Claudia Schütz, Christian H. Schulze. 2018: Park size and prey density limit occurrence of Eurasian Sparrowhawks in urban parks during winter. Avian Research, 9(1): 30. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-018-0122-9
Citation: Claudia Schütz, Christian H. Schulze. 2018: Park size and prey density limit occurrence of Eurasian Sparrowhawks in urban parks during winter. Avian Research, 9(1): 30. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-018-0122-9

Park size and prey density limit occurrence of Eurasian Sparrowhawks in urban parks during winter

More Information
  • Corresponding author:

    claudia.schuetz@univie.ac.at

  • Received Date: 09 Jan 2018
  • Accepted Date: 09 Sep 2018
  • Available Online: 24 Apr 2022
  • Publish Date: 19 Sep 2018
  • Background 

    Eurasian Sparrowhawks (Accipiter nisus) increasingly represent successful city-dwellers. Thereby, a rich food supply indicated by high numbers of small birds is to be the key driver for this bird-eating raptor species to settle in urban environments. However, as small passerine birds show particularly strong antipredator responses, sparrowhawks may not simply focus on patches of highest prey densities, but rather respond strategically to prey behavior, raising the importance of other parameters in determining the occurrence within urban landscapes.

    Methods 

    To deepen our knowledge on habitat requirements of urban sparrowhawks, bird surveys were carried out during winter between December 2005 and January 2017 in 36 city parks in Vienna, Austria. Besides food supply also park size, canopy heterogeneity and the connectivity with other green spaces were considered.

    Results 

    Occurrence of sparrowhawks was positively affected by increasing park size, prey density and the interaction between both. Bird feeder density and park connectivity with other green spaces were of minor importance in explaining the presence of this species. Canopy heterogeneity didn't affect city park occupancy by Eurasian Sparrowhawks.

    Conclusions 

    Our results suggest that large city parks, particularly when characterized by high prey densities, substantially contribute to protect and preserve ecologically important bird species such as raptors within the urban environment—a landscape already struggling with biodiversity losses and functional homogenization.

  • The first published assessments of the Great Bustard (Otis tarda) status estimated the world population to be around 20000–30000 birds during the final decades of the 20th century (Table 1). Most of them were based on numbers guessed or extrapolated from local counts, and thus the reliability of the total obtained strongly depended on the quality of the estimates made for the countries hosting the largest populations, particularly Spain, Russia and China. For example, the first detailed account of the Great Bustard numbers and distribution in Spain gave a total of about 17000–19000 birds in the 1990s (Alonso and Alonso, 1996), and suggested that all figures published before had underestimated the size of the Spanish population. Based on that study, the world estimates were increased by 6500 birds in only a couple of years (from 25640–30480, SEO/BirdLife, 1997, to 31000–37000 birds, del Hoyo et al., 1996; BirdLife International, 2000a). A review of the species status in Spain made a few years later established a new total of about 23000 (Alonso et al., 2003), and a re-assessment of recent counts increased again the Spanish total to 27500–30000, and the world total to 43500–51200 birds (Palacín and Alonso, 2008). Since the progressive increase in Great Bustard numbers shown by these estimates is mostly due to a better knowledge of the species and the areas surveyed, any conclusions about population trends should be taken with care, and confirmed with more counts in the future.

    Table  1.  Published estimates of the world population of Great Bustards
    Number of birds Reference
    ca. 20000 a Collar, 1985
    22480–23860 a Hidalgo, 1990
    28000 Collar, 1991
    25640–30480 Hidalgo, 1997
    31000–37000 BirdLife International, 2000a, 2007
    43500–51200 Palacín and Alonso, 2008
    a These figures did not include the Asian populations of the eastern subspecies O. t. dybowskii.
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Here we present an updated review of the Great Bustard status worldwide, based on the most recent counts available. We also discuss possible recent demographic trends in countries with adequate survey quality, and identify regions where more precise census work is urgently needed. Other details were given in our last population assessment (Palacín and Alonso, 2008), where we made a thorough review of the status and trends in each country of the species distribution range.

    We revised all Great Bustard census results throughout the whole distribution range of the species, including papers published in scientific journals or presented at international meetings, as well as surveys accepted by national conservation authorities as reflecting the status of the species in their respective countries. The details of the census methodologies employed in each case may be found in the cited references. Besides, we also contacted most researchers working with Great Bustards to know their latest unpublished counts. To calculate the ponderated average year of estimate we used the last year of the time interval indicated under 'year of estimate' in Table 2, except for Spain, where we computed a ponderated average census year using the years of census for each region (the ponderated average for Spain was year 2007).

    Table  2.  Current estimate of breeding populations of the great bustard, ordered by numbers of birds. See Methods for criteria used to evaluate the quality of estimate.
    Min–Max Reference Year of estimate Quality of estimate
    Spain 29400–34300 Palacín and Alonso, 2008, updated 2010 a 2004–2010 High
    European Russia 8000–12000 Malikov et al., 2000; Khrustov et al., 2003; Antonchikov, 2006; Watzke et al., 2007 1995–2005 Low
    NW China (Xinjiang) 400–2400 Gao et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2008; Ying et al., 2010 1990–2002 Low
    Mongolia + SE Russia + NE China b 1500–2200 Tian and Wang, 2001; Tseveenmyadag, 2002; Goroshko, 2010; Kessler and Tseveenmyadag, 2010; Tian, pers.com. 1961–2002 Low
    Portugal 1893–1893 Pinto and Rocha, 2010 (pers. com.) 2009 High
    Hungary 1413–1582 Milós and Bankovics, 2010 (pers. com.) 2009 High
    Turkey 400–1000 Kiliç and Eken, 2004; Özbagdatli and Tavares, 2006; Karakas and Akarsu, 2009 1990–2008 Low
    Ukraine 520–680 Yaremchenko and Bakhtiyarov, 2006; Dudkin and Domashlinets, 2008 (pers. com.) 2006 Low
    Austria 199–216 Raab, 2010 (pers. com.) 2009 High
    Iran 89–161 Amini, 2000 1990–1994 Low
    Germany 114–116 Langgemach, 2010 (pers. com.) 2009 High
    Morocco 91–108 Alonso et al., 2005b 2005 Medium
    Kazakhstan 0–300 National Academy of Sciences of Kazakhstan, 1996; Kessler, 2010 1990–1996 Low
    Serbia and Montenegro 35–36 Garovnikov, 2004 2004 High
    Slovakia 0–3 National report, 2008 c 2008 High
    Czech Republic 0–2 National report, 2008 c 2006–2007 High
    Romania 0–8 National report, 2008 c 2008 High
    Moldova 0 BirdLife International, 2004b 2004 High
    Bulgaria 0 Deleriev et al., 2004 2004 High
    Total 44054–57005 2005 d
    a Includes references cited in Palacín and Alonso (2008), plus own surveys for several regions in 2009–2010, and pers. com. from Delegaciones Provinciales de Medio Ambiente of Toledo and Cuenca, Departamentos de Medio Ambiente of Aragón and Navarra.
    b Subspecies Otis tarda dybowskii.
    c Communicated during the Second Meeting of the Great Bustard MoU held in Feodosia, Ukraine, in November 2008.
    d Ponderated average census year, see Methods.
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The following criteria were established to evaluate the quality of the population counts or estimates for each country: (a) high, when (a1) the estimate was based on counts at all or most Great Bustard areas within the country, carried out by observers with previous experience counting Great Bustards, and applying a systematic and standardized methodology (for more details see Alonso et al, 2003; Alonso et al, 2005a), including long series of yearly counts of well monitored populations (e.g., Germany, Hungary), and (a2) the interval between minimum and maximum estimates did not exceed 15% of the maximum estimate, with the exception of very small populations (< 20 individuals), in which case we qualified estimates as high quality even if they not fulfilled a1, and (a3) the counts are from recent years (usually within the last five years); (b) medium, when (b1) the estimate was based on surveys with incomplete coverage of the habitat potentially suitable, and (b2) the interval between minimum and maximum estimates was between 15% and 30% of the maximum estimate; and (c) low, when (c1) the estimate was based on extrapolations of census results at smaller areas, or series of records from several years, rather than on systematic, simultaneous counts, and (c2) the interval between minimum and maximum estimates was > 30% of the maximum estimate, and/or (c3) the estimates are not from very recent years.

    The world population of Great Bustards is currently estimated to be between 44054 and 57005 individuals (Table 2), of which the largest part (57–70%) occurs in Spain. European Russia holds 15–25% of the world total, north-western China (Xinjiang) 1–5%, Mongolia, south-eastern Russia and north-eastern China 3–5% (subspecies O. t. dybowskii), Portugal 3–4%, Hungary 3%, Turkey 1–2%, and Ukraine 1–2%. Other countries hold less than 1% of the world total.

    The reliability of current censuses and estimates may be described as high for the largest fraction of the world population (67–75%, including the Iberian Peninsula, Hungary, Austria, Germany, and several central European countries with very small numbers), medium for Morocco, and low for a 25–33% (including Russia, Mongolia, China, Turkey, Ukraine, Iran and Kazakhstan) (Table 2). The ponderated average year of estimate was 2005 (Table 2).

    The world estimate of 44054–57005 Great Bustards presented here is a 1–11% higher than our previous estimate (43500–51200, Palacín and Alonso, 2008). However, the major part of this difference is most likely due to a better precision in population assessments for various European countries, and only a minor fraction may be attributable to a real increase in bird numbers. The accuracy of estimates for Russia, Turkey and some Asian countries is still low, and determine the large difference between minimum and maximum estimate intervals.

    Spain and Portugal were the countries with highest recent increases in population estimates (respectively, 7–14% in the last two years, and 35% in the last four years). Specifically for Spain, the main increases have been recorded in two provinces of region Castilla-La Mancha (290% increase in 12 years in Cuenca, and 44–100% increase in 5 years in Toledo). According to our own unpublished data, such increases are not possible with the low reproductive rates typical of this species, and the best explanation is therefore a higher accuracy in the most recent censuses. Nevertheless, we know that some Spanish and Portuguese populations have indeed increased slightly during the last 2–3 decades, particularly in Spain since a hunting ban was established in 1980, which stopped the steep decrease due to intensive hunting (up to 2000 birds/year, Trigo de Yarto, 1971) in previous decades. But many of these populations have now reached stability, and others have decreased or remained stable during the same period. Thus, the overall trend in Spain and Portugal might be best qualified as generally stable, with a slight tendency to increase at some high quality areas, and to decrease in marginal or worse conserved sites (Alonso et al., 2003, 2004; Pinto et al., 2005; Pinto and Rocha, 2006; Palacín and Alonso, 2008). Longer and more precise series of censuses are still necessary in both countries in order to determine whether there is still an intrinsic demographic increase, or the species is mostly stable.

    A remarkable increase has also been recently observed in Austria (18–19% in just three years, between 2006 and 2009), which might perhaps be explained by a combination of high breeding success of the Austrian bustards, and some dispersal from nearby Hungarian populations. More reasonable increases have been recorded in Hungary (4–17% between 2006 and 2009) and Germany (4–5% between 2007 and 2009). The recent increases in these three countries, where Great Bustards had declined during many decades through the 20th century, may be attributed to the habitat protection and other conservation measures (Raab, 2004, 2006; Bankovics et al., 2005; Langgemach and Bellenbaum, 2005; Langgemach and Liztbarski, 2005; Bankovics, 2006; Túzokvédelmi Program, 2006).

    In other countries, surveys are incomplete and most of them already somewhat old. The current estimates for these countries are usually based on extrapolations of numbers counted in smaller regions to the whole areas guessed to include habitat suitable for the species. Because such estimates are subject to high potential errors, they are here considered of lower quality. Moreover, these estimates do not enable establishing reliable demographic trends, when compared to figures published in the past. Examples are Russia, Mongolia, China, Iran, Turkey, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan. Precise and extensive census work is still necessary in these countries, in order to ascertain numbers and demographic trends. Specifically for the subspecies O. tarda tarda in China, a recent revision suggested that Gao et al's (2008) estimate for Xinjiang region was based on relatively old observations made in 1992–1993, and should be considered an overestimation of current numbers (Ying et al., 2010). These authors propose that numbers have probably decreased during the last two decades in Xinjiang, to some 300–400 birds (Ying et al., 2010). Given the huge size of this region, and in spite of the argued recent decrease, it could also be that detailed surveys conducted in the future result in higher numbers than these minimum estimates. Finally, numbers are relatively well known in Morocco and very accurate in several central European countries, where the species has recently gone extinct or is on the brink of extinction (Table 2).

    In spite of the confounding effect of an increasing census accuracy through the last years, the comparison of the present review (Table 2) with previous world population estimates (see Table 1) strongly support our assertion that Great Bustard total numbers have not decreased worldwide, at least during the last two decades (Palacín and Alonso, 2008). This contradicts the global declining trend assumed until recent years (BirdLife International, 2004a, 2004b, 2007). The lack of a better knowledge of numbers and trends in several countries with important Great Bustard populations (e.g., Russia, Mongolia, China, Turkey, Ukraine) prevent us from drawing more precise conclusions about a worldwide demographic trend. In some of these countries the species is believed to be declining (e.g., China, see details for other countries in Palacín and Alonso, 2008), but the larger size of the Iberian population and its positive trend during the last years suggests that the world total might have remained more or less stable, or even slightly increased. These worldwide trends will only be completely confirmed when appropriate series of reliable counts become available in those countries where current estimates are still of low quality.

    We thank A. Antonchikov, A. Bankovics, A. Barati, O. Goroshko, J. Hellmich, T. Langgemach, I. Leszai, B. Litzsbarski, R. Karakas, A. Kessler, A. V. Khrustov, L. Milós, M. Ming, M.L. Oparin, O.S. Oparina, M. Pinto, R. Raab, P. Rocha, and X.H. Tian for the information on great bustards in their countries, and A. Wang for his help and Chinese translations during the International Symposium on Great Bustards in Beijing. We are also grateful to all people in Spain who provided us with valuable information on local populations, or worked with us during the surveys. Special thanks are given to M. Alcántara, J.A. Arranz, A. Balmori, M. Elósegui, J. Ezquerra, M. Guerrero, J. Larumbe, for survey data in several Spanish regions, and to C. Bravo, M. Magaña, C. Ponce, and A. Torres for collaborating in recent censuses. Funds to complete this study were provided by project CGL2008-02567 of the Dirección General de Investigación.

  • Abe F, Hasegawa O, Kudo T, Higashi S. Nest-site selection of Northern Goshawks and Eurasian Sparrowhawks in a fragmented landscape in Northern Japan. J Raptor Res. 2007;41:299-306.
    Barton K. MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference R package version 1.13.4. 2016. . Accessed 16 April 2018.
    Burnham KP, Anderson DR, Huyvaert KP. AIC model selection and multimodel inference in behavioral ecology: some background, observations, and comparisons. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2011;65:23-35.
    Calcagno V. Glmulti: Model selection and multimodel inference made easy R package version 1.0.7. 2013. . Accessed 16 April 2018.
    Chace JF, Walsh JJ. Urban effects on native avifauna: a review. Landsc Urban Plan. 2006;74:46-69.
    City of Vienna. Vienna GIS. 2018. . Accessed 16 April 2018.
    Cresswell W. Surprise as a winter hunting strategy in Sparrowhawks Accipiter nisus, Peregrines Falco peregrinus and Merlins F. columbarius. Ibis. 1996;138:684-92.
    Devictor V, Julliard R, Couvet D, Lee A, Jiguet F. Functional homogenization effect of urbanization on bird communities. Conserv Biol. 2007;21:741-51.
    Dunning JB. CRC handbook of avian body masses. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2008.
    Fernández-Juricic E. Local and regional effects of pedestrians on forest birds in a fragmented landscape. Condor. 2000;102:247-55.
    Fernández-Juricic E. Avian spatial segregation at edges and interiors of urban parks in Madrid, Spain. Biodivers Conserv. 2001;10:1303-16.
    Forsman JT, Mönkkönen M. Responses by breeding birds to heterospecific song and mobbing call playbacks under varying predation risk. Anim Behav. 2001;62:1067-73.
    Fuller RA, Warren PH, Armsworth PR, Barbosa O, Gaston KJ. Garden bird feeding predicts the structure of urban assemblages. Divers Distrib. 2008;14:131-7.
    Gahbauer MA, Bird DM, Clark KE, French T, Brauning DW, McMorris FA. Productivity, mortality, and management of urban Peregrine Falcons in northeastern North America. J Wildl Manag. 2015;79:10-9.
    Gartland L. Heat islands. Understanding and mitigating heat in urban areas. London: Earthscan; 2011.
    Götmark F, Post P. Prey selection by Sparrowhawks, Accipiter nisus: relative predation risk for breeding passerine birds in relation to their size, ecology and behavior. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B. 1996;351:1559-77.
    Hogstad O. Alarm calling by willow tits, Parus montanus, as mate investment. Anim Behav. 1995;49:221-5.
    Jokimäki J, Suhonen J. Distribution and habitat selection of wintering birds in urban environments. Landsc Urban Plan. 1998;39:253-63.
    Kang W, Minor ES, Park C-R, Lee D. Effects of habitat structure, human disturbance, and habitat connectivity on urban forest bird communities. Urban Ecosyst. 2015;18:857-70.
    Kettel EF, Gentle LK, Quinn JL, Yarnell RW. The breeding performance of raptors in urban landscapes: a review and meta-analysis. J Ornithol. 2018;159:1-18.
    Kunca T, Yosef R. Differential nest-defense to perceived danger in urban and rural areas by female Eurasian Sparrowhawk (Accipiter nisus). PeerJ. 2016;4:e2070.
    Lima SL. Putting predators back into behavioral predator-prey interactions. Trends Ecol Evol. 2002;17:70-5.
    Lin W, Lin A, Lin J, Wang Y, Tseng H. Breeding performance of Crested Goshawk Accipiter trivirgatus in urban and rural environments of Taiwan. Bird Study. 2015;62:177-84.
    McGrady MJ. Ecology and breeding behaviours of urban Sparrowhawks (Accipiter nisus) in Edinburgh, Scotland. Ph.D. thesis. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh; 1991.
    McKinney ML. Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol Conserv. 2006;127:247-60.
    Møller AP. Urban areas as refuges from predators and flight distance of prey. Behav Ecol. 2012;23:1030-5.
    Moudrá L, Zasadil P, Moudrý V, Šálek M. What makes new housing development unsuitable for house sparrows (Passer domesticus)? Landsc Urban Plan. 2018;169:124-30.
    Newton I. The Sparrowhawk. London: A & C Black; 2010.
    Nielsen AB, van den Bosch M, Maruthaveeran S, van den Bosch CK. Species richness in urban parks and its drivers: a review. Urban Ecosyst. 2014;17:305-27.
    Ortlieb R. Die Sperber: Accipitridae. 4th ed. Heidelberg: Spektrum Akad. Verl; 1995.
    Papp S. Breeding of Eurasian Sparrowhawks (Accipiter nisus) in two Hungarian towns. Aquila. 2011;18:49-54.
    Pulliam HR. On the advantages of flocking. J Theor Biol. 1973;38:419-22.
    R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. 2014. . Accessed 16 April 2018.
    Roth TC II, Lima SL. Use of prey hotspots by an avian predator: purposeful unpredictability? Am Nat. 2007;169:264-73.
    Roth TC II, Lima SL, Vetter WE. Determinants of predation risk in small wintering birds: the hawk's perspective. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2006;60:195-204.
    Roth TC II, Vetter WE, Lima SL. Spatial ecology of wintering Accipiter hawks: home range, habitat use, and the influence of bird feeders. Condor. 2008;110:260-8.
    Rutz C. Post-fledging dispersal of Northern Goshawks Accipiter gentilis in an urban environment. Vogelwelt. 2003;124:93-101.
    Rutz C. Home range, habitat use, activity patterns and hunting behavior of urban-breeding Northern Goshawks Accipiter gentilis. Ardea. 2006;94:185-202.
    Rutz C. The establishment of an urban bird population. J Anim Ecol. 2008;77:1008-19.
    Schielzeth H. Simple means to improve the interpretability of regression coefficients. Methods Ecol Evol. 2010;1:103-13.
    Schütz C, Schulze CH. Functional diversity of urban bird communities: effects of landscape composition, green space area and vegetation cover. Ecol Evol. 2015;5:5230-9.
    Sekercioglu CH. Increasing awareness of avian ecological function. Trends Ecol Evol. 2006;21:464-71.
    Selås V. Selection of avian prey by breeding Sparrowhawks Accipiter nisus in southern Norway: the importance of size and foraging behavior of prey. Ornis Fennica. 1993;70:144-54.
    Sridhar H, Beauchamp G, Shanker K. Why do birds participate in mixed-species foraging flocks? A large-scale synthesis. Anim Behav. 2009;78:337-47.
    Statistics Austria. The federal provinces. 2017. . Accessed 16 April 2018.
    Sumasgutner P, Schulze CH, Krenn HW, Gamauf A. Conservation related conflicts in nest-site selection of the Eurasian Kestrel (Falco tinnunculus) and the distribution of its avian prey. Landsc Urban Plan. 2014;127:94-103.
    Suri J, Sumasgutner P, Hellard E, Koeslag A, Amar A. Stability in prey abundance may buffer Black Sparrowhawks Accipiter melanoleucus from health impacts of urbanization. Ibis. 2017;159:38-54.
    Symonds MRE, Moussalli A. A brief guide to model selection, multimodel inference and model averaging in behavioural ecology using Akaike´s information criterion. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2011;65:13-21.
    Tella JL, Hiraldo F, Donázar-Sancho JA, Negro JJ. Costs and benefits of urban nesting in the Lesser Kestrel. In: Bird DM, Varland DE, Negro JJ, editors. Raptors in human landscapes: adaptations to built and cultivated environments. London: Academic Press; 1996. p. 53-60.
    Templeton CN, Zollinger SA, Brumm H. Traffic noise drowns out great tit alarm calls. Curr Biol. 2016;26:R1173-4.
    Thornton M, Todd I, Roos S. Breeding success and productivity of urban and rural Eurasian Sparrowhawks Accipiter nisus in Scotland. Écoscience. 2017;24:115-26.

Catalog

    Figures(2)  /  Tables(3)

    Article Metrics

    Article views (258) PDF downloads (9) Cited by()

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return