Journal of Ornithology

, Volume 151, Issue 2, pp 297–307 | Cite as

Habitat structure versus food abundance: the importance of sparse vegetation for the common redstart Phoenicurus phoenicurus

  • Nicolas MartinezEmail author
  • Lukas Jenni
  • Eric Wyss
  • Niklaus Zbinden
Original Article


As many other birds breeding in agricultural areas, the common redstart declined strongly in many Central European countries over the last 60 years. The destruction of traditionally managed orchards, an important breeding habitat in Central Europe, is a relevant cause. An additional factor for the decline of this species could be the intensified management of the ground vegetation in orchards through reducing food availability and lowering prey detectability and accessibility. In this study we examined the importance of surfaces with sparse vegetation for the location of redstart territories and for foraging. To validate the results of these field studies we made habitat-choice experiments in aviaries with captive birds. Territories occupied by redstarts in orchards of northwestern Switzerland contained a significantly higher proportion of surfaces with sparse vegetation than unoccupied control sites. Redstarts made almost five times more hunting flights into experimentally established ruderal vegetation strips than into adjacent unmown meadows. No difference was observed when the meadow was freshly mown. Vegetation height and the proportion of open ground surface correctly predicted the vegetation type for hunting in 77% of the cases. Experiments in aviaries offering two types of sparse vegetation and a dense meadow supported the results of the field experiments. Even a four-fold increase of the food abundance in the meadow did not lead to a noticeable change in preference for the sparse vegetation types. For the conservation of the common redstart, not only traditionally managed orchards with tall trees with cavities should be preserved but also areas with sparse vegetation should be favored.


Orchard Habitat structure Foraging Farmland Phoenicurus phoenicurus 



We thank the Swiss aviculture association Parus for providing cages and other material for the aviary experiments, Martin Liebig for the common redstarts, Dieter Rudin and Susanne Kaufmann from the Landwirtschaftliches Zentrum Ebenrain for their financial and informative support, all people who sent information about common redstart broods, the farmers who established the ruderal vegetation strips, and the Dr. Joachim de Giacomi Foundation for their financial support. Furthermore, we thank Eva Knop, Michael Schaub, Reto Spaar, and two anonymous referees for her valuable comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript as well as Fränzi Korner-Nievergelt for statistical support. Permissions to import captive-bred common redstarts from Germany were obtained from the Swiss Federal Veterinary Office. Permission to keep the captive birds in cages and to do the experiments for this study were obtained from the Veterinary Office of the Canton of Aargau.


  1. Aebischer NJ, Robertson PA (1992) Practical aspects of compositional analysis as applied to pheasant habitat utilisation. In: Priede IG, Swift SM (eds) Wildlife telemetry: remote monitoring and tracking of animals. Ellis Horwood, New York, pp 285–293Google Scholar
  2. Aebischer NJ, Robertson PA (1993) Compositional analysis of habitat use from animal radio-tracking data. Ecology 74:1313–1325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Atkinson PW, Buckingham D, Morris AJ (2004) What factors determine where invertebrate-feeding birds forage in dry agricultural grassland? Ibis 146(Suppl 2):99–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atkinson PW, Fuller RJ, Vickery JA, Conway GJ, Tallowin JRB, Smith REN, Haysom KA, Ings TC, Asteraki EJ, Brown VK (2005) Influence of agricultural management, sward structure and food resources on grassland field use by birds in lowland England. J Appl Ecol 42:932–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bauer H-G, Berthold P (1996) Die Brutvögel Mitteleuropas: Bestand und Gefährdung. Verlag Wiesbaden, AulaGoogle Scholar
  7. Biber J-P, Blattner M, Kestenholz M, Lenzin H (1996): Ornithologisches Inventar beider Basel 1992–1995. Basellandschaftlicher Natur- und Vogelschutzverband, Ornithologische Gesellschaft BaselGoogle Scholar
  8. BirdLife International (2006): Species factsheet: Phoenicurus phoenicurus. Downloaded from Accessed 7 Feb 2007
  9. Birrer S, Spiess M, Herzog F, Jenny M, Kohli L, Lugrin B (2007) The Swiss agri-environment scheme promotes farmland birds: but only moderately. J Ornithol 148(Suppl 2):295–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Britschgi A, Spaar R, Arlettaz R (2006) Impact of grassland farming intensification on the breeding ecology of an indicator insectivorous passerine, the whinchat Saxicola rubetra: lessons for overall Alpine meadowland management. Biol Cons 130:193–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bundesamt für Landwirtschaft BLW (2007): Direktzahlungen 2007 an die Landwirtschaft im Überblick. 2006-08-30/228. BernGoogle Scholar
  12. Butler SJ, Whittingham MJ, Quinn JL, Cresswell W (2004) Quantifying the interaction between food density and habitat structure in determining patch selection. Anim Behav 69:337–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cooper RJ, Whitmore RC (1990) Arthropod sampling methods in ornithology. Stud Avian Biol 13:29–37Google Scholar
  14. Di Giulio M, Edwards PJ, Meister E (2001) Enhancing insect diversity in agricultural grasslands: the roles of management and landscape structure. J Appl Ecol 38:310–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Donald PF, Green RE, Heath MF (2001) Agricultural intensification and the collapse of Europe’s farmland bird populations. Proc R Soc Lond 268:25–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Donald PF, Sanderson FJ, Burfield IJ, van Bommel FPJ (2006) Further evidence of continent-wide impacts of agricultural intensification on European farmland birds, 1990–2000. Agric Ecosyst Environ 116:189–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Glutz von Blotzheim UN (1988): Handbuch der Vögel Mitteleuropas, vol 11. Aula Verlag, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  18. Hodgson J, Taylor JC, Lonsdale CR (1971) The relationship between intensity of grazing and the herbage consumption and growth of calves. J Brit Grassland Soc 26:231–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 6:65–70Google Scholar
  20. Jacquemyn H, Brys R, Hermy M (2003) Short-term effects of different management regimes on the response of calcareous grassland vegetation to increased nitrogen. Biol Conserv 111:137–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jakober H, Stauber W (1987) Habitatsansprüche des Neuntöters (Lanius collurio) und Massnahmen für seinen Schutz. Beih Veröff Naturschutz Landschaftspflege Bad.-Württ 48:25–53Google Scholar
  22. Kleijn D, Sutherland WJ (2003) How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? J Appl Ecol 40:947–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Knop E, Kleijn D, Herzog F, Schmid B (2006) Effectiveness of the Swiss agri-environment scheme in promoting biodiversity. J Appl Ecol 43:120–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krebs JR, Erichsen JT, Webber MI, Charnov EL (1977) Optimal prey selection in the great tit (Parus major). Anim Behav 25:30–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McCracken DI, Tallowin JR (2004) Swards and structure: the interactions between farming practices and bird food resources in lowland grassland. Ibis 146(Suppl 2):108–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Menzel H. (1971) Der Gartenrotschwanz Phoenicurus phoenicurus. Neue Brehm Bücherei Nr. 438. A. Ziemsen Verlag, Wittenberg LutherstadtGoogle Scholar
  27. Schaub M (1996) Jagdverhalten und Zeitbudget von Rotkopfwürgern Lanius senator in der Nordwestschweiz. J Ornithol 137:213–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schaub M, Zbinden N, Martinez N, Maurer M, Iosett A, Spaar R, Weisshaupt N, Arlettaz R (2008) Vögel brauchen lückige Vegetation zur Nahrungssuche. Faktenblatt. Schweizerische Vogelwarte, SempachGoogle Scholar
  29. Schmid H, Luder R, Naef-Daenzer B, Graf R, Zbinden N (1998) Schweizer Brutvogelatlas. Verbreitung der Brutvögel in der Schweiz und im Fürstentum Liechtenstein 1993–1996. Schweizerische Vogelwarte, SempachGoogle Scholar
  30. Sedlácek O, Fuchs R (2008) Breeding site fidelity in urban common redstarts Phoenicurus phoenicurus. Ardea 96(2):261–269Google Scholar
  31. Sedlácek O, Fuchs R, Exnerová A (2004) Redstart Phoenicurus phoenicurus and black redstart P. ochruros in a mosaic urban environment: neighbours or rivals? J Avian Biol 35:336–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sedlácek O, Fuchs R, Exnerová A (2007) Differences in the nestling diets of sympatric redstarts Phoenicurus phoenicurus and black redstarts P. ochruros: Species-specific preferences or responses to food supply? Acta Ornithologica 42(1):99–106Google Scholar
  33. Smith PG (2006) Compos analysis version 6.2 user’s guide. Version 6.2.3. Smith Ecology Ltd., 1, Bettws Cottage, Bettws, Abergavenny, NP7LG, UK. i+22 pp [WWW document]. URL
  34. Stewart KEJ, Bourn NAD, Thomas JA (2001) An evaluation of three quick methods commonly used to assess sward height in ecology. J Appl Ecol 38:1148–1154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. SVS/BirdLife Schweiz (2006): Artenförderungs-Merkblatt: Lebensräume für den Gartenrotschwanz. Schweizer Vogelschutz SVS/BirdLife SchweizGoogle Scholar
  36. Taylor SD, Summers RW (2009) Breeding numbers and stand type preferences of redstarts Phoenicurus phoenicurus and tree pipits Anthus trivalis in a Scots Pine Pinus sylvestris wood. Bird Study 56:120–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tye A (1992) Assessment of territory quality and its effects on breeding success in a migrant passerine, the wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe. Ibis 134:273–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Verbeke G, Molenberghs G (2000) Linear mixed models for longitudinal data. Springer, Heidelberg Google Scholar
  39. Vickery JA, Tallowin JR, Feber RE, Asteraki EJ, Atkinson PW, Fuller RJ, Brown VK (2001) The management of lowland neutral grasslands in Britain: effects of agricultural practices on birds and their food resources. J Appl Ecol 38:647–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wretenberg J, Lindström Å, Svensson S, Thierfelder T, Pärt T (2006) Population trends of farmland birds in Sweden and England: similar trends but different patterns of agricultural intensification. J Appl Ecol 43:1110–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zbinden N, Keller V, Schmid H (2005) Bestandsentwicklung von regelmässig brütenden Vogelarten der Schweiz 1990–2004. Ornithol Beob 102:271–282Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Dt. Ornithologen-Gesellschaft e.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicolas Martinez
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Lukas Jenni
    • 2
  • Eric Wyss
    • 4
  • Niklaus Zbinden
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Environmental SciencesUniversity of BaselBaselSwitzerland
  2. 2.Swiss Ornithological InstituteSempachSwitzerland
  3. 3.Hintermann & Weber AGReinachSwitzerland
  4. 4.Research Institute of Organic AgricultureFrickSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations