Advertisement

Wetlands Ecology and Management

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 227–234 | Cite as

Management of reedbeds: mosaic reed cutting does not affect prey abundance and nest predation rate of reed passerine birds

  • Alfréd Trnka
  • Viera Peterková
  • Pavol Prokop
  • Péter Batáry
Original Paper

Abstract

Reed passerine birds are strict habitat specialists inhabiting reedbed habitats. In Europe, many of these species are threatened due to loss and degradation of natural reedbeds. Another important factor that can negatively affect the abundance of reed passerines is commercial reed harvesting. Previous studies have shown negative impacts of large-scale winter reed cutting on passerine breeding assemblages and arthropod communities. The effect of reed cutting on a small scale, however, has not been studied experimentally to date. The aim of this study was to investigate whether and how small-scale, mosaic reed cutting influences prey abundance and nest predation rate of reed passerines. In June, after the reed had reached maturity, we conducted nest predation experiments with artificial nests and arthropod sampling using pan traps in cut reed patches, adjacent uncut reed patches and unmanaged reedbed. We found no differences in the risk of egg predation between three types of reedbeds. In contrast, the abundance of arthropods in cut and adjacent uncut reed patches was significantly higher than that in unmanaged reedbed. We assume this was caused by habitat heterogeneity, small size of cut patches and their rapid recolonization by arthropods from adjacent uncut patches. Our results suggest that in contrast to large-scale reed cutting, small-scale, mosaic reed cutting has no negative effect on nest survival and food abundance of reed passerine birds. However, given that we performed all experiments in June, i.e., when the reed was mature, our findings cannot be generalized to whole breeding period of all reed passerine birds. Therefore, temporal variation in nest predation rate and arthropod abundance in managed and unmanaged reedbeds during the entire breeding season should be examined in future studies.

Keywords

Phragmites australis Arthropod communities Acrocephalus warblers Panurus biarmicus Conservation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank F. Hrdlovič, J. Medveď, M. Medveď and B. Trnková for their invaluable assistance in the field, M. Zatko and master students for helping make artificial nests and pan traps and L. Sutcliffe for linguistic revision. The comments of two referees substantially improved the manuscript. The study was conducted in compliance with the law of Slovakia. Licence to perform experiments was provided by the Ministry of Environment of Slovak Republic. This work was supported by the Slovak Grant Agency for Science (VEGA), project No. 1/3257/06. During the preparation of the paper, P. B. was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG BA 4438/1-1).

Supplementary material

11273_2013_9325_MOESM1_ESM.tif (1.8 mb)
Location of study plots in the study area. Each dot represents one study plot. Yellow dots represent study plots located in cut reed patches, green dots represent study plots located in adjacent uncut reed patches and brown dots represent study plots located in unmanaged reedbed. Supplementary material 1 (TIFF 1880 kb)

References

  1. Báldi A, Batáry P (2005) Nest predation in European reedbeds: different losses in edges but similar losses in interiors. Folia Zool 54:285–292Google Scholar
  2. Batáry P, Báldi A (2004) Evidence of an edge effect on avian nest success. Conserv Biol 18:389–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batáry P, Báldi A (2005) Factors affecting the survival of real and artificial great reed warbler’s nests. Biologia 60:215–219Google Scholar
  4. Batáry P, Winkler H, Báldi A (2004) Experiments with artificial nests on predation in reed habitats. J Ornithol 145:59–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bender DJ, Contreras TA, Fahring L (1998) Habitat loss and population decline: a meta-analysis of the patch size effect. Ecology 79:517–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bensch S, Hasselquist D (1994) Higher rate of nest loss among primary than secondary females: infanticide in the great reed warbler? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 35:309–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duelli P, Obrist MK, Schmatz DR (1999) Biodiversity evaluation in agricultural landscapes: above-ground insects. Agr Ecosyst Environ 74:33–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Faaborg J (2004) Truly artificial nest studies. Conserv Biol 18:369–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gajdoš P, David S, Petrovič F et al (2005) The National Nature Reserve (NNR) of the Parížske močiare (landscape, biodiversity and nature protection). Bratislava, Banská Bystrica, Nitra. (In Slovak with English summary)Google Scholar
  10. Graveland J (1999) Effects of reed cutting on density and breeding success of reed warbler Acrocephalus scirpaceus and sedge warbler Acrocephalus schoenobaenus. J Avian Biol 30:469–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grim T, Honza M (1996) Effect of habitat on the diet of reed warbler (Acrocephalus scirpaceus) nestlings. Folia Zool 45:31–34Google Scholar
  12. Hansson B, Bensch S, Hasselquist D (2000) Patterns of nest predation contribute to polygyny in the great reed warbler. Ecology 81:319–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hoi H, Winkler H (1994) Predation on nests: a case of apparent competition. Oecologia 87:436–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoi H, Darolová A, Krištofík J (2001) Factors influencing nest depredation in European Reed Passerines. In: Hoi H (ed) The ecology of reed birds. Österreichische Academie der Wissenschaften, Wien, pp 27–36Google Scholar
  15. Honza M, Øien IJ, Moksnes A, Roskaft E (1998) Survival of reed warbler Acrocephalus scirpaceus clutches in relation to nest position. Bird Study 45:104–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ille R, Hoi H, Kleindorfer S (1996) Brood predation, habitat characteristics and nesting decisions in Acrocephalus scirpaceus and A. palustris. Biologia 51:219–225Google Scholar
  17. Leisler B, Schultze-Hagen K (2011) The reed warblers: diversity in a uniform bird family. KNNV, ZeistGoogle Scholar
  18. Martin TE (1993) Nest predation and nest sites: new perspectives and old patterns. Bioscience 43:523–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Martínez-Vilalta J, Bertolero A, Bigas D, Paquet JY, Martínez-Vilalta A (2002) Habitat selection of passerine birds nesting in the Ebro Delta reedbeds (NE Spain): management implications. Wetlands 22:318–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mitsch WJ, Gosselink JG (2000) Wetlands, 3rd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Moore RP, Robinson WD (2004) Artificial bird nests, external validity, and bias in ecological field studies. Ecology 85:1562–1567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Poulin B, Lefebvre G (2002) Effect of winter cutting on the passerine breeding assemblage in French Mediterranean reedbeds. Biodivers Conserv 11:1567–1581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Poulin B, Lefebvre G, Mauchamp A (2002) Habitat requirements of passerines and reedbed management in southern France. Biol Conserv 107:315–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Purger JJ, Kurucz K, Tóth A, Batáry P (2012) Coating plasticine eggs can eliminate the overestimation of predation on artificial ground nests. Bird Study 59:350–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reitsma LA, Holmes RT, Sherly TW (1990) Effects of removal of red squirrels, Tamiasciurus hudsonicus, and eastern chipmunks, Tamias striatus, on nest predation in a northern hardwood forest: an artificial nest experiment. Oikos 57:375–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roos S (2002) Functional response, seasonal decline and landscape differences in nest predation risk. Oecologia 133:608–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schiegg K, Eger M, Pasinelli G (2007) Nest predation in reed buntings Emberiza schoeniclus: an experimental study. Ibis 149:365–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schmidt MH, Lefebvre G, Poulin B, Tscharntke T (2005) Reed cutting affects arthropod communities, potentially reducing food for passerine birds. Biol Conserv 121:157–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schulze K, Leisler B, Winkler H (1996) Breeding success and reproductive strategies of two Acrocephalus warblers. J Ornithol 137:181–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Swanson L, Sanyaolu RA, Gnoske T, Whelan CJ, Lonsdorf EV, Cordeiro NJ (2012) Differential response of nest predators to the presence of a decoy parent in artificial nests. Bird Study 59:96–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Thompson FR, Burhans DE (2004) Differences in predators of artificial and real songbird nests: evidence of bias in artificial nest studies. Conserv Biol 18:373–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Trnka A (1995) Dietary habits of the great reed warbler (Acrocephalus arundinaceus) young. Biologia 50:507–512Google Scholar
  33. Trnka A, Prokop P (2006) Reedbed structure and habitat preference of reed passerines during the post-breeding period. Biologia 61:225–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Trnka A, Prokop P (2007) Impact of winter reedbeds cutting on passerine breeding success in the Parížske močiare National Nature Reserve. Tichodroma 19:143–147 (In Slovak with English summary)Google Scholar
  35. Trnka A, Prokop P (2011) The use and function of snake skins in the nests of great geed warblers Acrocephalus arundinaceus. Ibis 153:627–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Trnka A, Čapek M, Kloubec B (2003) Birds of the National Nature Reserve Parížske močiare marsh (SW Slovakia). Veda, Bratislava. (In Slovak with English summary)Google Scholar
  37. Trnka A, Prokop P, Batáry P (2008) Dummy birds in artificial nest studies: an experimental with red-backed shrike Lanius collurio. Bird Study 55:329–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Trnka A, Batáry P, Prokop P (2009) Interacting effects of vegetation structure and breeding patterns on the survival of great reed warbler Acrocephalus arundinaceus nests. Ardea 97:109–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Trnka A, Prokop P, Batáry P (2010) Infanticide or interference: does the great reed warbler selectively destroy eggs? Ann Zool Fenn 47:272–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Trnka A, Peterková V, Grujbárová Z (2011) Does reed bunting (Emberiza schoeniclus) predict the risk of nest predation when choosing a breeding territory? An experimental study. Ornis Fennica 88:179–184Google Scholar
  41. Vadász C, Német Á, Biró C, Csörgő T (2008) The effect of reed cutting on the abundance and diversity of breeding passerines. Acta Zool Acad Sci H 54:177–188Google Scholar
  42. Valkama E, Lyytinen S, Koricheva J (2008) The impact of reed management on wildlife: a meta-analytical review of European studies. Biol Conserv 141:364–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Weidinger K (2002) Interactive effects of concealment, parental behaviour and predators on the survival of open passerine nests. J Anim Ecol 71:424–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Whittingham MJ, Evans KL (2004) The effects of habitat structure on predation risk of birds in agricultural landscapes. Ibis 146:210–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zanette L (2002) What do artificial nests tells us about nest predation? Biol Conserv 103:323–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alfréd Trnka
    • 1
  • Viera Peterková
    • 1
  • Pavol Prokop
    • 1
  • Péter Batáry
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of BiologyTrnava UniversityTrnavaSlovakia
  2. 2.AgroecologyGeorg-August UniversityGöttingenGermany

Personalised recommendations