BTO - British Trust for Ornithology - Predators

Nest survival of threatened Eurasian Curlew (Numenius arquata) breeding at low densities across a human-modified landscape

VIOLA.ROSS-SMITH — Sat, 24 Dec 2022 19:50:25 +0000

The Cuckoo cohort of 2024 takes flight!

Ewing, H., Franks, S., Smart, J., Burton, N. & Gill, J.A. Ibis 10.1111/ibi.13180

Targeted management actions to boost key demographic rates can help to restore rare and localised populations but are increasingly required to stabilise or reverse declines of formerly common and widespread species. Many breeding wader populations across Europe are declining because of unsustainably low rates of productivity, and the conservation tools designed to boost wader breeding productivity have been most effectively used for semi-colonial species within protected areas.

Targeted management for wader species that breed at low densities across human-modified landscapes, such as the rapidly declining Eurasian Curlew Numenius arquata, is likely to be more challenging. Here, we quantify variation in curlew nest survival in order to explore how management could be targeted to boost this key component of breeding productivity. Up to 80 pairs of Eurasian Curlew were monitored annually between 2019 and 2021 in eight locations across Breckland, eastern England, where nesting densities range from < 1 to ca.7 pairs per km-2.

For 136 nests across grassland- and arable-dominated sites, the majority of failure (86%) was caused by (primarily nocturnal) predation and the mean probability of surviving incubation (PSI) for all hatched or predated nests (127) was ca. 0.25. Nest survival showed little annual or seasonal variation but did vary slightly between sites, however, this spatial variation was not clearly related to management conditions or nest concealment at these sites.

Fencing to exclude mammalian nest predators can be effective for waders, but too few Eurasian Curlews currently nest within fenced areas in Breckland to produce observable effects. Fencing the few sites with high nesting densities could potentially double the number of chicks hatched each year within the study area, but landscape-scale actions to reduce predator impacts on nests and chicks are likely to be needed to maintain breeding numbers in the wider countryside.

The authors are extremely grateful to the land-owners and managers who granted permission for this research to be conducted on their land, as well as to the many supportive farmers, gamekeepers, graziers, conservationists and members of the Breckland community for their help monitoring nesting curlew throughout this project.

Long-term trends of second generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) show widespread contamination of a bird-eating predator, the Eurasian Sparrowhawk (Accipiter nisus) in Britain

VIOLA.ROSS-SMITH — Tue, 04 Oct 2022 09:56:05 +0000

The Cuckoo cohort of 2024 takes flight!

More Details

Broughton, R.K., Searle, K.R., Walker, L.A., Potter, E.D., Glória Pereira, M., Carter, H., Sleep, D., Noble, D.G., Butler, A. & Johnson, A.C. Environmental Pollution 10.1016/j.envpol.2022.120269 Second generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) are widely used to control rodents around the world. However, contamination by SGARs is detectable in many non-target species, particularly carnivorous mammals or birds-of-prey that hunt or scavenge on poisoned rodents. The SGAR trophic transfer pathway via rodents and their predators/scavengers appears widespread, but little is known of other pathways of SGAR contamination in non-target wildlife. This is despite the detection of SGARs in predators that do not eat rodents, such as specialist bird-eating hawks. We used a Bayesian modelling framework to examine the extent and spatio-temporal trends of SGAR contamination in the livers of 259 Eurasian Sparrowhawks, a specialist bird-eating raptor, in regions of Britain during 1995–2015. SGARs, predominantly difenacoum, were detected in 81% of birds, with highest concentrations in males and adults. SGAR concentrations in birds were lowest in Scotland and higher or increasing in other regions of Britain, which had a greater arable or urban land cover where SGARs may be widely deployed for rodent control. However, there was no overall trend for Britain, and 97% of SGAR residues in Eurasian Sparrowhawks were below 100 ng/g (wet weight), which is a potential threshold for lethal effects. The results have potential implications for the population decline of Eurasian Sparrowhawks in Britain. Fundamentally, the results indicate an extensive and persistent contamination of the avian trophic transfer pathway on a national scale, where bird-eating raptors and, by extension, their prey appear to be widely exposed to SGARs. Consequently, these findings have implications for wildlife contamination worldwide, wherever these common rodenticides are deployed, as widespread exposure of non-target species can apparently occur via multiple trophic transfer pathways involving birds as well as rodents. The authors are grateful to funding from NERC grant NE/S000100/1 and thank the public for submitting specimens to the PBMS, which is supported by the Natural Environment Research Council award number NE/R016429/1 as part of the UK-SCAPE program delivering National Capability. The PBMS is additionally funded by Natural England and the Campaign for Responsible Rodenticide Use (CRRU). The BTO/JNCC/RSPB Breeding Bird Survey is a partnership jointly funded by the BTO, RSPB and JNCC, with fieldwork conducted by volunteers. The authors thank Stephen N Freeman, and are particularly grateful to the late Professor Richard Shore, who instigated this work.

Breeding bird population trends during 2013–2019 inside and outside of European Badger control areas in England

MIKETOMS — Fri, 19 Aug 2022 14:21:41 +0000

The Cuckoo cohort of 2024 takes flight!

More Details

Ward, C.V., Heydon, M., Lakin, I., Sullivan, A.J. & Siriwardena, G.M. Journal of Zoology 10.1111/jzo.13010 Since 2013, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has licenced culling of European Badger (Meles meles) populations in several English regions. In the first 7 years, more than 100 000 Badgers have been removed. It is critical to evaluate the ecological impact of severely depressing the population of a widespread predator from large areas of the country, such as effects on breeding bird populations. Citizen science survey data on the abundance of breeding birds supports the estimation of population trends, i.e. whether species are exhibiting population growth or declines, and the effects of potential environmental influences, such as Badger removal, on these trends. Here, these survey data are used together with data on the presence and amount of culling in an area to explore whether removing Badgers has an effect on breeding bird populations both inside and outside culling zones from 2013–2019. This is not equivalent to a controlled trial, but collects critical, landscape-scale evidence in real-world conditions. In analyses evaluating the effect of culling presence, 18 of 55 bird species showed significant or near-significant growth rate changes. Of these, four species had higher growth rates and 14 exhibited lower growth rates in cull areas, compared to areas outside of the culling zones. When using culling intensity data to assess the impact on growth rates, 10 of 55 species showed significant or near-significant results, with only one species exhibiting a higher population growth rate in the presence of more intensive culling. Predicted sensitivity to Badger effects based on species’ ecologies did not predict whether the measured relationships were significant, or their directions, suggesting that other factors underlie the patterns seen. Hence, there was little evidence to indicate consistent, community-level effects of Badger removal on bird populations. Reasons why this predator removal has not affected bird populations are discussed.

We are grateful to Esther Kettel for her input to method development. This study was funded by Natural England, whose spatial data and analysis team we thank for their help on this project. Three anonymous reviewers helped to improve the manuscript. The BBS relies on thousands of volunteer surveyors and regional organizers, and we are indebted to them for making this study possible. The BBS is funded by a partnership of BTO, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB).

A comparison of breeding bird populations inside and outside of European Badger <em>Meles meles</em> control areasThe Breeding Bird Survey 2021The Breeding Bird Survey 2020

Since 2013, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has licensed culling of Badger populations in several English regions. This programme is part of a government policy response to Bovine Tuberculosis, a disease that has major implications for the British cattle farming industry. Between 2013 and 2019, over 100,000 Badgers were culled.

It is important to evaluate the ecological impact of severely depressing the population of a widespread predator within large areas of the country. Badgers have a varied diet that includes earthworms, slugs, fruits, small mammals and birds, the latter mostly comprising eggs or chicks in nests located on or close to the ground. Levels of predation on the nests of birds could be directly affected by the removal of Badgers, or indirectly affected by population responses of other predators following their release from competition with Badgers. In turn, it is then possible (but by no means certain) that Badger removal will affect bird population trends.

By examining population growth rates of both ground-nesting and non-ground-nesting breeding birds, inside and outside of cull areas, this study set out to assess possible effects of Badger removal on bird populations. The study extends the work of Kettel et al. (2021), using data from two additional culling years, further regions under culling treatment and a measure of local cull intensity, all of which should increase the power of the study to identify possible effects.

The new study was able to set a minimum sample size that is double that used previously, which increases the robustness of the approach. This study provides an important further assessment of a high-profile policy initiative, using the best data that are available. As before, the study design was limited by the geographical pattern in which culling has been introduced (i.e. it has been done in some areas but not in others nearby, which would facilitate clear comparisons), but it is important to explore the available, relevant data as far as possible, to glean the best evidence available. It is not intended to provide a definitive evaluation of the effects of badger removal.

Using data from the BTO/JNCC/RSPB Breeding Bird Survey, the authors examined the population growth rates of both ground-nesting and non-ground-nesting breeding birds over the period 2013–2019, and following five years of baseline data preceding commencement of culling (2008—2012). This enabled them to measure the effects of Badger removal on population change in the studied bird species, as far as the data allowed. Direct or indirect effects of Badger removal would be expected to be greatest on ground-nesting birds.

The study found little evidence to indicate consistent, community-level effects of Badger removal on the populations of ground-nesting birds. Ground-nesting birds will be predated by Badgers as well as by other predators, and populations of these other predators may themselves be influenced by Badger numbers. If the studied bird populations are regulated by predation, then it is likely to be by a complex suite of predators. However, it is also quite likely that predation plays no such role, and that factors such as food availability or land management are more important. All this means that changing the abundance of one predator may well have no overall effect on prey numbers in many contexts, and that the effects of removing a predator through culling will be difficult to explore definitively.

In analyses like this, the lack of an experimental study structure and of available information for other important variables (such as the density of Badgers pre-culling and Badger dispersal patterns) makes interpretation difficult. There are several reasons why effects of Badger removal might not have been found here, including limitations with the study design and a genuine lack of any real impact on bird populations. However, it is clear that there have not been strong, clear effects on species that should be more vulnerable.

Despite the limitations of the analysis, this study very clearly demonstrates the value of the Breeding Bird Survey dataset in observing long-term population trends, and one way in which it can be used in helping to monitor possible effects of large-scale policy measures on breeding birds.

Predator management for breeding waders: a review of current evidence and priority knowledge gaps

VIOLA.ROSS-SMITH — Thu, 25 Mar 2021 11:24:53 +0000

The Cuckoo cohort of 2024 takes flight!

More Details

Laidlaw, R.A., Smart, J., Ewing, H., Franks, S.E., Belting, H., Donaldson, L., Hilton, G.M., Hiscock, N., Hoodless, A.N., Hughes, B., Jarrett, N.S., Kentie, R., Kleyheeg, E., Lee, R., Roodbergen, M., Scott, D.M., Short, M.J., Syroechkovskiy, E.E., Teunissen, W., Ward, H., White, G. & Gill, J.A, Wader Study

Rapid declines in breeding wader populations across the world have prompted the development of a series of conservation tools, many of which are designed to influence productivity. Across Western Europe, efforts to reverse population declines are typically limited by high levels of nest and chick predation and, managing this predator impact has been a major research focus in the last two decades. A workshop held at the 2019 International Wader Study Group conference aimed to synthesise current understanding of predator management tools and to use expert knowledge to identify and prioritise important knowledge gaps in this area. Here we review the four predator management tools that were described (predator diversion, exclusion, lethal control and headstarting), together with insights into the potential responses of mammalian predators to these management tools. The expert assessment of important areas for future work highlighted the need to increase our knowledge of predators and their responses to management interventions; to ensure our science connects to policy, practitioners and members of the public; and the need for clear and consistent goals for the future of breeding wader populations to inform the development and deployment of these management tools.

The authors thank all participants at the workshop on 23 September 2019 who contributed and voted during the day. They also thank the International Wader Study Group conference organising committee for allowing our workshop to be part of the IWSG conference at Morecambe 2019, with special thanks to Jacquie Clark and Richard du Feu. Thanks to Mark Colwell and Brett Sandercock for valuable comments that improved the manuscript. Contributions on headstarting were part funded by the EU Life Nature Programme (project reference LIFE15 NAT/UK/000753, LIFE Blackwit UK). The workshop and RAL were funded by NERC (grant number NE/P002986/1).

Review of the potential of seabird colony monitoring to inform monitoring programmes for consented offshore wind farm projects

MICHELLER — Thu, 18 Mar 2021 14:42:16 +0000

The Cuckoo cohort of 2024 takes flight!

More Details

Cook, A.S.C.P., Humphreys, E.M., Robinson, R.A. & Burton, N.H.K. 978-1-912642-07-6

Populations of high‐value predators reflect the traits of their prey

MICHELLER — Wed, 03 Mar 2021 16:13:47 +0000

The Cuckoo cohort of 2024 takes flight!

More Details

Gutiérrez‐Cánovas, C., Worthington, T.A., Jâms, I.B., Noble, D.G., Perkins, D.M., Vaughan, I.P., Woodward, G., Ormerod, S.J. & Durance, I. Ecography 10.1111/ecog.05438 The extent to which prey traits combine to influence the abundance of predators is still poorly understood, particularly for mixed predators in sympatry and in aquatic ecosystems. In this study, we characterise prey use and distribution in iconic bird (grey wagtails and Eurasian dippers) and fish species (brown trout and Atlantic salmon) to assess whether prey traits could predict populations of these four riverine predators. Specifically, we hypothesised that: 1) prey key traits would predict predator populations more effectively than 2) diversity of prey traits, 3) the taxonomic abundance or richness of prey (known as traditional or mass‐effect types of biodiversity) or 4) the prevailing environmental conditions. Combined predator population sizes were predicted better by a few key traits – specifically those revealing prey habitat use, size and drifting behaviour – than by prey diversity or prey trait diversity or environmental conditions. Our findings demonstrate that the complex relationships between prey assemblages and multiple predator species can be represented mechanistically when the key prey traits that govern encounter and consumption rates are identified. Given their apparent potential to reveal trophic relationships, and to complement more traditional measures of prey abundance, we advocate further development of trait‐based approaches in predator–prey research.

Contrasting long‐term trends in age‐specific survival of Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus) in Britain using smoothed estimates of recovery probabilities

VIOLA.ROSS-SMITH — Tue, 09 Feb 2021 16:23:49 +0000

The Cuckoo cohort of 2024 takes flight!

More Details

Robinson, R.A. & Wilson, M. Ibis 10.1111/ibi.12943 Peregrine Falcons Falco peregrinus are an iconic species of long‐standing conservation concern as a result of historic patterns of persecution, and dramatic pesticide‐related population declines in many populations during the second half of the 20th century. While the role of reduced productivity in these declines is well known, temporal patterns in survival are much less well characterised. We estimate survival probabilities for Peregrines in Britain in the period 1975 to 2018 from reports of ringed birds found dead, using a non‐parametric smoothing spline to account for non‐linear temporal variation in recovery probabilities. During this time the population increased from around 350 pairs to 1,628 pairs. There was little evidence of a temporal trend in the survival probabilities of adult birds since the mid‐1970s, but survival of first‐year birds appears to have decreased. Our estimates suggest that increases in the breeding population are further limited by unreported sources of mortality or by density dependent processes and highlight the need for better data on immature survival and recruitment. Modelling recovery rates using a spline, rather than independent annual values, improved estimation efficiency with lower credible intervals obtained for the adult annual estimates.

Having undergone a global population crash caused by pesticide impacts on their breeding productivity in the 1950s and 60s, British Peregrines have made an astonishing recovery. They are now breeding in many English counties where they had not previously bred, taking advantage of man-made ledges on quarries, pylons and tall buildings in city centres. Despite this, concerns remain about the status of populations in upland areas, where numbers appear to be limited by food availability and illegal killing.

However, we know relatively little about how survival (i.e. how long individuals live) has varied over time. We used records of ringed birds found dead to look at patterns in survival over the last 50 years. During this time, the overall breeding population of Peregrines has increased more than four-fold, but there was no evidence of any corresponding increase in survival. In fact, although survival of adult birds changed little during this time, survival of birds in their first year apparently decreased.

One limitation of the available ringing data is that they include few observations of Peregrines between ringing and death and very few birds are ringed after they have left the nest. If typical causes of death differ between adult and juvenile Peregrines, this would affect the chances of ringed, dead Peregrines being encountered, potentially leading to bias in our estimates of survival. For example, if young Peregrines are involved more often in fatal collisions with buildings, they might be more likely to found and reported, resulting in juvenile mortality being over-estimated. Conversely, if many young Peregrines are dispersing into areas where they are at high risk of being illegally killed, this would result in lower reporting rates compared with adults, leading us to under-estimate the mortality of young birds.

Juvenile Peregrine with colour-ring. Craig Bell

How might we improve our knowledge? The answer is likely to be by combining new and old methods. Studies being carried out by dedicated Peregrine enthusiasts around the UK are increasingly using rings with PIT (Passive Integrated Transponder) tags (akin to the microchips used in pets) attached, allowing them to be identified by detectors left at their nest sites. This can provide information about where young Peregrines settle down to breed, but tells us less about their travels in between - when they are not visiting locations with detectors. Marking birds with colour-rings (which can allow individuals to be identified through a telescope) could be an effective means of finding out more about the movements and survival of young Peregrines before they start breeding. This, in turn, would improve our grasp of the factors affecting Peregrine populations, and our ability to manage and conserve this special bird.

Notes

We are extremely grateful to all the ringers who have gone to great efforts to ring Peregrines over the years and to all those who have taken the trouble to report the dead birds they have found. The Ringing Scheme is funded by BTO, JNCC (on behalf of Natural England, Natural Resources Wales, Scottish Natural Heritage, and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Northern Ireland) and the ringers themselves.

Camera traps reveal predators of breeding Black Guillemots Cepphus grylle

VIOLA.ROSS-SMITH — Sat, 14 Nov 2020 15:44:35 +0000

The Cuckoo cohort of 2024 takes flight!

More Details

Johnston, D.T., Furness, R.W., Robbins, A.M.C., Tyler, G.C. & Masden, E.A. Seabird The occurrence of predation on Black Guillemots Cepphus grylle, of both adults and chicks, is an important consideration when assessing factors affecting breeding success. However, predators are often cryptic and confirmed interactions are difficult to identify. Through the use of camera traps, we recorded predation by mammalian and avian species on Black Guillemots on Stroma and North Ronaldsay in the 2016 and 2017 breeding seasons. Camera traps recorded two presumed instances of an Otter Lutra lutra predating chicks, one possible instance of an Otter predating an adult, one instance of a Hooded Crow Corvus cornix predating a chick, and the presence of several species of potential predators at nests. Camera traps were deployed concurrently during periods of visual observations, during which, sightings of predators were rare. We found the presence of camera traps to have no effect on breeding success between monitored (mean chicks fledged = 1.05, n = 52) and control (mean chicks fledged = 0.98, n = 98) nests. Here we highlight the potential role of camera traps in monitoring seabird nest success, and positively identifying sources of nest failure. DTJ was funded through a Marine Alliance for Science and Technology for Scotland (MASTS) studentship supported by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). A special thank you is reserved for the volunteer camera trap analysts: Colin Mckenzie, Danny Allot, and Emily Kearl. We are grateful for the support given by the staff and volunteers of the North Ronaldsay Bird Observatory, and skipper William ‘Willy’ Simpson who accommodated fieldwork on Stroma. We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers of the manuscript.

BTO and COVID-19

WILLIAMSKELLORN — Mon, 19 Oct 2020 12:17:41 +0000

17 Jan 2022

This statement was updated at 09:00 on 17.01.2022.

Volunteers can currently undertake surveys in most/all parts of the UK so long as they are careful to follow relevant guidance.

The spread of COVID-19 (Coronavirus) has had a significant impact on our lives, and on the monitoring and survey work to which we contribute. It is likely to continue to have an impact on our activities for some time. BTO continues to take the threat seriously, with utmost concern for the health and well-being of our staff, volunteers and members, and those landowners and communities with which we interact.

It is vital that our staff, volunteers and members continue to follow the latest government advice in order to prevent the spread and transmission of infection. The monitoring work undertaken by BTO staff and volunteers makes a valuable contribution to society and to their own mental well-being, but these are exceptional times and the government advice provides the framework by which we should direct our activities. People across society are having to make sacrifices, and it is important that we, as volunteers, continue to do our bit by following government advice and supporting the efforts to bring an end to this pandemic.

The health of yourselves and your families and friends is important. If you or those close to you are impacted by the virus, we wish you a swift recovery. You should not feel that you have to carry out surveys this year if you have any concerns about the health and safety of yourself or other people.

BTO offices and working arrangements

We have put steps in place to minimise disruption to our work and core charitable activities and have produced a risk assessment (PDF 823kb) for our offices. Please note that most of our staff are still working from home, but can be contacted by email or through our website. We have put in place mechanisms to enable people to contact the BTO over the telephone and our online sales operation remains open.

Participating in BTO surveys

BTO’s senior leadership team continues to review published legislation, government guidance and other relevant advice for England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, Channel Islands and Republic of Ireland. We also continue to consult with JNCC, the relevant Statutory Agencies or responsible bodies, and NGO partners about the implications for our volunteer surveys.

It is vital to understand that the guidance presented here represents the latest interpretation of the legislation received by BTO from the relevant government departments. For your own benefit, in terms of disease transmission we urge volunteers to carefully assess the risks posed by their fieldwork. Given the potential risk of the spread of new variants, guidelines could quickly change again and there is likely to be greater onus on individuals to be responsible for minimising risk to themselves and others.

Our current position, as of 17 January 2022, is as follows:

You may take part in surveys, provided you follow any current government restrictions and guidance for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Isle of Man, Bailiwick of Jersey, Bailiwick of Guernsey as appropriate, and our survey-specific guidance below.

Survey work and coronavirus

No volunteer should undertake survey work if displaying symptoms of Covid-19. If volunteering is undertaken, volunteers should follow all government guidance in their geographic region, and appropriate health and safety procedures at all times.

The health of our volunteers is very important to us, as are our relationships with the landowners who so generously allow us onto their land. No volunteer should feel under pressure to carry out fieldwork if they do not feel comfortable doing so, or if they are concerned about the impacts of carrying out survey work on relations with landowners or other members of the public. Please be sensitive to the feelings of landowners and your impact on local communities at this time and help foster good relationships with local communities for the future. Inconsiderate actions will be damaging for all of us. As with all fieldwork, please ensure that you have appropriate landowner permission to visit.

Useful links

England: https://www.gov.uk/coronavirus / https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/364/contents/made

Wales: https://gov.wales/coronavirus

Scotland: https://www.gov.scot/coronavirus-covid-19/

Northern Ireland: https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/campaigns/coronavirus-covid-19

Republic of Ireland: https://www.gov.ie/en/campaigns/c36c85-covid-19-coronavirus/

Isle of Man: https://covid19.gov.im/

Bailiwick of Jersey: https://www.gov.je/Health/Coronavirus/Pages/index.aspx

Bailiwick of Guernsey: https://covid19.gov.gg/

The BTO Team

Yes

Norfolk Bat SurveyBirdTrackBreeding Bird SurveyGarden BirdWatchGarden Wildlife HealthWoodcock SurveyBird Ringing SchemeBird Atlas 2007-11Heronries CensusNest Record SchemeWaterways Breeding Bird SurveyWetland Bird SurveyNesting NeighboursTawny Owl Point SurveyTawny Owl Calling SurveyGarden Bird Feeding SurveyEnglish Winter Bird SurveyCuckoo Tracking ProjectEnglish Farm Woodland Bird SurveyGardenwatchBreeding Waders of Wet Meadows Northamptonshire (VACANT)ArmaghAvonBenbecula & the UistsBordersBrecknockBTO Wales OfficerCaithnessDerbyshire (South) (VACANT)DurhamEssex (Northwest) (VACANT)FermanaghHampshireHuntingdon & Peterborough (VACANT)Inverness (East & Speyside)Inverness (West)Islay, Jura & ColonsayIsle of ManChannel Islands (Jersey)Kincardine & DeesideKirkcudbrightLanark, Renfrew & DunbartonLancashire (South) (VACANT)Leicestershire & RutlandLincolnshire (East)Lincolnshire (North)Lincolnshire (South) (VACANT)London (South)LothianNorfolk (Northeast)Norfolk (Northwest)Norfolk (Southeast)Nottinghamshire (VACANT)OrkneyOxfordshire (South)RadnorRoss-shireRum, Eigg, Canna & MuckShetland (VACANT)SomersetStaffordshire (North)Staffordshire (South)TyroneWarwickshireWigtown (VACANT)Wiltshire (North)Wiltshire (South)Yorkshire (Hull)Yorkshire (Northwest) (VACANT)Yorkshire (Richmond) (VACANT)Glamorgan (Mid)Glamorgan (South)Staffordshire (West)HerefordshireCardiganPembrokeshireClevelandMontgomery (VACANT)Oxfordshire (North)Yorkshire (York)GloucestershireClwyd (West)Yorkshire (Central) (VACANT)CornwallGwentMeirionnyddYorkshire (East)BerkshireCambridgeshire (VACANT)Cheshire (Mid)Isles of ScillyThe WirralYorkshire (Bradford)CarmarthenDownBTO Northern Ireland OfficerSussexCaernarfonBedfordshireMoray & NairnMerseyside (VACANT)London (North)NorthumberlandCumbriaDerbyshire (North) (VACANT)SuffolkArgyll (Mainland, Bute & Gigha)Clwyd (East)Antrim & BelfastLancashire (East)Fife & KinrossManchesterLondonderryWorcestershireBuckinghamshireGlamorgan (West) (VACANT)Cheshire (North & East)Cheshire (South)Devon (VACANT)Birmingham & West MidlandsDorsetPerthshireYorkshire (Leeds & Wakefield) (VACANT)Essex (South) (VACANT)Yorkshire (Southwest)Norfolk (Southwest)Lincolnshire (West)SutherlandLancashire (Northwest) (VACANT)AberdeenKentSurreyHertfordshireDumfriesSkyeAyrshire and CumbraeArgyll (Mull, Coll, Tiree & Morvern)ShropshireYorkshire (Northeast)Channel Islands (Guernsey)Isle of WightEssex (Northeast)Yorkshire (Southeast)AngusCentral ScotlandLewis & HarrisAngleseyMarine region away from landIsle of ArranIsle of May

A schematic sampling protocol for contaminant monitoring in raptors

VIOLA.ROSS-SMITH — Wed, 20 May 2020 15:43:57 +0000

The Cuckoo cohort of 2024 takes flight!

More Details

Espín, S., Andevski, J., Duke, G., Eulaers, I., Gómez-Ramírez, P., Hallgrimsson, G.T., Helander, B., Herzke, D., Jaspers, V.L.B., Krone, O., Lourenço, R., María-Mojica, P., Martínez-López, E., Mateo, R., Movalli, P., Sánchez-Virosta, P., Shore, R.F., Sonne, C., van den Brink, N.W., van Hattum, B., Vrezec, A., Wernham, C. & García-Fernández, A.J. Ambio 10.1007/s13280-020-01341-9 Birds of prey, owls and falcons are widely used as sentinel species in raptor biomonitoring programmes. A major current challenge is to facilitate large-scale biomonitoring by coordinating contaminant monitoring activities and by building capacity across countries. This requires sharing, dissemination and adoption of best practices addressed by the Networking Programme Research and Monitoring for and with Raptors in Europe (EURAPMON) and now being advanced by the ongoing international COST Action European Raptor Biomonitoring Facility. The present perspective introduces a schematic sampling protocol for contaminant monitoring in raptors. We provide guidance on sample collection with a view to increasing sampling capacity across countries, ensuring appropriate quality of samples and facilitating harmonization of procedures to maximize the reliability, comparability and interoperability of data. The here presented protocol can be used by professionals and volunteers as a standard guide to ensure harmonised sampling methods for contaminant monitoring in raptors.