European Journal of Wildlife Research

, Volume 59, Issue 2, pp 245–256 | Cite as

The importance of hunting pressure, habitat preference and life history for population trends of breeding waterbirds in Finland

  • Hannu Pöysä
  • Jukka Rintala
  • Aleksi Lehikoinen
  • Risto A. Väisänen
Original Paper

Abstract

Populations of migratory species have undergone dramatic changes in recent decades, but little is known about the factors actually driving those changes. Of particular concern are quarry species such as migratory ducks (Anatidae), many of which have an unfavourable conservation status in Europe. By including both quarry and non-quarry species, as well as habitat preference and life history characteristics of the species, we investigated the relative importance of hunting pressure, both in Finland and at the European level, in explaining population changes of 16 species of migratory waterbirds in Finland during 1986–2011. Ban of lead shot in 1996 resulted in considerably lower annual hunting bags in Finland thereafter. Species which had the highest hunting pressure had the most negative slopes in population trends from 1986 up to 1997, suggesting that hunting probably limited those populations. However, in general population trends of the species were not strongly associated with hunting pressure in Finland or in Europe. Nor were basic life history characteristics (body mass and clutch size) associated with population trends of the species. In contrast, recent population declines were associated with habitat preferences of the species: those breeding mainly in eutrophic lakes had more negative population trends than those breeding in oligotrophic lakes or generalist species. Reasons for the relatively poor status of species preferring eutrophic lakes probably include over-eutrophication of nutrient-rich lakes, resulting in less abundant food resources, and increased nest depredation.

Keywords

Body mass Clutch size Habitat preference Hunting impact Migratory species Waterbirds 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the hundreds of hunters and bird watchers that have participated in waterbird surveys in Finland. We also thank Pirjo Hätönen, Ritva Koivunen, Heikki Koivunen, Esa Lammi, Petri Timonen and Marcus Wikman for processing census forms and for computerizing the data and Eija Nylander for compiling the Finnish hunting bag statistics. Comments by two anonymous reviewers greatly improved the text. The Nordic Waterbirds And Climate Network (NOWAC) provided inspiring atmosphere that boosted the writing of this manuscript.

References

  1. Alhainen M, Väänänen V-M, Pöysä H, Ermala A (2010) Duck hunting bag in Finland – what do wing samples tell us about the species composition and age structure in a bag? Suomen Riista 56:40–47, in Finnish with English summaryGoogle Scholar
  2. BirdLife International (2004) Birds in the European Union: A status assessment. BirdLife International, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  3. BirdLife International (2012) The BirdLife checklist of the birds of the world, with conservation status and taxonomic sources. Version 5. http://www.birdlife.info/im/species/checklist.zip. Accessed 6 September 2012
  4. Both C, van Turnhout CAM, Bijlsma RG, Siepel H, van Strien AJ, Foppen RPB (2010) Avian population consequences of climate change are most severe for long-distance migrants in seasonal habitats. Proc R Soc B 277:1259–1266PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brommer JE (2008) Extent of recent polewards range margin shifts in Finnish birds depends on their body mass and feeding ecology. Ornis Fenn 85:109–117Google Scholar
  6. Brown P, Zhou L (2010) MCMC for Generalized Linear Mixed Models with glmmBUGS. R J 2:13–17Google Scholar
  7. Cormont A, Vos CC, van Turnhout CAM, Foppen RPB, ter Braak CJF (2011) Using life-history traits to explain bird population responses to changing weather variability. Clim Res 49:59–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cramp S (ed) (1985) The birds of the Western Palearctic, vol. IV. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Cramp S, Simmons KEL (eds) (1977) The birds of the Western Palearctic, vol. I. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Delany S, Scott D (2006) Waterbird population estimates, 4th edn. Wetlands International, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  11. R Development Core Team (2012) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. http://www.r-project.org. Accessed 16 September 2012
  12. Devineau O, Guillemain M, Johnson AR, Lebreton J-D (2010) A comparison of green-winged teal Anas crecca survival and harvest between Europe and North America. Wildl Biol 16:12–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duncan RP, Blackburn TM, Worthy TH (2002) Prehistoric bird extinctions and human hunting. Proc Royal Soc Lond B 269:517–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ekholm P, Mitikka S (2006) Agricultural lakes in Finland: current water quality and trends. Environ Monit Assess 116:111–135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ellermaa M, Lindén A (2011) IBA-monitoring tells us: birds are not taken seriously in Finnish bird protection areas. Yearb Linnut Mag 2010:143–168, in Finnish with English summaryGoogle Scholar
  16. Elmberg J, Nummi P, Pöysä H, Sjöberg K (1993) Factors affecting species number and density of dabbling duck guilds in North Europe. Ecography 16:251–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elmberg J, Nummi P, Pöysä H, Sjöberg K, Gunnarsson G, Clausen P, Guillemain M, Rodrigues D, Väänänen V-M (2006) The scientific basis for new and sustainable management of migratory European ducks. Wildl Biol 12:121–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elmberg J, Dessborn L, Englund G (2010) Presence of fish affects lake use and breeding success in ducks. Hydrobiologia 641:215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute (1998) Annual game bag 1996. Official Statistics of Finland – Agriculture, Forestry and FisheryGoogle Scholar
  20. Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute (2002) Annual game bag 2001. Official Statistics of Finland – Agriculture, Forestry and FisheryGoogle Scholar
  21. Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute (2007) Annual game bag 2006. Riista-ja kalatalous – Tilastoja 5/2007. Official Statistics of Finland – Agriculture, Forestry and FisheryGoogle Scholar
  22. Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute (2009) Hunting 2008. Riista-ja kalatalous – Tilastoja 5/2009. Official Statistics of Finland – Agriculture, Forestry and FisheryGoogle Scholar
  23. Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute (2010) Hunting 2009. Riista-ja kalatalous – Tilastoja 6/2010. Official Statistics of Finland – Agriculture, Forestry and FisheryGoogle Scholar
  24. Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute (2011) Hunting 2010. Riista-ja kalatalous – Tilastoja 6/2010. Official Statistics of Finland – Agriculture, Forestry and FisheryGoogle Scholar
  25. Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Rubin DB (2003) Bayesian data analysis, 2nd edn. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  26. Giles N (1994) Tufted duck (Aythya fuligula) habitat use and brood survival increases after fish removal from gravel pit lakes. Hydrobiologia 279–280:387–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Green AJ (1996) Analyses of globally threatened Anatidae in relation to threats, distribution, migration patterns, and habitat use. Conserv Biol 10:1435–1445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hagemeijer WJM, Blair MJ (eds) (1997) The EBCC atlas of European breeding birds: Their distribution and abundance. T&A D Poyser, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Hanson MA, Butler MG (1994) Responses to food web manipulation in a shallow waterfowl lake. Hydrobiologia 279–280:457–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Herzon I, Auninš A, Elts J, Preikša Z (2008) Intensity of agricultural land-use and farmland birds in the Baltic States. Agr Ecosyst Environ 125:93–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Herzon I, Ekroos J, Rintala J, Tiainen J, Seimola T, Vepsäläinen V (2011) Importance of set-aside for breeding birds of open farmland in Finland. Agr Ecosyst Environ 143:3–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hilli-Lukkarinen M, Kuitunen M, Suhonen J (2011) The effect of changes in land use on waterfowl species turnover in Finnis boreal lakes. Ornis Fenn 88:185–194Google Scholar
  33. Hirschfeld A, Heyd A (2005) Mortality of migratory birds caused by hunting in Europe: bag statistics and proposals for the conservation of birds and animal welfare. Ber Vogelschutz 42:47–74Google Scholar
  34. Jylhä K, Tuomenvirta H, Ruosteenoja K (2004) Climate change projections for Finland during the 21st century. Boreal Environ Res 9:127–152Google Scholar
  35. Kauppi L, Pietiläinen O-P, Knuuttila S (1993) Impacts of agricultural nutrient loading on Finnish watercourses. Water Sci Technol 28:461–471Google Scholar
  36. Kauppinen J (1993) Densities and habitat distribution of breeding waterfowl in boreal lakes in Finland. Finn Game Res 48:24–45Google Scholar
  37. Kauppinen J, Väisänen RA (1993) Ordination and classification of waterfowl communities in south boreal lakes. Finn Game Res 48:3–23Google Scholar
  38. Knudsen E, Lindén A, Both C, Jonzén N, Pulido F, Saino N, Sutherland WJ, Bach LA, Coppack T, Ergon T, Gienapp P, Gill JA, Gordo O, Hedenström A, Lehikoinen E, Marra PP, Møller AP, Nilsson ALK, Péron G, Ranta E, Rubolini D, Sparks TH, Spina F, Studds CE, Sæther SA, Tryjanowski P, Stenseth NC (2011) Challenging claims in the study of migratory birds and climate change. Biol Rev 86:928–946PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Koskimies P, Väisänen RA (1991) Monitoring bird populations. Zoological Museum. Finnish Museum of Natural History, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  40. Long PR, Székely T, Kershaw M, O’Connell M (2007) Ecological factors and human threats both drive wildfowl population declines. Anim Conserv 10:183–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lunn DJ, Thomas A, Best N, Spiegelhalter D (2000) WinBUGS – a Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility. Stat Comput 10:325–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lunn D, Spiegelhalter D, Thomas A, Best N (2009) The BUGS project: evolution, critique and future directions. Stat Med 2009:3049–3067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Martinez-Haro M, Green AJ, Mateo R (2011) Effects of lead exposure on oxidative stress biomarkers and plasma biochemistry in waterbirds in the field. Environ Res 111:530–538PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mateo R (2009) Lead poisoning in wild birds in Europe and the regulations adopted by different countries. In: Watson RT, Fuller M, Pokras M, Hunt WG (eds) Ingestion of lead from spent ammunition: Implications for wildlife and human. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, pp 1–28Google Scholar
  45. McCullagh P, Nelder JA (1989) Generalized linear models. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  46. Meier HEM, Hordoir R, Andersson HC, Dieterich K, Gustafsson BG, Höglund A, Schimanke S (2012) Modelling the combined impact of changing climate and changing nutrient loads on the Baltic Sea environment in an ensemble of transient simulations for 1961–2099. Clim Dyn (in press). doi: 10.1007/s00382-012-1339-7
  47. Mikkola-Roos M, Tiainen J, Below A, Hario M, Lehikoinen A, Lehikoinen E, Lehtiniemi T, Rajasärkkä A, Valkama J, Väisänen RA (2010) Linnut — Birds. In: Rassi P, Hyvärinen E, Juslén A, Mannnerkoski I (eds) The 2010 red list of Finnish species. Ministry of the Environment, Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, pp 320–321Google Scholar
  48. Møller AP, Fiedler W, Berthold P (eds) (2010) Effects of climate change on birds. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  49. Mooij JH (2005) Protection and use of waterbirds in the European Union. Beitr zur Jagd- und Wildforschung 30:49–76Google Scholar
  50. Newton I (1998) Population limitation in birds. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  51. Nichols JD (1991) Responses of North American duck populations to exploitation. In: Perrins CM, Lebreton J-D, Hirons GJM (eds) Bird population studies: Relevance to conservation and management. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 448–525Google Scholar
  52. Nichols JD, Runge MC, Johnson FA, Williams BK (2007) Adaptive harvest management of North American waterfowl populations: a brief history and future prospects. J Ornithol 148:343–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nordström M, Högmander J, Nummelin J, Laine J, Laanetu N, Korpimäki E (2002) Variable responses of waterfowl breeding populations to long-term removal of introduced American mink. Ecography 25:385–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nordström M, Högmander J, Laine J, Nummelin J, Laanetu N, Korpimäki E (2003) Effects of feral mink removal on seabirds, waders and passerines on small islands in the Baltic Sea. Biol Conserv 109:359–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nummi P, Väänänen V-M, Rask M, Nyberg K, Taskinen J (2012) Competitive effects of fish in structurally simple habitats: perch, invertebrates, and goldeneye in small boreal lakes. Aquatic Sci 74:343–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Olden JD, Hogan ZS, Zanden MJV (2007) Small fish, big fish, red fish, blue fish: size-biased extinction risk of the world’s freshwater and marine fishes. Global Ecol Biogeogr 16:694–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Olin M, Rask M, Ruuhijärvi J, Kurkilahti M, Ala-Opas P, Ylönen O (2002) Fish community structure in mesotrophic and eutrophic lakes of southern Finland: the relative abundances of percids and cyprinids along a trophic gradient. J Fish Biol 60:593–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Owens IPF, Bennett PM (2000) Ecological basis of extinction risk in birds: habitat loss versus human persecution and introduced predators. PNAS 97:12144–12148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pain DJ (1990) Lead poisoning of waterfowl: A review. In: Matthews GVT (ed) Managing waterbird populations. Proc IWRB Symp, Astrakhan, USSR. IWRB Special Publication No. 12, pp 172–181Google Scholar
  60. Pannekoek J, van Strien AJ (2005) Trim 3 manual (Trends and indices for monitoring data). Statistics Netherlands, VoorburgGoogle Scholar
  61. Patterson JH (1979) Can ducks be managed by regulation? Experiences in Canada. Trans North Am Wildl Nat Res Conf 44:130–139Google Scholar
  62. Pearce-Higgins J, Yalden D, Dougall T, Beale C (2009) Does climate change explain the decline of a trans-Saharan Afro-Palaearctic migrant? Oecologia 159:649–659PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pirkola MK, Lindén H (1972) Results of duck wing collection surveys in Finland 1969 and 1970. Suomen Riista 24:97–106, in Finnish with English summaryGoogle Scholar
  64. Pöysä H, Väisänen RA, Wikman M (1993) Monitoring of waterbirds in the breeding season: the programme used in Finland in 1986–92. In: Moser M, Prentice RC, van Vessem J (eds) Waterfowl and wetland conservation in the 1990s — a global perspective. Proc IWRB Symp, St Petersburg Beach, FL, USA. IWRB Special Publication No 26, pp 7–12Google Scholar
  65. Pöysä H, Elmberg J, Gunnarsson G, Nummi P, Sjöberg K (2004) Ecological basis of sustainable harvesting: is the prevailing paradigm of compensatory mortality still valid? Oikos 104:612–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pöysä H, Rintala J, Wikman M, Lehikoinen A, Väisänen RA (2011) RKTL — Vesilinnut 2011. http://www.rktl.fi/riista/riistavarat/vesilinnut_2.html. Accessed 14 May 2012
  67. Rask M, Olin M, Ruuhijärvi J (2010) Fish-based assessment of ecological status of Finnish lakes loaded by diffuse nutrient pollution from agriculture. Fish Manage Ecol 17:126–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rendón MA, Green AJ, Aguilera E, Almaraz P (2008) Status, distribution and long-term changes in the waterbird community wintering in Doñana, south-west Spain. Biol Conserv 141:1371–1388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Reynolds RE, Sauer JR (1991) Changes in mallard breeding populations in relation to production and harvest rates. J Wildl Manage 55:483–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rönkä MTH, Saari CLV, Lehikoinen EA, Suomela J, Häkkilä K (2005) Environmental changes and population trends of breeding waterfowl in northern Baltic Sea. Ann Zool Fenn 42:587–602Google Scholar
  71. Sanderson FJ, Donald PF, Pain DJ, Burfield IJ, van Bommel FPJ (2006) Long-term population declines in Afro-Palearctic migrant birds. Biol Conserv 131:93–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Simola H, Kukkonen M, Lahtinen J, Tossavainen T (1995) Effects of intensive forestry and peatland management on forest lake ecosystems in Finland: sedimentary records of diatom floral changes. In: Marino D (ed) Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Diatom Symposium, Maratea, Italy, 1–7th September 1994. Biopress. Bristol, pp 121–128Google Scholar
  73. Sjöberg K, Pöysä H, Elmberg J, Nummi P (2000) Response of mallard ducklings to variation in habitat quality: an experiment of food limitation. Ecology 81:329–335Google Scholar
  74. Smith GW, Reynolds RE (1992) Hunting and mallard survival, 1979–88. J Wildl Manag 56:306–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Solonen T (1985) Suomen linnusto. Lintutieto, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  76. Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin BP, Linde AVD (2002) Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J R Statist Soc B 64:583–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Spiegelhalter D, Thomas A, Best N, Lunn D (2003) WinBUGS user manual. http://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/bugs/winbugs/manual14.pdf. Accessed 16 September 2012
  78. 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 91:22–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sturtz S, Ligges U, Gelman A (2005) R2WinBUGS: a package for running WinBUGS from R. J Stat Softw 12:1–16Google Scholar
  80. Väänänen V-M (2000) Predation risk associated with nesting in gull colonies by two Aythya species: observations and an experimental test. J Avian Biol 31:31–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Väänänen V-M (2011) Small colonial larids and waterfowl — the effect of gull colonies on waterfowl nesting in inland eutrophic wetlands. Suomen Riista 57:84–91, in Finnish with English summaryGoogle Scholar
  82. Väänänen V-M, Nummi P, Rautiainen A, Asanti T, Huolman I, Mikkola-Roos M, Nurmi J, Orava R, Rusanen P (2007) The effect of raccoon dog Nyctereutes procyonoides removal on waterbird breeding success. Suomen Riista 53:49–63, in Finnish with English summaryGoogle Scholar
  83. Väänänen V-M, Nummi P, Pöysä H, Rask M, Nyberg K (2012) Fish–duck interactions in boreal lakes in Finland as reflected by abundance correlations. Hydrobiologia 697:85–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Väisänen RA, Lammi E, Koskimies P (1998) Distribution, numbers and population changes of Finnish breeding birds. Finnish Museum of Natural History, University of Helsinki, Otava, in Finnish with English summaryGoogle Scholar
  85. Väisänen RA, Hario M, Saurola P (2011) Population estimates of Finnish birds. In: Valkama J, Vepsäläinen V, Lehikoinen A (eds) The third Finnish breeding bird atlas. Finnish Museum of Natural History and Ministry of Environment. http://atlas3.lintuatlas.fi/english. Accessed 14 May 2012
  86. Valkama J, Vepsäläinen, V, Lehikoinen, A (2011) The third Finnish breeding bird atlas. Finnish Museum of Natural History and Ministry of Environment. http://atlas3.lintuatlas.fi/english. Accessed 14 May 2012
  87. von Haartman L (1973) Changes in the breeding bird fauna of North Europe. In: Farnes DS (ed) Breeding biology of birds. National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC, pp 448–481Google Scholar
  88. Wagenmakers E-J, Farrell S (2004) AIC model selection using Akaike weights. Psychon B Rev 11:192–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hannu Pöysä
    • 1
  • Jukka Rintala
    • 2
  • Aleksi Lehikoinen
    • 3
  • Risto A. Väisänen
    • 3
  1. 1.Finnish Game and Fisheries Research InstituteJoensuu Game and Fisheries ResearchJoensuuFinland
  2. 2.Finnish Game and Fisheries Research InstituteHelsinkiFinland
  3. 3.Finnish Museum of Natural HistoryUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations