Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T07:09:58.601Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of seed-rich habitat provision on territory density, home range and breeding performance of European Turtle Doves Streptopelia turtur

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2020

JENNY C. DUNN Open the ORCID record for JENNY C. DUNN [Opens in a new window] ,
ANTONY J. MORRIS Open the ORCID record for ANTONY J. MORRIS [Opens in a new window] ,
PHILIP V. GRICE  and
WILL J. PEACH
JENNY C. DUNN*
Affiliation:
RSPB Centre for Conservation Science, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, The Lodge, Potton Road, Sandy, Bedfordshire, UK, SG19 2DL, UK. School of Life Sciences, University of Lincoln, Joseph Banks Laboratories, Lincoln, UK, LN6 7TS, UK.
ANTONY J. MORRIS
Affiliation:
RSPB Centre for Conservation Science, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, The Lodge, Potton Road, Sandy, Bedfordshire, UK, SG19 2DL, UK.
PHILIP V. GRICE
Affiliation:
Natural England, Suite D, Unex House, Bourges Boulevard, Peterborough, UK, PE1 1NG, UK.
WILL J. PEACH
Affiliation:
RSPB Centre for Conservation Science, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, The Lodge, Potton Road, Sandy, Bedfordshire, UK, SG19 2DL, UK.
*
*Author for correspondence; email: JDunn@lincoln.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Conservation measures providing food-rich habitats through agri-environment schemes (AES) have the potential to affect the demography and local abundance of species limited by food availability. The European Turtle Dove Streptopelia turtur is one of Europe’s fastest declining birds, with breeding season dietary changes coincident with a reduction in reproductive output suggesting food limitation during breeding. In this study we provided seed-rich habitats at six intervention sites over a 4-year period and tested for impacts of the intervention on breeding success, ranging behaviour and the local abundance of territorial turtle doves. Nesting success and chick biometrics were unrelated to the local availability of seed-rich habitat or to the proximity of intervention plots. Nestling weight was higher close to human habitation consistent with an influence of anthropogenic supplementary food provision. Small home ranges were associated with a high proportion of non-farmed habitats, while large home ranges were more likely to contain seed-rich habitat suggesting that breeding doves were willing to travel further to utilize such habitat where available. Extensively managed grassland and intervention plot fields were selected by foraging turtle doves. A slower temporal decline in the abundance of breeding males on intervention sites probably reflects enhanced habitat suitability during territory settlement. Refining techniques to deliver sources of sown, natural, and supplementary seed that are plentiful, accessible, and parasite-free is likely to be crucial for the conservation of turtle doves.

Keywords

agri-environmentconservation interventionfood supplementationhabitat provisionStreptopelia turtursupplementary feeding
Type
Research Article
Information
Bird Conservation International , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , December 2021 , pp. 620 - 639
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of BirdLife International

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aebischer, N. (1999) Multi-way comparisons and generalized linear models of nest success: extensions of the Mayfield method. Bird Study 46: S22–S31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aebischer, N., Robertson, P. and Kenward, R. (1993) Compositional analysis of habitat use from animal radio-tracking data. Ecology 74: 1313–1325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arcese, P. and Smith, J. (1988) Effects of population density and supplemental food on reproduction in song sparrows. J Anim Ecol 57:119–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arvidsson, B., Askenmo, C. and Neergaard, R. (1997) Food supply for settling male rock pipits affects territory size. Anim Behav 54: 67–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, D., Freeman, S., Grice, P. et al. (2012) Landscape-scale responses of birds to agri-environment management: a test of the English Environmental Stewardship scheme. J. Appl. Ecol. 49: 871–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, K. (1993) Identification guide to European non-passerines. Thetford: British Trust for Ornithology. (BTO Guide 24).Google Scholar
Balmer, D., Gillings, S., Caffrey, B., et al. (2013) Bird atlas 2007–11. Thetford, UK: British Trust for Ornithology.Google Scholar
Barton, K. (2012) MuMIn: Multi-model inference. R package version 1.7.7. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn.Google Scholar
Bivand, R., Rundel, C., Pebesma, E., et al. (2014) Package ‘rgeos’. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rgeos/rgeos.pdf Google Scholar
Blanco, G., Lemus, J. and García-Montijano, M. (2011) When conservation management becomes contraindicated: impact of food supplementation on health of endangered wildlife. Ecol. Appl. 21: 2469–2477.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boatman, N., Brickle, N., Hart, J., et al. (2004) Evidence for the indirect effects of pesticides on farmland birds. Ibis 146: 131–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bright, J., Morris, A., Field, R., et al. (2015) Higher-tier agri-environment scheme enhances breeding densities of some priority farmland birds in England. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 203: 69–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browne, S. and Aebischer, N. (2001) The role of agricultural intensification in the decline of the Turtle Dove Streptopelia turtur. Peterborough: English Nature.Google Scholar
Browne, S. and Aebischer, N. (2003) Habitat use, foraging ecology and diet of Turtle Doves Streptopelia turtur in Britain. Ibis 145: 572–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browne, S. and Aebischer, N. (2004) Temporal changes in the breeding ecology of European Turtle Doves Streptopelia turtur in Britain, and implications for conservation. Ibis 146: 125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnham, K. and Anderson, D. (2002) Model selection and multi-model inference: A practical information-theoretic approach. 2nd edition. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Calderón, L., Campagna, L., Wilke, T., et al. (2016) Genome-wide evidence of demographic fluctuations and lack of genetic structure across flyways in a long distance migrant, the European turtle dove. BMC Evol. Biol. 16: 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calenge, C. (2006) The package adehabitat for the R software: a tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals. Ecol. Modell. 197: 516–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calladine, J., Buner, F. and Aebischer, N. (1999) Temporal variations in the singing activity and the detection of Turtle Doves Streptopelia turtur: implications for surveys. Bird Study 46: 74–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castro, I., Brunton, D., Mason, K., et al. (2003) Life history traits and food supplementation affect productivity in a translocated population of the endangered Hihi (Stitchbird, Notiomystis cincta). Biol. Conserv. 114: 271–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, J. and Morris, A. (2012) Which features of UK farmland are important in retaining territories of the rapidly declining Turtle Dove Streptopelia turtur? Bird Study 59: 394–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, J., Morris, A. and Grice, P. (2015) Testing bespoke management of foraging habitat for European turtle doves Streptopelia turtur . J. Nat. Conserv. 25: 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, J., Morris, A. and Grice, P. (2017) Post-fledging habitat selection in a rapidly declining farmland bird, the European Turtle Dove Streptopelia turtur . Bird Conserv. Internatn. 27: 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, J., Stockdale, J., Moorhouse-Gann, R., et al. (2018) The decline of the Turtle Dove: Dietary associations with body condition and competition with other columbids analysed using high-throughput sequencing. Mol. Ecol. 27: 3386–3407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazer, G. W., Canham, C. and Lertzman, K. (1999) Gap Light Analyzer (GLA), Version 2.0: Imaging software to extract canopy structure and gap light transmission indices from true-colour fisheye photographs, users manual and program documentation. Burnaby, British Columbia and Millbrook, New York: Simon Fraser University and the Institute of Ecosystem Studies.Google Scholar
Gibbons, D., Reid, J. and Chapman, R. (1993) The new atlas of breeding birds in Britain and Ireland: 1988–1991. London, UK: T & AD Poyser.Google Scholar
Girard, I., Ouellet, J-P, Courtois, R., et al. (2002) Effects of sampling effort based on GPS telemetry on home-range size estimations. J. Wildl. Manage. 66: 1290–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, T., Smith, J., Martin, G., et al. (2010) Does food supplementation really enhance productivity of breeding birds? Oecologia 164: 311–320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hart, J., Milsom, T., Fisher, G., et al. (2006) The relationship between yellowhammer breeding performance, arthropod abundance and insecticide applications on arable farmland. J. Appl. Ecol. 43: 81–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazler, K. (2004) Mayfield logistic regression: A practical approach for analysis of nest survival. Auk 121: 707–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, R., Keitt, T., Lewis, M., et al. (2005) Theoretical models of species’ borders: single species approaches. Oikos 108: 18–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labocha, M. and Hayes, J. (2012) Morphometric indices of body condition in birds: A review. J. Ornithol. 153: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lack, D. (1954) The natural regulation of animal numbers. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Lawton, J. (1993) Range, population abundance and conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 8: 409–413.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lennon, R., Dunn, J., Stockdale, J., et al. (2013) Trichomonad parasite infection in four species of Columbidae in the UK. Parasitology 140: 1368–1376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
López-Bao, J., Rodríguez, A. and Palomares, F. (2008) Behavioural response of a trophic specialist, the Iberian lynx, to supplementary food: Patterns of food use and implications for conservation. Biol. Conserv. 141: 1857–1867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, T. (1987) Food as a limit on breeding birds: a life-history perspective. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 18: 453–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murton, R., Westwood, N. and Isaacson, A. (1964) The feeding habits of the Woodpigeon Columba palumbus, Stock Dove C. oenas and Turtle Dove Streptopelia turtur . Ibis 106: 174–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Natural England (2012a) Entry Level Stewardship: Environmental stewardship handbook. Fourth Edition - January 2013. Peterborough: Natural England.Google Scholar
Natural England (2012b) Higher Level Stewardship. Environmental stewardship handbook. Third Edition. Peterborough: Natural England.Google Scholar
PECBMS (2019) Population trends of common European breeding birds: 2018 update. Prague: Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme.Google Scholar
Perkins, A., Maggs, H., Watson, A., et al. (2011) Adaptive management and targeting of agri-environment schemes does benefit biodiversity: a case study of the corn bunting. Emberiza calandra J. Appl. Ecol. 48: 514–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plummer, K., Bearhop, S., Leech, D., et al. (2013) Winter food provisioning reduces future breeding performance in a wild bird. Sci. Rep. 3: 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potts, G., Ewald, J. and Aebischer, N. (2010) Long-term changes in the flora of the cereal ecosystem on the Sussex Downs, England, focusing on the years 1968-2005. J. Appl. Ecol. 47: 215–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Google Scholar
Redfern, C. and Clark, J. (2001) Ringers’ manual. Thetford, UK: British Trust for Ornithology.Google Scholar
Robb, G., Mcdonald, R., Chamberlain, D., et al. (2008) Food for thought: supplementary feeding as a driver of ecological change in avian populations. Front. Ecol. Environ. 6: 476–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruffino, L., Salo, P., Koivisto, E., et al. (2014) Reproductive responses of birds to experimental food supplementation: a meta-analysis. Front. Zool. 11: 80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sánchez-Garcia, C., Buner, F. and Aebischer, N. (2015) Supplementary winter food for gamebirds through feeders: Which species actually benefit? J. Wildl. Manage. 79: 832–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoech, S., Bridge, E., Boughton, R., et al. (2007) Food supplementation: A tool to increase reproductive output? A case study in the threatened Florida Scrub-Jay. Biol. Conserv. 141: 162–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stabler, R. (1954) Trichomonas gallinae: A review. Exp. Parasitol. 3: 368–402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stockdale, J., Dunn, J., Goodman, S., et al. (2015) The protozoan parasite Trichomonas gallinae causes adult and nestling mortality in a declining population of European Turtle Doves, Streptopelia turtur . Parasitology 142: 490–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Studds, C., Kyser, T. and Marra, P. (2008) Natal dispersal driven by environmental conditions interacting across the annual cycle of a migratory songbird. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105: 2929–2933.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomas, R. (2017) Molecular epidemiology of Trichomonas gallinae in Turtle doves (Streptopelia turtur). PhD thesis. University of Leeds, UK.Google Scholar
Tollington, S., Greenwood, A., Jones, C., et al. (2015) Detailed monitoring of a small but recovering population reveals sublethal effects of disease and unexpected interactions with supplemental feeding. J. Anim. Ecol. 84: 969–977.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
UK Government (2020) Countryside Stewardship Scheme. SP9: Threatened Species Supplement. https://www.gov.uk/countryside-stewardship-grants/threatened-species-supplement-sp9#Turtle Dove, accessed 2020- 04-20.Google Scholar
Vickery, J. A., Feber, R. E. and Fuller, R. (2009) Arable field margins managed for biodiversity conservation: a review of food resource provision for farmland birds. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 133: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Dunn et al. supplementary material

Dunn et al. supplementary material

Download Dunn et al. supplementary material(File)
File 23.4 KB