Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

About: Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is a nonprofit organization based out in Sandy, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Biodiversity. The organization has 670 authors who have published 1425 publications receiving 88006 citations. The organization is also known as: RSPB & Plumage League.

Identifying mismatches between habitat selection and habitat quality in a ground‐nesting farmland bird

Abstract: Human-induced habitat changes often generate novel or radically altered habitat characteristics, which can impair the ability of organisms to differentiate between suitable and unsuitable sites. This phenomenon, often termed an ecological trap, has been identified as a potential driver of biodiversity loss worldwide. However, few unequivocal examples have been documented, even in agricultural environments where contemporary habitat changes have been rapid and significant. Several problems complicate the detection of ecological traps in the field, including difficulties in measuring key parameters such as relative habitat preference. Here, we assess habitat selection preferences and breeding success of the yellow wagtail Motacilla flava, a UK red-listed declining passerine, in arable farmland. We combine habitat-specific density indices with measures of home range exclusivity to make inferences on relative habitat preference that are robust to the confounding effect of competitive exclusion. Using multiple measures of breeding success, we identify maladaptive habitat selection patterns at the scale of both territory and nest site choice. Yellow wagtails showed a preference for establishing territories within field bean crops, but subsequently suffered high nest predation rates. Similarly, pairs showed a preference for nesting close to tramlines within cereal fields, but nests further from tramlines achieved higher success due to lower predation rates. We found no evidence of competitive exclusion among neighbouring pairs, suggesting that density-based indices provided an accurate reflection of relative habitat preferences. Our findings highlight the potential role of maladaptive habitat selection in suppressing breeding success among farmland species.

Synergies and trade-offs in achieving global biodiversity targets

Abstract: After their failure to achieve a significant reduction in the global rate of biodiversity loss by 2010, world governments adopted 20 new ambitious Aichi biodiversity targets to be met by 2020. Efforts to achieve one particular target can contribute to achieving others, but different targets may sometimes require conflicting solutions. Consequently, lack of strategic thinking might result, once again, in a failure to achieve global commitments to biodiversity conservation. We illustrate this dilemma by focusing on Aichi Target 11. This target requires an expansion of terrestrial protected area coverage, which could also contribute to reducing the loss of natural habitats (Target 5), reducing human-induced species decline and extinction (Target 12), and maintaining global carbon stocks (Target 15). We considered the potential impact of expanding protected areas to mitigate global deforestation and the consequences for the distribution of suitable habitat for >10,000 species of forest vertebrates (amphibians, birds, and mammals). We first identified places where deforestation might have the highest impact on remaining forests and then identified places where deforestation might have the highest impact on forest vertebrates (considering aggregate suitable habitat for species). Expanding protected areas toward locations with the highest deforestation rates (Target 5) or the highest potential loss of aggregate species' suitable habitat (Target 12) resulted in partially different protected area network configurations (overlapping with each other by about 73%). Moreover, the latter approach contributed to safeguarding about 30% more global carbon stocks than the former. Further investigation of synergies and trade-offs between targets would shed light on these and other complex interactions, such as the interaction between reducing overexploitation of natural resources (Targets 6, 7), controlling invasive alien species (Target 9), and preventing extinctions of native species (Target 12). Synergies between targets must be identified and secured soon and trade-offs must be minimized before the options for co-benefits are reduced by human pressures.

Resolving the conflict between driven-grouse shooting and conservation of hen harriers

Abstract: Summary 1. Birds of prey and driven-grouse shooting are at the centre of a long-standing human–wildlife conflict. Hen harrier predation can reduce grouse shooting bags, limit grouse populations and cause economic losses. Despite legal protection, hen harrier numbers are severely depleted on drivengrouse moors. 2. In limited trials, provision of supplementary food to hen harriers greatly reduced their predatory impact on young grouse, but did not result in higher grouse densities for shooting. Consequently, grouse moor managers have failed to adopt the technique. 3. A recent Forum paper has called for a trial ‘population ceiling scheme’ for hen harriers, arguing that this represents the best way to increase hen harrier numbers on driven-grouse moors. Once densities exceed the agreed ceiling, the excess would be translocated to other suitable habitat. 4. Whilst a ‘ceiling’ scheme might work, it would be difficult to implement and we believe that other approaches to population recovery should be tested first. 5. While driven-grouse shooting makes an important economic contribution tosome rural communities, some grouse moor owners receive considerable sums of public money. Despite this, many moors are in poor condition, the ecosystem services they supply may be at risk from both climate change and current management practices, and grouse numbers are in decline. The socio-economic and environmental implications of alternative models of grouse management need urgent examination. 6. Synthesis and applications. If driven-grouse shooting is only viable when birds of prey are routinely disturbed and killed, then we question the legitimacy of driven-grouse shooting as a sustainable land use. Moorland owners need to consider more broadly sustainable shooting practices for the 21st century.