Abstract
Among birds, breeding numbers are mainly limited by two resources of major importance: food supply and nest-site availability. Here, we investigated how differences in land-use and nest-site availability affected the foraging behaviour, breeding success and population trends of the colonial cavity-dependent lesser kestrel Falco naumanni inhabiting two protected areas. Both areas were provided with artificial nests to increase nest-site availability. The first area is a pseudo-steppe characterized by traditional extensive cereal cultivation, whereas the second area is a previous agricultural zone now abandoned or replaced by forested areas. In both areas, lesser kestrels selected extensive agricultural habitats, such as fallows and cereal fields, and avoided scrubland and forests. In the second area, tracked birds from one colony travelled significantly farther distances (6.2 km ±1.7 vs. 1.8 km ±0.4 and 1.9 km ±0.6) and had significant larger foraging-ranges (144 km2 vs. 18.8 and 14.8 km2) when compared to the birds of two colonies in the extensive agricultural area. Longer foraging trips were reflected in lower chick feeding rates, lower fledging success and reduced chick fitness. Availability and occupation of artificial nests was high in both areas but population followed opposite trends, with a positive increment recorded exclusively in the first area with a large proportion of agricultural areas. Progressive habitat loss around the studied colony in the second area (suitable habitat decreased from 32% in 1990 to only 7% in 2002) is likely the main driver of the recorded population decline and suggests that the effectiveness of bird species conservation based on nest-site provisioning is highly constrained by habitat quality in the surrounding areas. Therefore, the conservation of cavity-dependent species may be enhanced firstly by finding the best areas of remaining habitat and secondly by increasing the carrying capacity of high-quality habitat areas through safe nest-site provisioning.
Highlights
Maintaining or increasing the population numbers of endangered species requires the identification of the limiting factors of population sizes, without which the management of any species population is likely to be unpredictable [1]
The carrying capacity of any environment for breeding populations is usually set by two resources of major importance - nest-sites and food - and whichever is in shortest supply can limit the number of breeding pairs [2]
Since 1996, the occupation of provisioning of artificial nest-sites allowed the rapid and significant increase of colony size (Fig. 1)
Summary
Maintaining or increasing the population numbers of endangered species requires the identification of the limiting factors of population sizes, without which the management of any species population is likely to be unpredictable [1]. Within their habitats, most bird populations are naturally limited by the availability of food, safe nest-sites, predation, competition and diseases [2]. The interaction between food and nest-site availability seems to play a decisive role during the breeding season: the distance that birds travel between nest-sites and foraging areas seems to depend largely on food availability and constitutes an important component of time-energy budgets [14,15,16,17]. The energetic costs of nesting a long distance from foraging grounds tend to be inefficient and may have ecological consequences resulting in poor breeding success [6,14]
Full Text
Topics from this Paper
Nest-site Availability
Extensive Agricultural Area
Falco Naumanni
Artificial Nests
Cereal Fields
+ Show 5 more
Create a personalized feed of these topics
Get StartedTalk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Similar Papers
Conservation Biology
Feb 1, 1996
Bird Conservation International
Jun 1, 2011
Biological Conservation
Nov 1, 2009
Insectes Sociaux
Mar 19, 2010
Quaternary Science Reviews
Dec 1, 2020
Animal Behaviour
Jun 1, 2013
European Journal of Wildlife Research
Nov 4, 2009
Conservation Biology
Jul 7, 2008
Human–Wildlife Interactions
Jan 1, 2013
Biodiversity and Conservation
Jan 1, 2002
Journal of Applied Ecology
Oct 31, 2011
Journal of Environmental Geography
Aug 16, 2023
Écoscience
Jan 1, 2002
Journal of Applied Ecology
Jun 1, 2016
PLoS ONE
PLoS ONE
May 12, 2022
PLoS ONE
Jan 1, 2022
PLoS ONE
Jan 1, 2022
PLoS ONE
Jan 1, 2022
PLoS ONE
Jan 1, 2022
PLoS ONE
Apr 22, 2021
PLoS ONE
Apr 1, 2021
PLoS ONE
Mar 8, 2021
PLoS ONE
Feb 25, 2021