Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reproductive consequences of farmland heterogeneity in little owls (Athene noctua)

  • Behavioral ecology – original research
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The amount of high-quality habitat patches, their distribution, and the resource accessibility therein play a key role in regulating habitat effects on reproductive success. Heterogeneous habitats offer non-substitutable resources (e.g. nest sites and food) and substitutable resources (e.g. different types of food) in close proximity, thereby facilitating landscape complementation and supplementation. However, it remains poorly understood how spatial resource separation in homogeneous agricultural landscapes affects reproductive success. To fill this gap, we investigated the relationships between farmland heterogeneity and little owl (Athene noctua) reproductive success, including potential indirect effects of the heterogeneity-dependent home-range size on reproduction. Little owl home-ranges were related to field heterogeneity in summer and to structural heterogeneity in winter. Clutch size was correlated with the amount of food-rich habitat close to the nest irrespective of female home-range size, suggesting importance of landscape complementation. Nestling survival was positively correlated with male home-range size, suggesting importance of landscape supplementation. At the same time, fledgling condition was negatively correlated with male home-range size. We conclude that decreasing farmland heterogeneity constrains population productivity by two processes: increasing separation of food resources from nest or roost sites results in low landscape complementation, and reduction of alternative food resources limits landscape supplementation. Our results suggest that structural heterogeneity affects landscape complementation, whereas the heterogeneity and management of farmland fields affect landscape supplementation. Thus, to what extent a reduction of the heterogeneity within agricultural landscapes results in species-specific habitat degradation depends on the ecological processes (i.e. landscape complementation or supplementation) which are affected.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Apolloni N (2013) Landscape use, foraging habitat selection and relationships to food resources in breeding little owls: recognizing the importance of scale for species conservation management. Master Thesis, Universität Bern, Bern

  • 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 146:279–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Askew NP, Searle JB, Moore NP (2007) Agri-environment schemes and foraging of barn owls Tyto alba. Agric Ecosyst Environ 118:109–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol Evol 18:182–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bock A, Naef-Daenzer B, Keil H, Korner-Nievergelt F, Perrig M, Grüebler MU (2013) Roost site selection by little owls Athene noctua in relation to environmental conditions and life-history stages. Ibis 155:847–856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Börger L, Franconi N, De Michele G, Gantz A, Meschi F, Manica A, Lovari S, Coulson T (2006) Effects of sampling regime on the mean and variance of home range size estimates. J Anim Ecol 75:1393–1405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bruun M, Smith HG (2003) Landscape composition affects habitat use and foraging flight distances in breeding European starlings. Biol Conserv 114:179–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burley N (1988) The differential-allocation hypothesis: an experimental test. Am Nat 132:611–628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calenge C (2006) The package "adehabitat" for the R software: a tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals. Ecol Model 197:1035

  • Carpenter FL, MacMillen RE (1976) Threshold model of feeding territoriality and test with a Hawaiian honeycreeper. Science 194:639–642

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas DJT, Vickery JA, Benton TG (2009) Improving the value of field margins as foraging habitat for farmland birds. J Appl Ecol 46:353–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunning JB, Danielson BJ, Pulliam HR (1992) Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65:169–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ens BJ, Kersten M, Brenninkmeijer A, Hulscher JB (1992) Territory quality, parental effort and reproductive success of oystercatchers (Haematopus ostralegus). J Anim Ecol 61:703–715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erikstad KE (1985) Growth and survival of willow grouse chicks in relation to home range size, brood movements and habitat selection. Ornis Scand 16:181–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L, Baudry J, Brotons L, Burel FG, Crist TO, Fuller RJ, Sirami C, Siriwardena GM, Martin JL (2011) Functional landscape heterogeneity and animal biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Ecol Lett 14:101–112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frey-Roos F, Brodmann PA, Reyer HU (1995) Relationships between food resources, foraging patterns, and reproductive success in the water pipit, Anthus sp. spinoletta. Behav Ecol 6:287–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller RJ (2012) Birds and habitat: relationships in changing landscapes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Germain RR, Arcese P (2014) Distinguishing individual quality from habitat preference and quality in a territorial passerine. Ecology 95:436–445

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gottschalk TK, Ekschmitt K, Wolters V (2011) Efficient placement of nest boxes for the little owl (Athene noctua). J Raptor Res 45:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grüebler MU, Widmer S, Korner-Nievergelt F, Naef-Daenzer B (2014) Temperature characteristics of winter roost-sites for birds and mammals: tree cavities and anthropogenic alternatives. Int J Biometeorol 58:629–637

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harris WE, Uller T (2009) Reproductive investment when mate quality varies: differential allocation versus reproductive compensation. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 364:1039–1048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinam HL, St. Clair CC (2008) High levels of habitat loss and fragmentation limit reproductive success by reducing home range size and provisioning rates of Northern saw-whet owls. Biol Conserv 141:524–535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinsley SA (2000) The costs of multiple patch use by birds. Landscape Ecol 15:765–775

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hipkiss T, Hörnfeldt B, Eklund U, Berlin S (2002) Year-dependent sex-biased mortality in supplementary-fed Tengmalm’s owl nestlings. J Anim Ecol 71:693–699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen LB, Chrenková M, Sunde P, Šálek M, Thorup K (2016) Effects of food provisioning and habitat management on spatial behaviour of little owls during the breeding season. Ornis Fenn 93:121–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Juillard M (1979) La croissance des jeunes chouettes chevêches, Athene noctua, pendant leur séjour au nid. Nos Oiseaux 35:113–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenward RE (2001) A manual for wildlife radio tagging. Academic Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Korner-Nievergelt F, Roth T, von Felten S, Guélat J, Almasi B, Korner-Nievergelt P (2015) Bayesian data analysis in ecology using linear models with R, BUGS, and Stan. Academic Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Michel VT (2016) Individual responses of adult little owls (Athene noctua) to environmental conditions. PhD thesis, University of Zurich, Zurich

  • Naef-Daenzer B, Keller LF (1999) The foraging performance of great and blue tits (Parus major and P. caeruleus) in relation to caterpillar development, and its consequences for nestling growth and fledging weight. J Anim Ecol 68:708–718

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naef-Daenzer B, Früh D, Stalder M, Wetli P, Weise E (2005) Miniaturization (0.2 g) and evaluation of attachment techniques of telemetry transmitters. J Exp Biol 208:4063–4068

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Orians GH, Wittenberger JF (1991) Spatial and temporal scales in habitat selection. Am Nat 137:S29–S49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrig M (2015) Juvenile survival and onset of natal dispersal in little owls (Athene noctua) in relation to nestling food supply. PhD thesis, University of Zurich, Zurich

  • Perrig M, Grüebler MU, Keil H, Naef-Daenzer B (2014) Experimental food supplementation affects the physical development, behaviour and survival of little owl Athene noctua nestlings. Ibis 156:755–767

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2012) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Schifferli L, Grüebler MU, Meijer HAJ, Visser GH, Naef-Daenzer B (2014) Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica parents work harder when foraging conditions are good. Ibis 156:777–787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sergio F, Blas J, Baos R, Forero MG, Donázar JA, Hiraldo F (2009) Short- and long-term consequences of individual and territory quality in a long-lived bird. Oecologia 160:507–514

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shore RF, Meek WR, Sparks TH, Pywell RF, Nowakowski M (2005) Will environmental stewardship enhance small mammal abundance on intensively managed farmland? Mamm Rev 35:277–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith JNM, Grant PR, Grant BR, Abbott IJ, Abbott LK (1978) Seasonal variation in feeding habits of Darwin’s ground finches. Ecology 59:1137–1150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 91:22–46

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sunde P, Thorup K, Jacobsen LB, Rahbek C (2014) Weather conditions drive dynamic habitat selection in a generalist predator. PLoS ONE 9:e88221

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Thorup K, Sunde P, Jacobsen LB, Rahbek C (2010) Breeding season food limitation drives population decline of the little owl Athene noctua in Denmark. Ibis 152:803–814

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tremblay I, Thomas D, Blondel J, Perret P, Lambrechts MM (2005) The effect of habitat quality on foraging patterns, provisioning rate and nestling growth in Corsican blue tits Parus caeruleus. Ibis 147:17–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tscharntke T, Klein AM, Kruess A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Thies C (2005) Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity—ecosystem service management. Ecol Lett 8:857–874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Nieuwenhuyse D, Génot J-C, Johnson DH (2008) The little owl: conservation, ecology and behaviour of Athene noctua. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Vickery J, Arlettaz R (2012) The importance of habitat heterogeneity at multiple scales for birds in European agricultural landscapes. In: Fuller RJ (ed) Birds and habitat: relationships in changing landcapes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 177–204

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wright S (1934) The method of path coefficients. Ann Math Stat 5:161–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuberogoitia I, Zabala J (2007) Seasonal dynamics in social behaviour and spacing patterns of the Little Owl Athene noctua. Ornis Fenn 84:173–180

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all the field assistants and volunteers for their help with field data collection. We are grateful to F. Korner-Nievergelt and P. Korner for statistical support. Furthermore, we thank W. Fiedler for the logistic and administrative support, and two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. Capture and tagging of little owls were permitted by the regional council of Baden-Württemberg, Germany (Permit No. 35-9185.81/0288). The study was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant 3100A 132951/1 to B. Naef-Daenzer and M. U. Grüebler), the Hirschmann Foundation, and the Karl Mayer Foundation.

Author contribution statement

VTM, BND, HK, and MUG designed the study and carried out the field work. VTM and MUG analysed the data. VTM, BND, and MUG wrote the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Swiss Ornithological Institute, Seerose 1, 6204, Sempach, Switzerland

    Vanja T. Michel, Beat Naef-Daenzer & Martin U. Grüebler

  2. Institute of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Vanja T. Michel

  3. Forschungsgemeinschaft zur Erhaltung einheimischer Eulen e.V., Oberriexingen, Germany

    Herbert Keil

Authors
  1. Vanja T. Michel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Beat Naef-Daenzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Herbert Keil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Martin U. Grüebler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vanja T. Michel.

Additional information

Communicated by Ola Olsson.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 295 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Michel, V.T., Naef-Daenzer, B., Keil, H. et al. Reproductive consequences of farmland heterogeneity in little owls (Athene noctua). Oecologia 183, 1019–1029 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-017-3823-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-017-3823-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation