No abstract

No abstract

A wildlife species' selection of bedding sites is often characterised by strong trade-offs, as habitat quality, predator avoidance and foraging needs should be achieved simultaneously. Human activities often represent major threats in addition. In areas of intensive agriculture, e.g. mowing is one of the main causes of mortality of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) fawns due their hiding strategy. For a species' offspring, the selection of bedding sites is particularly crucial and thus, identifying how and when animals use such habitats is important for management. We used a long-term dataset of marked roe deer fawns in Switzerland (1971Switzerland ( -2015 to reveal the characteristics of optimal bedding sites within the first two weeks of a fawn's life in three contrasting landscapes and the potential trade-offs that may occur. We hypothesised that roe deer adjust the selection of bedding sites to current environmental conditions and available habitat to achieve sufficient levels of predator avoidance and thermoregulation necessary for the fawn's survival, as well as the availability of sufficient food resources for the mother doe. We found that, in general, grassland habitats with medium vegetation height (20-50 cm) and habitats in close proximity to the edge of the forest were favoured to achieve those basic requirements. However, the use of bed site habitats differed between the three contrasting landscapes in dependence of elevation and hence vegetation phenology. Our results provide essential information to reduce mortality rates caused by mowing and improve the reproductive success of this species.

Growing concerns about climate change and energy security have fueled a rapid increase in the development of marine renewable energy installations (MREIs). The potential ecological consequences of increased use of these devices emphasizes the need for high quality environmental impact assessment (EIA). We demonstrate that these processes are hampered severely, primarily because ambiguities in the legislation and lack of clear implementation guidance are such that they do not ensure robust assessment of the significance of impacts and cumulative effects. We highlight why the regulatory framework leads to conceptual ambiguities and propose changes which, for the most part, do not require major adjustments to standard practice. We emphasize the importance of determining the degree of confidence in impacts to permit the likelihood as well as magnitude of impacts to be quantified and propose ways in which assessment of population-level impacts could be incorporated into the EIA process. Overall, however, we argue that, instead of trying to ascertain which particular developments are responsible for tipping an already heavily degraded marine environment into an undesirable state, emphasis should be placed on better strategic assessment.