• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Who To Believe? (1 Viewer)

Journal of Applied Ecology
Volume 36 Issue 6
Page 856 - December 1999
doi:10.1046/j.1365-2664.1999.00453.x


Effects of habitat type and management on the abundance of skylarks in the breeding season
D.E. Chamberlain, A.M. Wilson, S.J. Browne* and J.A. Vickery

Summary

1. There is increasing evidence to link major declines in skylark populations in Britain to agricultural intensification. However, whether causal mechanisms identified through localized studies can be generalized to the national scale remains unknown. The abundance of breeding skylarks was determined by surveying singing males in over 600 randomly selected 1-km squares throughout Britain, in which skylarks recorded were assigned to homogeneous habitat patches. A more intensive survey of skylarks was carried out on lowland farmland sites in England. Singing males were assigned to specific crop types, and data on crop height and field boundary features were recorded.

2. Skylark occupancy (presence/absence) and density where birds were present (i.e. omitting zero counts) were analysed in relation to habitat type, habitat diversity and time of year, using generalized linear modelling.

3. Set-aside, moorland and winter cereals had high rates of skylark occupancy at the national scale. Set-aside had consistently high rates of occupancy and high densities across the breeding season at different spatial scales. Apart from set-aside, there was little difference in density between habitats in the early half (March to mid-May) of the breeding season. In the later half of the breeding season (mid-May to July), density declined significantly on winter cereals, which showed significantly lower density than a number of habitats at this time, including spring cereals, legumes and moorland.

4. Within lowland farmland, there were significant effects of crop height on skylark occupancy, with crops of greater than 30 cm in height being occupied at relatively low rates. Winter cereals reached this height significantly earlier in the breeding season than a number of other crops, including spring cereals and legumes.

5. Skylark density increased with increasing habitat diversity across the whole sample of 1-km squares and in lowland 1-km squares in England. However, within the lowland farmland plots in England, skylark density showed a significant decrease with increasing habitat diversity. These conflicting results suggest that crop type rather than habitat diversity per se is important.

6. The effects of vegetation height on skylark abundance support the hypothesis that increases in winter cereal, and simultaneous loss of spring cereal, have had an adverse effect on skylark populations by reducing the number of breeding attempts made per year. These results support findings from smaller scale studies showing the generality of these habitat effects at different spatial scales. The extent of the British skylark population associated with agricultural land suggests that sympathetic changes in farming practice are likely to provide the best mechanism for improving the status of this species. The inclusion of options, such as spring cereal or fallow land (an equivalent to set-aside), in agri-environment schemes is likely to benefit skylarks breeding on farmland by providing suitable nesting habitat throughout the breeding season. In addition, reductions in the intensity with which cereals are managed, such as reduced pesticide and fertilizer input under approaches such as precision farming, and the creation of sparser patches of cereal sward, are also likely to increase the suitability of winter cereals for nesting skylarks.
 
Anthony Morton said:
If you read the whole of my Posting # 29 again, you will notice that apart from describing The Field article relating to the BTO/UEA paper as "interesting", I made MADE NO OTHER COMMENT WHATSOEVER as to whether I agreed or disagreed with any of its content.

Well at best, your intentions were mischievous then, especially as you clearly stated that you thought the paper went against other research. As was pointed out, the paper is a very specialised subject and looks at magpies effecting breeding success and NOT as a cause for decline.


Anthony Morton said:
Well at least we can agree on part of this comment, for listening to (or rather reading) the comments of some of BF's more talented members discussing how or why the authors of this one paper had arrived at a conclusion which differs so much from the norm was EXACTLY what I was hoping for.

It doesn't Anthony, the direction of the paper has been clearly pointed out but I am sure you will agree that it is only sensible to discuss the research that the paper differs from in conclusion? It seems to me that is the cornerstone of scientific discussion.

Ian
 
Journal of Applied Ecology
Volume 41 Issue 3
Page 427 - June 2004
doi:10.1111/j.0021-8901.2004.00917.x


FORUM
Has Danish agriculture maintained farmland bird populations?
A. D. FOX
Summary
1. Rapid agricultural change in western Europe has occurred in the last three decades, at cost to farmland biodiversity, particularly birds. This study reviewed agricultural change in Denmark from 1983 to 2001, to compare patterns of intensification and farmland bird abundance with the UK.

2. Changes in 26 agricultural variables summarized using principal components analysis (PCA) showed consistent changes throughout the period that were similar to the UK. Pig and sheep production, and the extent of winter cereals, rape and fodder maize, all increased. The area used to grow fodder beet and spring barley, the applications of agrochemicals and the numbers of cattle reared all declined. The greatest change in land area in Denmark was the switch from spring- to autumn-sown cereals in the 1980s, almost a decade later than in the UK.

3. PCA described changes in annual indices of bird abundance based on Danish point count surveys from 1983 to 2001, which were most marked during 198390, after which ordination values varied little despite continued agricultural change. Of 27 bird species associated with farmland habitat in Denmark, five declined, 10 showed stable trends and 12 increased, compared with 15, eight and four, respectively, among the same species in the UK.

4. Agricultural yields have been sustained or enhanced during the survey period, while most farmland bird species declining in the UK have remained stable or increased in Denmark. Of the five declining Danish species, only lapwing Vanellus vanellus and yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella are associated with predominantly farmland habitat. The timing of the declines suggests that the switch to autumn sowing in Denmark has had little effect on any species.

5. In contrast to the UK, pesticide and inorganic fertilizer use has declined and organic farming has expanded in Denmark since 1983, coinciding with the period of stability/increase in farmland bird abundance. It is not possible to establish any causality from this analysis.

6. The ability of species showing marked declines in Europe to maintain their number and distribution in the Danish landscape in the face of agricultural intensification gives some optimism for safeguarding farmland birds and biodiversity in the future. However, we need to understand the reasons behind contrasting population trends in Denmark and the UK.

7. Synthesis and applications. Marked differences between national patterns of agriculture and the contrasting nature of historical intensification offer the opportunity to contrast the effects of major changes in land-use practice on European farmland biodiversity. Appropriate comparative and individual studies of the effects of changes in specific agricultural management at greater spatial (i.e. supranational) scales are necessary in order to underpin the successful development of future European agricultural policies that will sustain and enhance agricultural yields whilst maintaining farmland biodiversity.



Although not well recorded by the point count method, common birds of prey in the Danish farmland landscape (buzzard Buteo buteo L., marsh harrier Circus aeruginosus L., sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus L. and kestrel Falco tinnunculus L.) have generally showed stable trends over recent years (Jacobsen 2002). The same is true of members of the crow family, with hooded crow Corvus corone L., magpie Pica pica L., rook Corvus frugilegus L. and jackdaw Corvus monedula L. having all increased in the period 19762001 (Jacobsen 2002). This strongly suggests recent increases in farmland birds are not associated with declines in predatory species, confirming the results of studies elsewhere (Thomson et al. 1998).

I hope this link will work to the full paper
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/j.0021-8901.2004.00917.x/full/

also as a back up - here is the pdf
 

Attachments

  • j.0021-8901.2004.00917.x.pdf
    453.6 KB · Views: 51
For the record Anthony I am now searching specifically on predator-prey population relationships in birds as opposed to papers on the causes of population changes in birds in an attempt to find any paper backing your contention. You are of course at comlete liberty to do the same... not finding any I might add, just papers like the above,
 
And how I missed this first time round I'll never know

Proceedings: Biological Sciences
ISSN: 0962-8452 (Paper) 1471-2954 (Online)
Issue: Volume 265, Number 1410 / November 7, 1998

Pages: 2057 - 2062
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0540
URL: Linking Options
The widespread declines of songbirds in rural Britain do not correlate with the spread of their avian predators

D. L. Thomson, R. E. Green, R. D. Gregory, S. R. Baillie

Abstract:

During the last 30 years, there have been marked declines in the populations of many British songbirds breeding on farmland, while two of their main predators, sparrowhawk (Accipiter nisus) and magpie (Pica pica), have spread back into areas from which they had disappeared. The causes of the songbird declines remain unclear but given the coincidence in timing, it might appear that increased predation could be responsible. Although many studies have failed to find links between changes in the populations of breeding songbirds and mortality from avian predators, previous work has, with few exceptions, involved only short-term studies on small spatial scales. Here we use large-scale, long-term data from a national bird census scheme to examine whether magpies and sparrowhawks could have depressed the rates of year-to-year population change in 23 songbird species. Our results indicate that magpies and sparrowhawks are unlikely to have caused the songbird declines because patterns of year-to-year population change did not differ between sites with and without these predators.


The full document as a PDF
 

Attachments

  • thompson.pdf
    179.4 KB · Views: 106
Anthony Morton said:
how or why the authors of this one paper had arrived at a conclusion which differs so much from the norm

Anthony,
THEY DIDN'T!!!!!!!
They concluded that magpie predation can affect breeding success in thrushes. This is not the same thing as causing population declines, and their work is therefore not inconsistent with the multitude of other papers quoted. The link between magpie predation and songbird declines based on this data was NOT suggested by the eminent authors of the paper, but by the Game Conservancy Trust, quoted in 'The Field', and as can be quite clearly seen from the weight of evidence, this was an erroneous conclusion on the part of the Trust.

Anthony Morton said:
one or two have really 'gone into one' this time and destroyed any chance of a reasoned debate where hopefully we could all have learned something.

Jane has vicariously provided us with absolutely reams and reams of scientific data regarding songbird declines - yet you seem to be accusing her of stifling learning!!!! Each of those papers is worth 100 posts - if you are truly saying you've learnt nothing from this thread then you are beyond hope.
 
Last edited:
Anthony Morton said:
If you read the whole of my Posting # 29 again, you will notice that apart from describing The Field article relating to the BTO/UEA paper as "interesting", I made MADE NO OTHER COMMENT WHATSOEVER as to whether I agreed or disagreed with any of its content. This was quite deliberate and was a conscious effort on my part not to provide a convenient hook for others to hang their views on. I was already well aware of the accepted knowledge on this subject but what I hoped for was that this one alternative view could perhaps be discussed in order to explore how and why the paper's authors had reached the conclusion they apparently had. This was made doubly interesting given the list of eminent people who had put their names to it - in other words, it was certainly not the work of cranks!


The paper is indeed an excellent paper. It is not at odds with the other papers quoted here... that is merely your interpretation of it.. or more accurately your repetition of the shooting community's interpretation of it.

Its really really simple

Imagine you have a bit of habitat.. like a copse near your home... and you keep the entire place and surrounding feeding areas under netting.... its is capable of holding two pairs of Song Thrushes (4 birds).... though of course 30 years ago it may have been able to sustain rather more. Lets assume that without interference that both pairs double brood with 4 nestlings each time. That would result in 18 Song Thrushes just after summer. Unfortunately for 14 of those birds the habitat is still only capable of sustaining 4 and the rest will die of starvation.

The 18 birds at the end of the breeding season is larger than if your netted area contained a predator.... which is what the paper you are clinging to correctly says.... however fewer Thrushes would die of starvation over winter since they had already been eaten by the predator and there would be more food to go around for the rest. The predator would only result in a decrease in the population in this hypothetical example when it ate its 15th Thrush.... If you had a large enough netted area and a more realistic ecosystem, your predator and prey populations would quickly become balanced.


Killing the predator in that balanced ecosystem would not alter the number of predators, unless you killed enough to prevent them from breeding, and would not alter the population of the thrush since that is limited by habitat. However if you were to change the quality of the habitat, for better or worse, you would change the populations of both prey and predator.

Which is what the papers I quoted suggest.
 
Last edited:
Tim Allwood said:
stop it Jane

this bout definitely needs stopping

no one should take this much punishment

but like an old fighter Mr Morton just wont give in...

Whoops

I know.. its not very dignified... but on the other hand I have all these papers now and who knows when we will need them again!
 
Jane Turner said:
Imagine you have a bit of habitat.. like a copse near your home... and you keep the entire place and surrounding feeding areas under netting.... its is capable of holding two pairs of Song Thrushes (4 birds).... though of course 30 years ago it may have been able to sustain rather more. Lets assume that without interference that both pairs double brood with 4 nestlings each time. That would result in 18 Song Thrushes just after summer. Unfortunately for 14 of those birds the habitat is still only capable of sustaining 4 and the rest will die of starvation.


I'm afraid that I didn't go to university and I certainly haven't got a degree in biological sciences BUT I can at least add up!


2 breeding pairs = 4 adults.

2 double broods of 4 = 8 nestlings per pair x 2 pairs = 16 nestlings.

Therefore - 4 adults + 16 nestlings = a total of 20 Song Thrushes - not 18.

What a pity - you spoke with such conviction too!
 
Tim Allwood said:
stop it Jane

this bout definitely needs stopping

no one should take this much punishment

but like an old fighter Mr Morton just wont give in...


No, PLEASE don't stop it - I'm on a bonus if we go past 125 postings on this one!
 
Anthony Morton said:
I'm afraid that I didn't go to university and I certainly haven't got a degree in biological sciences BUT I can at least add up!


2 breeding pairs = 4 adults.

2 double broods of 4 = 8 nestlings per pair x 2 pairs = 16 nestlings.

Therefore - 4 adults + 16 nestlings = a total of 20 Song Thrushes - not 18.

What a pity - you spoke with such conviction too!

I never could add up.. I do however have a firm grasp on reality.
 
Anthony Morton said:

Hi Anthony better watch out Jane seems to have a real bee in her bonnet today , probably all that cramming shes been doing lately .She really must not take things so seriously after all lifes to short B :)
 
As far as I can see, there are two very pertinent quotes here, both from Stevie Evans:

We havent seen a double figure group of Magpies since the trapping, compared to 20's & 30's previously.
So it has been very effective.[my emphasis - AH]
[Stevie Evans, post 91]

Knocking the Mag no's down with trapping lessens the chance of this happening [Magpies being around to kill juvenile Song Thrushes].
[Stevie Evans, [post 84]

There can be endless amounts of theory in endless amounts of internet searches, but eventually it boils down to observation of what actually happens on the ground. And Stevie's experiences show that curtailing the Magpie population does work on the ground. And what's more, his experiences are backed up, up and down the country.

For example, a friend of mine watched Magpies systematically decimate the song bird population of her garden over many years. Finally, like Stevie, she did something about it, and reduced the Magpie population. Hey presto, the song bird population immediately started to recover. Co-incidence that, isn't it.....

As for academic papers, I mentioned on another thread that I knew of at least two suggesting a correlation between Magpies and Song Thrush decline. I see I shall have to find out from Matt Ridley (something of an environmental expert himself) which one he was reviewing in the Telegraph a decade ago (Ian, I made an attempt to find a contact address for him when you asked about it in the other thread; I'll have to make a more determined effort!).

And Jane, although I genuinely appreciate your attempt to simplify the issue for those of us you probably get very frustrated with for not agreeing with the views you present [post 113], there does seem to be a major flaw in your argument.

In this hypothetical copse with two pairs of Song Thrushes, you talk of 14 young and Magpie predators not affecting the Song Thrush viable population until they get to the 15th thrush.

However, it seems to me that some of those 14 [or 16] young will, if not eaten by Magpies, have survived by moving on to another site where there was enough food and terrain to support them. They would thus have expanded their range and bred and multiplied, and benefited overall Song Thrush numbers - if only they hadn't been despatched by Magpies before getting a chance to do this.
 
Last edited:
Just an observation Magpie numbers in my area for some reason this year seem to have been lower than normal and the blackbird and thrush population have increased accordingly also the jays reared their nest this year (first time in three years) because the magpies left them alone ,which leads me to believe that in areas where magpies are in high numbers they do affect young bird survival I am no scientist and my observations may be only a small sample of the big picture but would affect my personal judgement on this subject
 
Alan Hobson said:
As far as I can see, there are two very pertinent quotes here, both from Stevie Evans:

We havent seen a double figure group of Magpies since the trapping, compared to 20's & 30's previously.
So it has been very effective.[my emphasis - AH]
[Stevie Evans, post 91]

Knocking the Mag no's down with trapping lessens the chance of this happening [Magpies being around to kill juvenile Song Thrushes].
[Stevie Evans, [post 84]

There can be endless amounts of theory in endless amounts of internet searches, but eventually it boils down to observation of what actually happens on the ground. And Stevie's experiences show that curtailing the Magpie population does work on the ground. And what's more, his experiences are backed up, up and down the country.

For example, a friend of mine watched Magpies systematically decimate the song bird population of her garden over many years. Finally, like Stevie, she did something about it, and reduced the Magpie population. Hey presto, the song bird population immediately started to recover. Co-incidence that, isn't it.....

As for academic papers, I mentioned on another thread that I knew of at least two suggesting a correlation between Magpies and Song Thrush decline. I see I shall have to find out from Matt Ridley (something of an environmental expert himself) which one he was reviewing in the Telegraph a decade ago (Ian, I made an attempt to find a contact address for him when you asked about it in the other thread; I'll have to make a more determined effort!).

And Jane, although I genuinely appreciate your attempt to simplify the issue for those of us you probably get very frustrated with for not agreeing with the views you present [post 113], there does seem to be a major flaw in your argument.

In this hypothetical copse with two pairs of Song Thrushes, you talk of 14 young and Magpie predators not affecting the Song Thrush viable population until they get to the 15th thrush.

However, it seems to me that some of those 14 [or 16] young will, if not eaten by Magpies, have survived by moving on to another site where there was enough food and terrain to support them. They would thus have expanded their range and bred and multiplied, and benefited overall Song Thrush numbers - if only they hadn't been despatched by Magpies before getting a chance to do this.

Stevie has already given the reason for his high Magpie numbers - scrub. Probably a lot of overgrown hedgerows, too; plenty of potential nesting habitat there.

Some recent research on the decline of the Song Thrush seems to suggest that post-fledging, the youngsters move out into farmland, perhaps to get away from the pressure from Blackbirds; this habitat is now generally too poor to sustain them.

StevieEvans said:
Andy R
It would certainly be interesting to have that full series of photos!
I'd imagine the photos would show 40 yrs of habitat & land use changes.

In the trap area theres been the construction of the A1 with its scrub covered embankments & cuttings.
Several rail-lines are now disused & are scrubby havens.
As far as field boundaries go, several have gone but there are some ancient lanes & a good network of hedges & small fields. Ive looked at a 1960's OS map & the hedgerow losses arent as bad as i expected. The actual site is mentioned in the Doomsday Book.
The main change, id imagine, will be land use change, loss of grazing & stock, with far more arable fields, limited winter stubbles, autumn sowing, improved drainage. Ie- less bird habitat/food.

SE

Andy.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 20 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top