Advertisement

Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 17, Issue 5, pp 1073–1087 | Cite as

Multi-scale habitat selection and foraging ecology of the eurasian hoopoe (Upupa epops) in pine plantations

  • Luc BarbaroEmail author
  • Laurent Couzi
  • Vincent Bretagnolle
  • Julien Nezan
  • Fabrice Vetillard
Original Paper

Abstract

Bird conservation can be challenging in landscapes with high habitat turnover such as planted forests, especially for species that require large home ranges and juxtaposition of different habitats to complete their life cycle. The eurasian hoopoe (Upupa epops) has declined severely in western Europe but is still abundant in south-western France. We studied habitat selection of hoopoes in pine plantation forests using a multi-scale survey, including point-counts at the landscape level and radio-tracking at the home-range scale. We quantified habitat use by systematically observing bird behaviour and characterized foraging sites according to micro-habitat variables and abundance of the main prey in the study area, the pine processionary moth (Thaumetopoea pityocampa). At the landscape scale, hoopoes selected habitat mosaics of high diversity, including deciduous woods and hedgerows as main nesting sites. At the home-range scale, hoopoes showed strong selection for short grassland vegetation along sand tracks as main foraging habitats. Vegetation was significantly shorter and sparser at foraging sites than random, and foraging intensity appeared to be significantly correlated with moth winter nest abundance. Hoopoe nesting success decreased during the three study years in line with processionary moth abundance. Thus, we suggest that hoopoes need complementation between foraging and breeding habitats to establish successfully in pine plantations. Hoopoe conservation requires the maintenance of adjacent breeding (deciduous woods) and foraging habitats (short swards adjacent to plantation edges), and consequently depends on the maintenance of habitat diversity at the landscape scale.

Keywords

Bird conservation Foraging Habitat complementation Home range Mosaic landscapes Pine plantations Radio-tracking Thaumetopoea pityocampa Upupa epops 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are particularly indebted to S. Blache for initiating this study, F. Jiguet and O. Dehorter (CRBPO, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris) for the ringing authorization, G. Mays and P. Zeddam for additional ringing and F. Lagane for nestboxes. I. van Halder, H. Jactel, M. Deconchat, S. Saïd and J. C. Samalens helped with GIS or statistical analyses and A. Hampe, F. Burel and two anonymous referees improved the previous drafts of the paper. Many thanks to all the people involved in the field work, P. Menassieu, G. and D. Piou, R. Burlett, F. Sin, V. Dupin, A. Plichon, P. Boyer, M. Dupuich, M. Lagarde, V. Varlet and F. Jouandoudet.

References

  1. Aebischer NJ, Robertson PA, Kenward RE (1993) Compositional analysis of habitat use from animal radio-tracking data. Ecology 74:1313–1325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arlettaz R, Fournier J, Zbinden N (2000) Evolution démographique (1979–1998) d’une population témoin de Huppe fasciée Upupa epops en Valais et stratégie de conservation ciblée. Nos Oiseaux 47:19–27Google Scholar
  3. Barbaro L, Pontcharraud L, Vetillard F, Guyon D, Jactel H (2005) Comparative responses of bird, carabid, and spider assemblages to stand and landscape diversity in maritime pine plantation forests. Ecoscience 12:110–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbaro L, Rossi JP, Vetillard F, Nezan J, Jactel H (2007) The spatial distribution of birds and carabid beetles in pine plantation forests: the role of landscape composition and structure. J Biogeogr 34:652–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Battisti A, Bernardi M, Ghiraldo C (2000) Predation by the hoopoe on pupae of Thaumetopoea pityocampa and the likely influence on other natural enemies. Biocontrol 45:311–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Battisti A, Stastny M, Netherer S, Robinet C, Schopf A, Roques A, Larsson S (2005) Expansion of geographic range in the pine processionary moth caused by increased winter temperatures. Ecology 15:2084–2096Google Scholar
  7. Bibby CJ, Burgess ND, Hill DA, Mustoe S (2000) Bird census techniques. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowden CGR (1990) Selection of foraging habitats by woodlarks (Lullula arborea) nesting in pine plantations. J Appl Ecol 27:410–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brotons L, Herrando S, Martin JL (2004) Bird assemblages in forest fragments within Mediterranean mosaics created by wild fires. Landscape Ecol 19:663–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Browne SJ, Aebischer NJ (2003) Habitat use, foraging ecology and diet of Turtle Doves Streptopelia turtur in Britain. Landscape Ecol 145:572–582Google Scholar
  11. Burfield I, van Bommel F (2004) Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends and conservation status. BirdLifeInternational, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Calenge C (2006) The package “adehabitat” for the R software: a tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals. Ecol Model 197:516–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Camprodon J, Brotons L (2006) Effects of undergrowth clearing on the bird communities of the Northwestern Mediterranean Coppice Holm oak forests. Forest Ecol Manag 221:72–82Google Scholar
  14. Cornulier T, Bretagnolle V (2006) Assessing the influence of environmental heterogeneity on bird spacing patterns: a case study with two raptors. Ecography 29:240–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crawford HS, Jennings DT (1989) Predation by birds on spruce budworm Choristoneura fumiferana: functional, numerical, and total responses. Ecology 70:152–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Démolin G (1969) Comportement des adultes de Thaumetopoea pityocampa Schiff.: dispersion spatiale, importance écologique. Ann Forest Sci 26:81–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dunning JB, Danielson BJ, Pulliam HR (1992) Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65:169–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eybert MC, Constant P, Lefeuvre JC (1995) Effects of changes in agricultural landscape on a breeding population of linnets Acanthis cannabina L. living in adjacent heathland. Biol Conserv 74:195–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB, Manning AD (2006) Biodiversity, ecosystem function, and resilience: ten guiding principles for commodity production landscapes. Front Ecol Environ 4:80–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fournier J, Arlettaz R (2001) Food provision to nestlings in the Hoopoe Upupa epops: implications for the conservation of a small endangered population in the Swiss Alps. Front Ecol Environ 143:2–10Google Scholar
  21. Freitag A (2004) Measuring food availability for an insectivorous bird: the case study of wrynecks and ants. In: van Hemden H, Rothschild M (eds) Insect and bird interactions. Intercept, AndoverGoogle Scholar
  22. Glen DM (2004) Birds as predators of lepidopterous larvae. In: van Hemden H, Rothschild M (eds) Insect and bird interactions. Intercept, AndoverGoogle Scholar
  23. Hodar JA, Zamora R (2004) Herbivory and climatic warming: a Mediterranean outbreaking caterpillar attacks a relict, boreal pine species. Biodivers Conserv 13:493–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoyas J, López F (1998) Distribución del críalo según la abundancia de procesionaria del pino. Quercus 149:20–22Google Scholar
  25. Jones GA, Sieving KE, Jacobson SK (2005) Avian diversity and functional insectivory on north-central Florida farmlands. Conserv Biol 19:1234–1245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Julliard R, Jiguet F (2005) Statut de conservation en 2003 des oiseaux communs nicheurs en France selon 15 ans de programme STOC. Alauda 73:345–356Google Scholar
  27. Kristin A (2001) Family Upupidae (Hoopoe). In: del Hoyo J, Elliott A, Sargatal J (eds) Handbook of the birds of the world, vol. 6, Mousebirds to Hornbills. Lynx Edicions, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  28. Kupfer JA, Malanson GP, Franklin SB (2006) Not seeing the ocean for the islands: the mediating influence of matrix-based processes on forest fragmentation effects. Global Ecol Biogeogr 15:8–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maizeret C (2005) Les Landes de Gascogne. Delachaux et Niestlé, ParisGoogle Scholar
  30. Manly BJF, Miller P, Cook LM (1972) Analysis of a selective predation experiment. Am Nat 106:719–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Manning AD, Lindenmayer DB, Nix HA (2004) Continua and Umwelt: novel perspectives on viewing landscapes. Oikos 104:621–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Martinez JA, Zuberogoitia I (2004) Habitat preferences for long-eared owls Asio otus and little owls Athene noctua in semi-arid environments at three spatial scales. Bird Study 51:163–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martin-Vivaldi M, Palomino JJ, Soler M, Soler JJ (1999) Determinants of reproductive success in the Hoopoe Upupa epops, a hole-nesting non-passerine bird with asynchronous hatching. Bird Study 46:205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Martin-Vivaldi M, Martinez JG, Palomino JJ, Soler M (2002) Extrapair paternity in the Hoopoe Upupa epops: an exploration of the influence of interactions between breeding pairs, non-pair males and strophe length. Bird Study 144:236–247Google Scholar
  35. McCollin D (1998) Forest edges and habitat selection in birds: a functional approach. Ecography 21:247–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McCracken DI, Tallowin JR (2004) Swards and structure: the interactions between farming practices and bird resources in lowland grasslands. Ecography 146:108–114Google Scholar
  37. McGarigal K, Cushman SA, Neel MC, Ene E (2002) Fragstats: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps. Computer software program, University of Massachusetts, AmherstGoogle Scholar
  38. Morris AJ, Whittingham MJ, Bradbury RB, Wilson JD, Kyrkos A, Buckingham DL, Evans AD (2001) Foraging habitat selection by yellowhammers (Emberiza citrinella) nesting in agriculturally contrasting regions in lowland England. Biol Conserv 101:197–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mullen K, Fahy O, Gormally M (2003) Ground flora and associated arthropod communities of forest road edges in Connemara, Ireland. Biodivers Conserv 12:87–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ouin A, Aviron S, Dover J, Burel F (2004) Complementation/supplementation of resources for butterflies in agricultural landscapes. Agric Ecosyst Environ 103:473–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Paquet JY, Vandevyvre X, Delahaye L, Rondeux J (2006) Bird assemblages in a mixed woodland-farmland landscape: the conservation value of silviculture-dependant open areas in plantation forest. Forest Ecol Manag 227:59–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pons P, Lambert B, Rigolot E, Prodon R (2003) The effects of grassland management using fire on habitat occupancy and conservation of birds in a mosaic landscape. Biodivers Conserv 12:1843–1860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Preiss E, Martin JL, Debussche M (1997) Rural depopulation and recent landscape changes in a Mediterranean region: consequences to the breeding avifauna. Landscape Ecol 12:51–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. R Development Core Team (2006) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-070, URL http://www.R-project.orgGoogle Scholar
  45. Robinet O, Bretagnolle V, Clout M (2003) Activity patterns, habitat use, foraging behaviour and food selection of the Ouvéa Parakeet (Eunymphicus cornutus uvaeensis). Emu 103:71–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sherry TW (1990) When are birds dietary specialized? Distinguishing ecological from evolutionary approaches. Stud Avian Biol 13:337–352Google Scholar
  47. Sierro A, Arlettaz R, Naef-Daenzer B, Strebel S, Zbinden N (2001) Habitat use and foraging ecology of the nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus in the Swiss Alps: towards a conservation scheme. Biol Conserv 98:325–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sutherland WJ, Newton I, Green RE (2004) Bird ecology and conservation: a handbook of techniques. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tubelis DP, Cowling A, Donnelly C (2004) Landscape supplementation in adjacent savannas and its implications for the design of corridors for forest birds in the central Cerrado, Brazil. Biol Conserv 118:353–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Virkkala R, Luoto M, Rainio K (2004) Effects of landscape composition on farmland and red-listed birds in boreal agricultural-forest mosaics. Ecography 27:273–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wethered R, Lawes MJ (2003) Matrix effects on bird assemblages in fragmented Afromontane forest in South Africa. Biol Conserv 114:327–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Whitehead S, Johnstone I, Wilson J (2005) Choughs Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax breeding in Wales select foraging habitat at different spatial scales. Bird Study 52:193–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wiens JA (1995) Habitat fragmentation: island vs. landscape perspectives on bird conservation. Bird Study 137:97–104Google Scholar
  54. Wolda H (1990) Food availability for an insectivore and how to measure it. Stud Avian Biol 13:38–43Google Scholar
  55. Wolff A, Dieuleveut T, Martin JL, Bretagnolle V (2002) Landscape context and little bustard abundance in a fragmented steppe: implications for reserve management in mosaic landscapes. Biol Conserv 107:211–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Worton BJ (1989) Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies. Ecology 70:164–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luc Barbaro
    • 1
    Email author
  • Laurent Couzi
    • 2
  • Vincent Bretagnolle
    • 3
  • Julien Nezan
    • 1
  • Fabrice Vetillard
    • 1
  1. 1.UMR1202, Biodiversité, Gènes et CommunautésINRACestasFrance
  2. 2.Centre de Recherches sur la Biologie des Populations d’OiseauxMuséum National d’Histoire NaturelleParisFrance
  3. 3.Centre d’Etudes Biologiques de ChizéCNRSBeauvoir sur NiortFrance

Personalised recommendations