The diet and breeding density of Common Buzzards<i>Buteo buteo</i>in relation to indices of prey abundance

Graham, Isla M.; Redpath, Steve; Thirgood, Simon

doi:10.1080/00063659509477162

Cited by 62 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Positive correlations between bird numbers and food supply in different areas have been noted for several groups, including waders, raptors and seabirds (Brooke & Birkhead 1991, Graham et al 1995. Such correlations between bird abundance and food supply are consistent with the view that food availability limits population size, but it is not conclusive proof.…”

Section: Food Supplymentioning

confidence: 46%

Habitat preferences of breeding Water RailRallus aquaticus

Jenkins¹,

Ormerod²

2002

Bird Study

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Food Supplymentioning

confidence: 46%

Habitat preferences of breeding Water RailRallus aquaticus

Jenkins¹,

Ormerod²

2002

Bird Study

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In Fennoscandia, the main prey are voles with the most important alternative prey being water voles, shrews, forest grouse and hares (Reif et al 2001;Valkama et al 2005). This contrasts with the UK, where the most important component of the diet is rabbit with alternative prey of voles and birds more important in areas with low lagomorph abundance (Graham et al 1995;Swan and Etheridge 1995). In a review of predation by birds of prey and gamebirds, the proportion of prey items that were gamebirds ranged from 2.6 to 15.1 % in the UK and <0.1 to 7.4 % for other European countries (Valkama et al 2005).…”

Section: Direct Predationmentioning

confidence: 76%

“…A more recent UK study recorded 5.3 % gamebirds (Swan 2011). Any method of assessing raptor diet has potential bias-studies of prey remains (as here) can overestimate the importance of large prey which is more easily found than the remains of smaller prey (Graham et al 1995;Redpath et al 2001b).…”

Section: Direct Predationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Buzzards consume a wide range of prey, principally small mammals (mainly voles Microtus spp. and rabbits Oryctolagus cuniculus) but also birds, amphibians, reptiles and invertebrates (Graham et al 1995;Swan and Etheridge 1995;Reif et al 2001;Sim et al 2001;Zuberogoitta et al 2006;Selas et al 2007;Tornberg and Reif 2007;Swan 2011). As generalists, buzzards are able to adapt the composition of their diet to prey availability.…”

Section: Direct Predationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Impacts and management of common buzzards Buteo buteo at pheasant Phasianus colchicus release pens in the UK: a review

Parrott

2015

Eur J Wildl Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the UK, alongside an expanding common buzzard population, there is increasing concern of raptor predation at pheasant release pens. Historically, losses of poults to raptor predation has been low, commonly (90 % of shoots) ≤1 % of birds released into pens, representing a small percentage of losses relative to all causes of mortality. A small number of shoots did suffer higher losses, estimated at >5 % at one in 30 estates and >10 % at some estates. Predation was lower (i) with increased poult age at release, (ii) in later releases, (iii) in pens with good vegetative cover, (iv) in pens within woods <50 acres and (v) in releases of <500 birds; there were also indications that predation was greater in high-density releases. Studies found no evidence for indirect losses (i.e. nonpredation impacts of raptor activity, e.g. panic-induced smothering events). Mitigation measures include the following: (i) sufficient vegetative cover (supplemented if necessary, e.g. brash piles), (ii) minimise perching opportunities for raptors, (iii) stock older poults, (iv) stock at recommended densities, (v) reflective tape and scaring devices and (vi) diversionary feeding. Significant gaps in knowledge were identified, including (i) predation being incompletely evaluated in the context of contemporary buzzard populations, (ii) indirect effects not adequately studied, (iii) occurrence of 'problem' individual buzzards is unclear, (iv) adequate field trials of mitigation measures are lacking and (v) level of gamekeepers' adherence to industry recommendations not known. Contemporary studies of these issues are necessary to understand the impacts and to inform management of buzzards at pheasant release pens.

show abstract

“…In this case, the scale of the phenomenon will drop from 25% of the nests with surplus food to 14%, but most of these nests are still in farmland. Many authors (e.g., Jędrzejewski et al 1994, Graham et al 1995, Swann & Etheridge 1995 ascribe variation in the breeding success of buzzards to cyclic changes in high densities of rodents in open areas but not in forests. We have no numerical data on the abundance of rodents in open areas of the Kampinoski Forest, but based on field observations and Buzzard clutch sizes in 1999 higher than the mean, it can be concluded that in the spring of that year their prey were readily available and abundant.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%