Oecologia

, Volume 183, Issue 4, pp 1019–1029 | Cite as

Reproductive consequences of farmland heterogeneity in little owls (Athene noctua)

  • Vanja T. Michel
  • Beat Naef-Daenzer
  • Herbert Keil
  • Martin U. Grüebler
Behavioral ecology – original research
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

The amount of high-quality habitat patches, their distribution, and the resource accessibility therein play a key role in regulating habitat effects on reproductive success. Heterogeneous habitats offer non-substitutable resources (e.g. nest sites and food) and substitutable resources (e.g. different types of food) in close proximity, thereby facilitating landscape complementation and supplementation. However, it remains poorly understood how spatial resource separation in homogeneous agricultural landscapes affects reproductive success. To fill this gap, we investigated the relationships between farmland heterogeneity and little owl (Athene noctua) reproductive success, including potential indirect effects of the heterogeneity-dependent home-range size on reproduction. Little owl home-ranges were related to field heterogeneity in summer and to structural heterogeneity in winter. Clutch size was correlated with the amount of food-rich habitat close to the nest irrespective of female home-range size, suggesting importance of landscape complementation. Nestling survival was positively correlated with male home-range size, suggesting importance of landscape supplementation. At the same time, fledgling condition was negatively correlated with male home-range size. We conclude that decreasing farmland heterogeneity constrains population productivity by two processes: increasing separation of food resources from nest or roost sites results in low landscape complementation, and reduction of alternative food resources limits landscape supplementation. Our results suggest that structural heterogeneity affects landscape complementation, whereas the heterogeneity and management of farmland fields affect landscape supplementation. Thus, to what extent a reduction of the heterogeneity within agricultural landscapes results in species-specific habitat degradation depends on the ecological processes (i.e. landscape complementation or supplementation) which are affected.

Keywords

Habitat quality Home-range size Kernel density Landscape complementation Landscape supplementation Radio telemetry Reproduction 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank all the field assistants and volunteers for their help with field data collection. We are grateful to F. Korner-Nievergelt and P. Korner for statistical support. Furthermore, we thank W. Fiedler for the logistic and administrative support, and two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. Capture and tagging of little owls were permitted by the regional council of Baden-Württemberg, Germany (Permit No. 35-9185.81/0288). The study was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant 3100A 132951/1 to B. Naef-Daenzer and M. U. Grüebler), the Hirschmann Foundation, and the Karl Mayer Foundation.

Author contribution statement

VTM, BND, HK, and MUG designed the study and carried out the field work. VTM and MUG analysed the data. VTM, BND, and MUG wrote the manuscript.

Supplementary material

442_2017_3823_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (296 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 295 kb)

References

  1. Apolloni N (2013) Landscape use, foraging habitat selection and relationships to food resources in breeding little owls: recognizing the importance of scale for species conservation management. Master Thesis, Universität Bern, BernGoogle Scholar
  2. Aschwanden J, Birrer S, Jenni L (2005) Are ecological compensation areas attractive hunting sites for common kestrels (Falco tinnunculus) and long-eared owls (Asio otus)? J Ornithol 146:279–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Askew NP, Searle JB, Moore NP (2007) Agri-environment schemes and foraging of barn owls Tyto alba. Agric Ecosyst Environ 118:109–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol Evol 18:182–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bock A, Naef-Daenzer B, Keil H, Korner-Nievergelt F, Perrig M, Grüebler MU (2013) Roost site selection by little owls Athene noctua in relation to environmental conditions and life-history stages. Ibis 155:847–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Börger L, Franconi N, De Michele G, Gantz A, Meschi F, Manica A, Lovari S, Coulson T (2006) Effects of sampling regime on the mean and variance of home range size estimates. J Anim Ecol 75:1393–1405CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruun M, Smith HG (2003) Landscape composition affects habitat use and foraging flight distances in breeding European starlings. Biol Conserv 114:179–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burley N (1988) The differential-allocation hypothesis: an experimental test. Am Nat 132:611–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Calenge C (2006) The package "adehabitat" for the R software: a tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals. Ecol Model 197:1035Google Scholar
  10. Carpenter FL, MacMillen RE (1976) Threshold model of feeding territoriality and test with a Hawaiian honeycreeper. Science 194:639–642CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Douglas DJT, Vickery JA, Benton TG (2009) Improving the value of field margins as foraging habitat for farmland birds. J Appl Ecol 46:353–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunning JB, Danielson BJ, Pulliam HR (1992) Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65:169–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ens BJ, Kersten M, Brenninkmeijer A, Hulscher JB (1992) Territory quality, parental effort and reproductive success of oystercatchers (Haematopus ostralegus). J Anim Ecol 61:703–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Erikstad KE (1985) Growth and survival of willow grouse chicks in relation to home range size, brood movements and habitat selection. Ornis Scand 16:181–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fahrig L, Baudry J, Brotons L, Burel FG, Crist TO, Fuller RJ, Sirami C, Siriwardena GM, Martin JL (2011) Functional landscape heterogeneity and animal biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Ecol Lett 14:101–112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Frey-Roos F, Brodmann PA, Reyer HU (1995) Relationships between food resources, foraging patterns, and reproductive success in the water pipit, Anthus sp. spinoletta. Behav Ecol 6:287–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fuller RJ (2012) Birds and habitat: relationships in changing landscapes. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Germain RR, Arcese P (2014) Distinguishing individual quality from habitat preference and quality in a territorial passerine. Ecology 95:436–445CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Gottschalk TK, Ekschmitt K, Wolters V (2011) Efficient placement of nest boxes for the little owl (Athene noctua). J Raptor Res 45:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grüebler MU, Widmer S, Korner-Nievergelt F, Naef-Daenzer B (2014) Temperature characteristics of winter roost-sites for birds and mammals: tree cavities and anthropogenic alternatives. Int J Biometeorol 58:629–637CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Harris WE, Uller T (2009) Reproductive investment when mate quality varies: differential allocation versus reproductive compensation. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 364:1039–1048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hinam HL, St. Clair CC (2008) High levels of habitat loss and fragmentation limit reproductive success by reducing home range size and provisioning rates of Northern saw-whet owls. Biol Conserv 141:524–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hinsley SA (2000) The costs of multiple patch use by birds. Landscape Ecol 15:765–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hipkiss T, Hörnfeldt B, Eklund U, Berlin S (2002) Year-dependent sex-biased mortality in supplementary-fed Tengmalm’s owl nestlings. J Anim Ecol 71:693–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jacobsen LB, Chrenková M, Sunde P, Šálek M, Thorup K (2016) Effects of food provisioning and habitat management on spatial behaviour of little owls during the breeding season. Ornis Fenn 93:121–129Google Scholar
  26. Juillard M (1979) La croissance des jeunes chouettes chevêches, Athene noctua, pendant leur séjour au nid. Nos Oiseaux 35:113–124Google Scholar
  27. Kenward RE (2001) A manual for wildlife radio tagging. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Korner-Nievergelt F, Roth T, von Felten S, Guélat J, Almasi B, Korner-Nievergelt P (2015) Bayesian data analysis in ecology using linear models with R, BUGS, and Stan. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Michel VT (2016) Individual responses of adult little owls (Athene noctua) to environmental conditions. PhD thesis, University of Zurich, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  30. Naef-Daenzer B, Keller LF (1999) The foraging performance of great and blue tits (Parus major and P. caeruleus) in relation to caterpillar development, and its consequences for nestling growth and fledging weight. J Anim Ecol 68:708–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Naef-Daenzer B, Früh D, Stalder M, Wetli P, Weise E (2005) Miniaturization (0.2 g) and evaluation of attachment techniques of telemetry transmitters. J Exp Biol 208:4063–4068CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Orians GH, Wittenberger JF (1991) Spatial and temporal scales in habitat selection. Am Nat 137:S29–S49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Perrig M (2015) Juvenile survival and onset of natal dispersal in little owls (Athene noctua) in relation to nestling food supply. PhD thesis, University of Zurich, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  34. Perrig M, Grüebler MU, Keil H, Naef-Daenzer B (2014) Experimental food supplementation affects the physical development, behaviour and survival of little owl Athene noctua nestlings. Ibis 156:755–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. R Core Team (2012) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  36. Schifferli L, Grüebler MU, Meijer HAJ, Visser GH, Naef-Daenzer B (2014) Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica parents work harder when foraging conditions are good. Ibis 156:777–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sergio F, Blas J, Baos R, Forero MG, Donázar JA, Hiraldo F (2009) Short- and long-term consequences of individual and territory quality in a long-lived bird. Oecologia 160:507–514CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Shore RF, Meek WR, Sparks TH, Pywell RF, Nowakowski M (2005) Will environmental stewardship enhance small mammal abundance on intensively managed farmland? Mamm Rev 35:277–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Smith JNM, Grant PR, Grant BR, Abbott IJ, Abbott LK (1978) Seasonal variation in feeding habits of Darwin’s ground finches. Ecology 59:1137–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stoate C, Báldi A, Beja P, Boatman ND, Herzon I, van Doorn A, de Snoo GR, Rakosy L, Ramwell C (2009) Ecological impacts of early 21st century agricultural change in Europe—a review. J Environ Manage 91:22–46CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Sunde P, Thorup K, Jacobsen LB, Rahbek C (2014) Weather conditions drive dynamic habitat selection in a generalist predator. PLoS ONE 9:e88221CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Thorup K, Sunde P, Jacobsen LB, Rahbek C (2010) Breeding season food limitation drives population decline of the little owl Athene noctua in Denmark. Ibis 152:803–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tremblay I, Thomas D, Blondel J, Perret P, Lambrechts MM (2005) The effect of habitat quality on foraging patterns, provisioning rate and nestling growth in Corsican blue tits Parus caeruleus. Ibis 147:17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tscharntke T, Klein AM, Kruess A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Thies C (2005) Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity—ecosystem service management. Ecol Lett 8:857–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Van Nieuwenhuyse D, Génot J-C, Johnson DH (2008) The little owl: conservation, ecology and behaviour of Athene noctua. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Vickery J, Arlettaz R (2012) The importance of habitat heterogeneity at multiple scales for birds in European agricultural landscapes. In: Fuller RJ (ed) Birds and habitat: relationships in changing landcapes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 177–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wright S (1934) The method of path coefficients. Ann Math Stat 5:161–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zuberogoitia I, Zabala J (2007) Seasonal dynamics in social behaviour and spacing patterns of the Little Owl Athene noctua. Ornis Fenn 84:173–180Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vanja T. Michel
    • 1
    • 2
  • Beat Naef-Daenzer
    • 1
  • Herbert Keil
    • 3
  • Martin U. Grüebler
    • 1
  1. 1.Swiss Ornithological InstituteSempachSwitzerland
  2. 2.Institute of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental StudiesUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  3. 3.Forschungsgemeinschaft zur Erhaltung einheimischer Eulen e.V.OberriexingenGermany

Personalised recommendations