Skip to main content

Nest predation and trampling as management risks in grazed coastal meadows

Biodiversity and Conservation volume 20, pages 2057–2073 (2011)Cite this article

Abstract

Livestock grazing is an important management tool of agri-environment schemes initiated within the European Union to maintain and restore biodiversity of grassland birds. However, grazing can affect bird populations negatively by depressing reproduction through nest trampling and increasing nest predation. These effects are, however, considered low when using recommended stocking rates. By simulating wader nests, we experimentally quantify and examine the causes of variation in trampling rates on managed Baltic coastal meadows. Secondly, we examine whether livestock presence increases nest predation of one management target, the critically endangered southern dunlin (Calidris alpina schinzii). Trampling rates of experimental nests were high. Only 21% of nests would have survived a three week incubating period early in the grazing season. Trampling rates were most severe at the onset of grazing and decreased with time. Thus, timing of grazing plays a crucial role in determining breeding success on managed meadows. Predation rates of dunlin nests were moderate and did not depend on livestock presence suggesting that incubating dunlin are not disturbed by cattle. While grazing is vital in habitat restoration and in conserving grassland biodiversity, our results suggest that grazing may also threaten the viability of populations if negative effects are underestimated. Therefore, management plans, especially for endangered species, should not only rely on general recommendations on stocking rates but instead planners need to evaluate the significance of negative effects in terms of local conditions (timing of breeding and grazing, space use of cattle and birds, measured trampling rates) and adjust grazing practises accordingly.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. A standard measurement unit that allows the aggregation of the various categories of livestock in order to enable them to be compared. Livestock units are defined on the basis of the feed requirements. They are not related to the number of feet, i.e. one dairy cow with a calf constitutes one unit of LSU.

Abbreviations

LSU:

Livestock unit

GPS:

Global positioning system

References

  • Ausden M (2007) Habitat management for conservation: a handbook of techniques. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Baines D (1990) The roles of predation, food and agricultural practice in determining the breeding success of the lapwing Vanellus vanellus on upland grasslands. J Anim Ecol 59:915–929

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battin J (2004) When good animals love bad habitats: ecological traps and the conservation of animal populations. Conserv Biol 18:1482–1491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beintema AJ, Müskens GJDM (1987) Nesting success of birds breeding in Dutch agricultural grasslands. J Appl Ecol 24:743–758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinsmore SJ, White GC, Knopf FL (2002) Advanced techniques for modeling avian nest survival. Ecology 83:3476–3488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donald PF, Green RE, Heath MF (2001) Agricultural intensification and the collapse of Europe’s farmland bird populations. Proc R Soc B 268:25–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durant D, Tichit M, Kerneis E, Fritz H (2008) Management of agricultural wet grasslands for breeding waders: integrating ecological and livestock system perspectives—a review. Biodivers Conserv 17:2275–2295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans KL (2004) The potential for interactions between predation and habitat change to cause population declines of farmland birds. Ibis 146:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans DM, Redpath SM, Evans SA, Elston DA, Dennis P (2005) Livestock grazing affects the egg size of an insectivorous passerine. Biol Lett 1:322–325

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Faaborg J (2004) Truly artificial nest studies. Conserv Biol 18:369–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fondell TF, Ball IJ (2004) Density and success of bird nests relative to grazing on western Montana grasslands. Biol Conserv 117:203–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green RE (1988) Effects of environmental factors on the timing and success of breeding of common snipe Gallinago gallinago (Aves: Scolopacidae). J Appl Ecol 25:79–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthery FS, Bingham RL (1996) A theoretical basis for study and management of trampling by cattle. J Range Manag 49:264–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart JD, Milsom TP, Baxter A, Kelly PF, Parkin WK (2002) The impact of livestock on Lapwing Vanellus vanellus breeding densities and performance on coastal grazing marshes. Bird Study 49:67–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isaksson D, Wallander J, Larsson M (2007) Managing predation on ground-nesting birds: the effectiveness of nest exclosures. Biol Conserv 136:136–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson DB, Fuller RJ, Campbell ST (2004) Long-term population changes among breeding shorebirds in the Outer Hebrides, Scotland, in relation to introduced hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus). Biol Conserv 117:151–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehle G, Yackel AAY, Savidge JA, Skagen SK (2004) Nest survival estimation: a review of alternatives to the Mayfield estimator. Condor 106:472–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen HP, Rollins D, Gillen RL (1990) Effects of cattle stock density on trampling loss of simulated ground nests. Wildl Soc Bull 18:71–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleijn D, Sutherland WJ (2003) How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? J Appl Ecol 40:947–969

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koivula K, Rönkä A (1998) Habitat deterioration and efficiency of antipredator strategy in a meadow-breeding wader, Temminck’s Stint (Calidris temminckii). Oecologia 116:348–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lapointe S, Giroux J-F, Bélanger L, Filion B (2000) Benefits from rotational grazing and dense nesting cover for island-nesting waterfowl in southern Quebec. Agric Ecosyst Environ 78:261–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liker A, Székely T (1997) The impact of grazing and road use on hatching success of lapwings (Vanellus vanellus). Acta Zool Acad Sci Hung 43:85–92

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald MA, Bolton M (2008) Predation on wader nests in Europe. Ibis 150(Suppl 1):54–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayfield H (1975) Suggestions for calculating nest success. Wilson Bull 87:456–466

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore RP, Robinson WD (2004) Artificial bird nests, external validity, and bias in ecological field studies. Ecology 85:1562–1567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nack JL, Biric CA (2005) Apparent predation by cattle at grassland bird nests. Wilson Bull 117:56–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niemelä M, Huuskonen A, Jaakola S, Joki-Tokola E, Hyvärinen M (2008) Coastal meadows as pastures for beef cattle. Agric Ecosyst Environ 124:179–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 109:359–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris K, Cook T, O’Dowd B, Durdin C (1997) The density of redshank Tringa totanus breeding on the salt-marshes of the Wash in relation to habitat and its grazing management. J Appl Ecol 34:999–1013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris K, Brindley E, Cook T, Babbs S, Brown CF, Yaxley R (1998) Is the density of redshank Tringa totanus nesting on saltmarshes in Great Britain declining due to changes in grazing management? J Appl Ecol 35:621–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen H, Schmidt NM (2004) Impacts of wet grassland management and winter severity on wader breeding numbers in eastern Denmark. Basic Appl Ecol 5:203–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ottvall R (2005) Boöverlevnad hos strandängshäckande vadare - den relativa betydelsen av predation och trampskador av betesdjur. Ornis Svecica 15:89–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Ottvall R, Smith HG (2006) Effects of an agri-environment scheme on wader populations on coastal meadows in southern Sweden. Agric Ecosyst Environ 113:264–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paine L, Undersander DJ, Sample DW, Bartelt GA, Schatteman TA (1997) Comparison of simulated ground nest types for grazing/trampling research. J Range Manag 50:231–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pauliny A, Larsson M, Blomqvist D (2008) Nest predation management: effects on reproductive success in endangered shorebirds. J Wildl Manag 72:1579–1583

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavel V (2004) The impact of grazing animals on nesting success of grassland passerines in farmland and natural habitats: a field experiment. Folia Zool 53:171–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohrbaugh WR Jr, Reinking DL, Wolfe DH, Sherrod SK, Jenkins MA (1999) Effects of prescribed burning and grazing on nesting and reproductive success of three grassland passerine species in tallgrass prairie. Stud Avian Biol 19:165–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Rönkä A, Koivula K, Ojanen M, Pakanen V-M, Pohjoismäki M, Rannikko K, Rauhala P (2006) Increased nest predation in a declining and threatened Temminck’s Stint Calidris temminckii population. Ibis 148:55–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotella JJ, Dinsmore SJ, Shaffer TL (2004) Modeling nest-survival data: a comparison of recently developed methods that can be implemented in MARK and SAS. Anim Biodiver Conserv 27:187–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier R, Doyenc L, Tichit M (2010) Modelling trade-offs between livestock grazing and wader conservation in a grassland agroecosystem. Ecol Model 221:1292–1300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlaepfer MA, Runge MC, Sherman PW (2002) Ecological and evolutionary traps. Trends Ecol Evol 17:474–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrubb M (1990) Effects of agricultural change on nesting lapwings Vanellus vanellus in England and Wales. Bird Study 37:115–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soikkeli M (1967) Breeding cycle and population dynamics in the Dunlin (Calidris alpina). Ann Zool Fenn 4:158–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Soikkeli M, Salo J (1979) The bird fauna of abandoned shore pastures. Ornis Fenn 56:124–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorup O (1995) The influence of nest controls, catching and ringing on the breeding success of Baltic Dunlin Calidris alpina. Wader Study Group Bull 78:26–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorup O (1998) Ynglefuglene på Tipperne 1928–1992. Dansk Ornitol Forenings Tidsskrift 92:1–192

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorup O (2006) Breeding waders in Europe 2000. International Wader Studies 14. International Wader Study Group, Thetford

    Google Scholar 

  • Tichit M, Doyen L, Lemel JY, Renault O, Durant D (2007) A co-viability model of grazing and bird community management in farmland. Ecol Model 206:277–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker GM, Heath MF (1994) Birds in Europe: their conservation status. Birdlife Conservation Series No. 3. BirdLife International, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Wal R, Palmer SCF (2008) Is breeding of farmland wading birds depressed by a combination of predator abundance and grazing? Biol Lett 4:256–258

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 38:647–664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White GC, Burnham KP (1999) Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46:120–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson A, Vickery J, Pendlebury C (2007) Agri-environment schemes as a tool for reversing declining populations of grassland waders: mixed benefits from Environmentally Sensitive Areas in England. Biol Conserv 136:128–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for Riku Halmeenpää, Juhani Karvonen, Antti Rönkä and Ville Suorsa for help in the field, and Petri Kärkkäinen and Matti Rauman for providing equipment. Robert L. Thomson, Laura Kvist, Antti Rönkä, Eduardo J. Belda and two anonymous referees made valuable comments on the manuscript. We thank Jorma Pessa (for providing altitude data), Sami Timonen, Johanna Helkimo and the cattle owners for co-operation in this study. This study was supported by the Finnish Cultural Foundation (VMP), the Kone Foundation (VMP), the Emil Aaltonen Foundation (VMP), the Tauno Tönning Foudation (VMP), the Finnish Environment Centre, the Academy of Finland (project 128384 KK) and the Thule Institute at the University of Oulu.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, University of Oulu, P. O. Box 3000, 90014, Oulu, Finland

    Veli-Matti Pakanen, Aappo Luukkonen & Kari Koivula

Authors
  1. Veli-Matti Pakanen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aappo Luukkonen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kari Koivula
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Veli-Matti Pakanen.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Examples of encounter histories used in the input files in MARK. First five entry points refer to k is the day the nest was found, l the last day the nest was checked alive, m the last day the nest was checked, information on the fate of the nest and the frequency of such nests (1 in all cases).

  1. (1)

    Modelling effect of nest size on survival from trampling

1 9 9 0 1 19.63 385.53;

Individual covariates: nest size in cm2, nest size2

  1. (2)

    Modelling survival from trampling for 8 cm diameter nests

1 1 9 1 1 1 0 0.2 443 1;

Individual covariates: 1st week, 2nd week, altitude (meters), distance to shore (meters), nest cover

  1. (3)

    Modelling nest survival from predation

24 40 40 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;

Individual covariates: Site1, Site2, Year1, Year2, Year3, Year4, Year5, Year6, Initiation date, following 60 day specific covariates for age of the nest starting from the encounter occasion it was found and continuing to hatching. Site effect had two parameters because the small sites were pooled into the larger sites due to small sample size.

  1. (4)

    Modelling the effect of cattle’s presence on nest survival

9 9 20 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;

Individual covariates: Same as in part 3 but the first two covariates differ. The first denotes the cattle effect. There were two larger sites with cattle, thus only one covariate for site effect was needed.

  1. (5)

    Modelling researcher effects on nest survival

24 40 40 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 21 −13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;

Individual covariates: Same as in part 3 but age is modelled as a function of age at the first encounter occasion, i.e. 8th of May (−13 in the example) and the 60 day specific covariates denote whether or not an incubating bird was caught at that day or the previous day.

Appendix 2

See Table 1.

Table 1 Modelling results for the effect of nest size on survival of simulated nests from trampling (A), survival of a simulated nest size of 8 cm (diameter) from trampling (B), survival of dunlin nests from predation (C), survival of dunlin nest in relation to presence of cattle (D) and modelling researcher effects on nest survival (E)
Full size table

Appendix 3

Few studies report daily trampling rate estimates that can be compared between studies. Trampling rates are mostly reported as a proportion of nests trampled without any reference to exposure to cattle. Furthermore, stocking rates are rarely reported explicitly. For the above reasons many studies reporting trampling cannot be compared to our study. Table 2 includes studies that give stocking rates and DTR or sufficient information to calculate them.

Table 2 Daily nest trampling rates for different species in relation to used stocking rates
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pakanen, VM., Luukkonen, A. & Koivula, K. Nest predation and trampling as management risks in grazed coastal meadows. Biodivers Conserv 20, 2057–2073 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-011-0075-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-011-0075-3

Keywords

  • Agri-environment scheme
  • Coastal meadows
  • Conservation management
  • Ecological trap
  • Livestock grazing
  • MARK
  • Dunlin