past 46 years. On the basis of our scientific expertise and credibility, we regularly provide advice to such statutory bodies as Defra, Scottish Natural Heritage and Natural England. We also provide practical advice to farmers and landowners on how to manage their land with a view to improving biodiversity. Much of our research is undertaken in collaboration with other institutions and organisations, including the following: Exeter, Imperial College London, Newcastle and Aberdeen Universities, the British Trust for Ornithology, the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology and the RSPB. To help disseminate this knowledge, representatives of the GWCT sat on over 100 external committees in 2015, including the following: Defra’s Upland Stakeholder Forum, Natural England’s main board and the UK Birds of Conservation Concern Panel. Why we support grouse moor management After spending 46 years researching and advising in the uplands we support grouse moor management for three primary reasons: 1. The habitat management undertaken on grouse moors preserves and enhances heather dominated habitats1. 2. The package of management, notably habitat enhancement along with predator control contributes to the conservation of a suite of upland bird species including upland waders2–4.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Impacts of High-Output Driven Shooting of Red Grouse
    Ibis (2016), 158, 446–452 Viewpoint ulating quarry species, hunting season and permitted hunting methods. There is no statutory requirement for hunters to report their bags, although records are col- lected by a non-profit organization, the Game & Wildlife Environmental impacts of Conservation Trust (GWCT). This combination of inten- sive shooting practice with weak regulation is almost high-output driven unique (Mustin et al. 2012), and offers general insights shooting of Red Grouse into the environmental impacts of intensive game man- agement when managers operate without much of the Lagopus lagopus scotica regulation recommended by Loveridge et al. (2009). PATRICK S. THOMPSON,1* DAVID J. T. DOUGLAS,2 There is growing public debate about these impacts DAVID G. HOCCOM,3 JEFF KNOTT,3 (Thompson et al. 2009, Avery 2015, Wightman & Tin- STAFFAN ROOS2 & JEREMY D. WILSON2 gay 2015), part of a wider trend of public engagement in 1RSPB, 1 Sirius House, Amethyst Road, hunting policy (Minnis 1998). For example, the recent Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE4 7YL, UK near-extirpation of the Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus as a 2RSPB Centre for Conservation Science, RSPB breeding bird in England (Redpath et al. 2010) and Scotland, 2 Lochside View, Edinburgh Park, claims of mass culls of Mountain Hares Lepus timidus in Edinburgh EH12 9DH, UK Scotland by grouse moor managers (Anon 2014) has 3RSPB, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire SG19 2DL, UK prompted three UK public petitions to license or ban dri- ven grouse shooting, one for the introduction of vicarious liability (whereby the rights-holder is held responsible for the actions of an employee) and one for stronger legal protection of Scottish Mountain Hares, collectively amassing over 85 000 signatures by 29 January 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • HANDBOOK 2018 Taking a Look Back! the First South Dakota Pheasant Hunting Season Was a One-Day Hunt Held in Spink County on October 3O, 1919
    Hunting and trapping HANDBOOK 2018 Taking a look back! The first South Dakota pheasant hunting season was a one-day hunt held in Spink County on October 3O, 1919. Help the South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks tip our blaze orange caps to the past 100 years of Outdoor Tradition, and start celebrating the next century. Show us how you are joining in on the fun by using #MySDTradition when sharing all your South Dakota experiences. Look to the past, and step into the future with South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks. Photo: South Dakota State Historical Society SOUTH DAKOTA GAME, FISH & PARKS HUNTING HANDBOOK CONSERVATION OFFICER DISTRICTS GENERAL INFORMATION: 605.223.7660 TTY: 605.223.7684, email: [email protected] Aberdeen: 605.626.2391, 5850 E. Hwy 12 Pierre: 605.773.3387, 523 E. Capitol Ave. Chamberlain: 605.734.4530, 1550 E. King Ave. Rapid City: 605.394.2391, 4130 Adventure Trail Ft. Pierre: 605.223.7700, 20641 SD Hwy 1806 Sioux Falls: 605.362.2700, 4500 S. Oxbow Ave. Huron: 605.353.7145, 895 3rd Street SW Watertown: 605.882.5200, 400 West Kemp Mobridge: 605.845.7814, 909 Lake Front Drive Webster: 605.345.3381, 603 E. 8th Ave. CONSERVATION OFFICERS *denotes District Conservation Officer Supervisor Martin Tom Beck 605.381.6433 Britton Casey Dowler 605.881.3775 Hill City Jeff Edwards 605.381.9995 Webster Austin Norton 605.881.2177 Hot Springs D.J. Schroeder 605.381.6438 Sisseton Dean Shultz 605.881.3773 Custer Ron Tietsort 605.431.7048 Webster Michael Undlin 605.237.3275 Spearfish Brian Meiers* 605.391.6023 Aberdeen Tim McCurdy* 605.380.4572
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Gearach Booking Terms and Conditions Please Read, Sign
    The Gearach Booking Terms and Conditions Please read, sign and date this form and return it to the Gearach along with your deposit. 1 A booking will be provisionally reserved in your name once dates have been agreed by telephone, fax, or e‐mail between both parties. 2 To confirm and secure your reserved dates, 50% of the total fee, together with a signed copy of the booking terms and conditions should be submitted within 7 days. 3 Do not book any hotel or travel arrangements before we notify you that we have received, therefore confirmed, your 50% deposit. We observe a 'first come first served' basis and your agreed dates are only guaranteed once you have received confirmation from ourselves. 4 When a booking is made less than 12 weeks prior to the commencement of the intended visit the total fee will be due within 7 days of the reservation being made. 5 The Gearach reserves the right to cancel your week, without reason, at any time without notice. 6 Payments may be made by any of the following: a. Transfer funds should be sent to the following account: Bank: Barclays Bank PLC Bank Address: Alston Branch, Northumberland, NE6 1PE Account Name: The Gearach Account Number: 60428116 Sort Code: 20‐40‐09 Iban Number: GB85 BARC 2040 0960 4281 16 Swift Number: BARCGB22 b. By UK pounds sterling cheque ‐payable to The Gearach c. By banker's draft in UK pounds sterling payable to The Gearach Any bank charges arising from the transfer of funds will be payable by you.
    [Show full text]