Long‐term effects of agri‐environment schemes on breeding passerine populations in a lowland hay‐meadow system

Abstract

To cite this article: Joël Broyer (2011) Long-term effects of agri-environment schemes on breeding passerine populations in a lowland hay-meadow system, Bird Study, 58:2, 141-150,

How to sustain meadow passerine populations in Europe through alternative mowing management

“…Usually, mowing postponement through AES programmes shortly after fledging time only aims at decreasing mortality during the harvesting period. But the obtained increase in population density may theoretically lead to higher competition between neighboring pairs, with negative consequences on nesting success (Broyer, 2011). However, in a previous work in late mown French grasslands, we observed high hatching success, similar to that recorded in extensively managed grasslands in Russia, whereas passerine territory density was high (Broyer et al, 2014).…”

“…(Saône Valley, 2010-2014 the use of late mown areas remained stable throughout the experiment, as if this species was not attracted by late mown grassland areas and was characterized by a weak natal philopatry at the level of study sites (Shitikov et al, 2011;Broyer et al, 2012). However, increasing Whinchat population in the Saône Valley after AES implementation in the 1990s seems to indicate the existence of natal philopatry at the regional scale (Broyer, 2011). Higher territory density in the Corn Bunting, increased use of late mown areas by the Yellow Wagtail, are therefore robust evidences that the tested alternative management may locally improve meadow passerine abundance.…”

“…We focused here on hatching success for investigating the existence of possible density dependent effects because: 1) food shortage in the pre-breeding or laying period can result in a lower proportion of pairs attempting to breed (Enoksson and Nilsson, 1983;Rodenhouse and Holmes, 1992;Murphy et al, 1991;Tobias,1997;Elmegaard et al,1999), 2) food shortage may also cause low hatching success (Martin, 1987;Hatch and Hatch, 1990;Hamer et al, 1993;Schreiber and Kissling, 2005), 3) we observed in the Saône Valley a trade-off between territory density and hatching success after AES implementation (Broyer, 2011). We expected in this experiment that hatching success will not be negatively influenced by higher territory density.…”

“…Grassland management subsidies should focus on areas with less intensive management that aim at attracting high densities of grassland birds with a high reproductive success. The hatching success of meadow passerines is however likely to be density dependent (Broyer, 2009(Broyer, , 2011 and therefore investigations of reproductive success are needed in areas with increased bird density due to management changes.…”

Mowing management and density dependence in meadow passerine hatching success

“…But these programmes were not always effective in restoring meadow bird populations (Breeuwer et al 2009). In France, positive effects have been observed in terms of increasing passerine population density, but with a trade-off between territory density (TD) and hatching success, characterized by low hatching success when TD was >10 per 10 ha (Broyer 2011). Indeed, more successful nesting at low density has been documented in several ground-nesting birds (Vickery et al 1992, Donald et al 2002.…”