Predicting the response of farmland bird populations to changing food supplies

Summary 1. Agricultural developments over recent decades have had significant negative effects on wildlife. Modern European agriculture faces many further developments in technology, finances and climate. A framework for predicting the consequences of these developments and for informing management that mitigates previous depredation of wildlife is essential. 2. Field trials, monitoring and experimental approaches are all invaluable tools for predicting the consequences of proposed agricultural practices. However, such trials are time-consuming and expensive, with limited spatial and temporal scope. Increasingly, it is recognized that predictive modelling using computer simulations is essential for assessing the likely impacts of novel management practices. 3. Many agricultural developments are likely to have impacts on the availability of food for farmland wildlife. In this paper, we review modelling techniques that are available for predicting the consequences of changing food supplies for farmland birds, a group already shown to be sensitive to agricultural management. 4. We focus on two broad types of simulation modelling: phenomenological approaches (using aggregative responses or full population models), and behavioural depletion models (including daily ration and functional response approaches). We assess the strengths and weaknesses of each, particularly with regard to available data. 5. We conclude that given the constraints on current information, daily ration models probably represent the most useful form of simulation modelling for farmland birds. Few phenomenological population models link demography explicitly to food supply and collecting data on these links should be a priority of autecological studies. More empirical data on aggregative and functional responses is needed to identify the generality of these functions, and to confront uncertainties in their use. 6. Synthesis and applications. Modelling techniques available for predicting the consequences of changing food supply for farmland birds have largely outstripped the availability of data required to parameterize them. We recommend the best available techniques given current constraints on data. Predictive models of biodiversity response should be more widely used when considering proposals for agricultural developments or agri-environment schemes. Models will provide a basis for selecting between competing proposals, whilst their widespread usage will both permit more frequent model validation and aid in model development.

[1]  C. Barnard,et al.  Flock feeding and time budgets in the house sparrow (Passer domesticus L.) , 1980, Animal Behaviour.

[2]  M. Hassell,et al.  The Components of Arthropod Predation: I. The Prey Death-Rate , 1976 .

[3]  William J. Sutherland,et al.  A spatial depletion model of the interaction between bean geese and wigeon with the consequences for habitat management , 1994 .

[4]  W. Sutherland,et al.  Depletion models can predict shorebird distribution at different spatial scales , 2001, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[5]  W. Cresswell,et al.  Interference competition at low competitor densities in blackbirds Turdus merula , 1997 .

[6]  C. S. Holling Some Characteristics of Simple Types of Predation and Parasitism , 1959, The Canadian Entomologist.

[7]  R. Bunce,et al.  Changes in the abundance of farmland birds in relation to the timing of agricultural intensification in England and Wales , 2000 .

[8]  N. Westwood,et al.  A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF THE FACTORS REGULATING POPULATION SIZE IN THE WOODPIGEON COLUMBA PALUMBUS , 1964 .

[9]  John R. Krebs,et al.  The second Silent Spring? , 1999, Nature.

[10]  M. Boyce Population Viability Analysis , 1992 .

[11]  L. R. Taylor,et al.  Farming and Birds , 1987 .

[12]  W. Cresswell,et al.  Variation in the strength of interference competition with resource density in blackbirds, Turdus merula , 1998 .

[13]  Robert P. Freckleton,et al.  The population dynamics of Anisantha sterilis in winter wheat: comparative demography and the role of management , 1999 .

[14]  Bruno J. Ens,et al.  Mass mortality of common eiders (Somateria mollissima) in the Dutch Wadden Sea, winter 1999/2000: starvation in a commercially exploited wetland of international importance , 2002 .

[15]  W. Cresswell,et al.  Relative competitive ability changes with competitor density: evidence from feeding blackbirds , 1998, Animal Behaviour.

[16]  A R. Watkinson,et al.  Policy making within ecological uncertainty: lessons from badgers and GM crops. , 2001, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[17]  Andrew D. West,et al.  Predicting mortality in novel environments: tests and sensitivity of a behaviour‐based model , 2000 .

[18]  F. M. Williams,et al.  Functional responses revisited , 1996 .

[19]  Guy Beauchamp,et al.  The effect of group size on vigilance and feeding rate in spice finches (Lonchura punctulata) , 1997 .

[20]  Yuqing Fan,et al.  Functional Response, Variance, and Regression Analysis: A Reply to Williams and Juliano , 1997 .

[21]  Richard B. Bradbury,et al.  Habitat associations and breeding success of yellowhammers on lowland farmland , 2000 .

[22]  J. Marcus Rowcliffe,et al.  Aggregative responses of brent geese on salt marsh and their impact on plant community dynamics , 1998, Oecologia.

[23]  Beatriz Arroyo,et al.  A review of the abundance and diversity of invertebrate and plant foods of granivorous birds in northern europe in relation to agricultural change , 1999 .

[24]  Dolph Schluter,et al.  Worldwide Limitation of Finch Densities by Food and Other Factors , 1991 .

[25]  Richard A. Stillman,et al.  Density‐dependent starvation in a vertebrate without significant depletion , 2001 .

[26]  Graeme D. Ruxton,et al.  Absolute foraging rate and susceptibility to interference competition in blackbirds varies with patch conditions , 2001 .

[27]  John R. Krebs,et al.  Predicting population responses to resource management , 2001 .

[28]  Richard A. Stillman,et al.  Predicting shorebird mortality and population size under different regimes of shellfishery management , 2001 .

[29]  Rhys E. Green,et al.  FACTORS AFFECTING THE DIET OF FARMLAND SKYLARKS, ALA UDA ARVENSIS , 1978 .

[30]  William J. Sutherland,et al.  Field estimates of the strength of interference between oystercatchers haematopus ostralegus , 1982, Oecologia.

[31]  S. L. Lima,et al.  Predation, scramble competition, and the vigilance group size effect in dark-eyed juncos (Junco hyemalis) , 1999, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[32]  Richard A. Stillman,et al.  Individual variation in the competitive ability of interference‐prone foragers: the relative importance of foraging efficiency and susceptibility to interference , 1999 .

[33]  William J. Sutherland,et al.  Sustainable exploitation of social species: a test and comparison of models , 2002 .

[34]  Stephen R. Baillie,et al.  Population declines and range contractions among lowland farmland birds in Britain , 1995 .

[35]  J. M. Winterbottom,et al.  BIRD POPULATION STUDIES: B. The Population of Twenty-one Acres near Fort Jameson , 1933 .

[36]  George L. Hunt,et al.  Mass mortality of short‐tailed shearwaters in the south‐eastern Bering Sea during summer 1997 , 2001 .

[37]  W. Sutherland From Individual Behaviour to Population Ecology , 1996 .

[38]  Ralph T. Clarke,et al.  Deriving population parameters from individual variations in foraging behaviour. II: Model tests and population parameters , 1995 .

[39]  R. Freckleton,et al.  Predictions of biodiversity response to genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. , 2000, Science.

[40]  M. Solomon The Natural Control of Animal Populations , 1949 .

[41]  W. Sutherland,et al.  Post‐war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great Britain , 2002 .

[42]  Juan C. Alonso,et al.  Carrying capacity of staging areas and facultative migration extension in common cranes , 1994 .

[43]  Amy W. Ando,et al.  On the Use of Demographic Models of Population Viability in Endangered Species Management , 1998 .

[44]  J. Beddington,et al.  Mutual Interference Between Parasites or Predators and its Effect on Searching Efficiency , 1975 .

[45]  William J. Sutherland,et al.  The winter distribution of seed‐eating birds: habitat structure, seed density and seasonal depletion , 1999 .

[46]  Jennifer A. Gill,et al.  Habitat Choice in Pink-Footed Geese: Quantifying the Constraints Determining Winter Site Use , 1996 .

[47]  T. Benton,et al.  Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? , 2003 .

[48]  James W. A. Grant,et al.  THE EFFECT OF HANDLING TIME ON INTERFERENCE AMONG HOUSE SPARROWS FORAGING AT DIFFERENT SEED DENSITIES , 2001 .

[49]  Rhys E. Green,et al.  The Decline of the Corncrake Crex crex in Britain and Ireland in Relation to Habitat Change , 1993 .

[50]  K. Nagy FIELD METABOLIC RATE AND FOOD REQUIREMENT SCALING IN MAMMALS AND BIRDS , 1987 .

[51]  Jeremy D. Wilson,et al.  Farmland habitat change and abundance of Yellowhammers Emberiza citrinella: an analysis of Common Birds Census data , 1998 .

[52]  Individual Variation , 1910, Botanical Gazette.

[53]  M. Whittingham,et al.  The influence of substrate on the functional response of an avian granivore and its implications for farmland bird conservation , 2002, Oecologia.

[54]  Paul M. Dolman,et al.  The intensity of interference varies with resource density: evidence from a field study with snow buntings, Plectrophenax nivalis , 1995, Oecologia.

[55]  Matthieu Guillemain,et al.  Carrying capacity in overwintering birds: when are spatial models needed? , 2003 .

[56]  S. M. Evans,et al.  Influence of position in the flock and flock size on vigilance in the starling, Sturnus vulgaris , 1980, Animal Behaviour.

[57]  J. Goss‐Custard,et al.  Competition for Food and Interference among Waders , 2015 .

[58]  Yuqing Fan,et al.  Parameter estimation of the functional response , 1994 .

[59]  N. Westwood,et al.  The Relationships Between Wood-Pigeons and Their Clover Food Supply and the Mechanism of Population Control , 1966 .

[60]  Graeme D. Ruxton,et al.  Dominance and feeding interference in small groups of blackbirds , 2001 .

[61]  William J. Sutherland,et al.  How effective are European agri‐environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? , 2003 .

[62]  Guy Beauchamp,et al.  The effect of group size on mean food intake rate in birds , 1998 .

[63]  John F. Piatt,et al.  Mass-mortality of guillemots (Uria aalge) in the Gulf of Alaska in 1993 , 1997 .

[64]  Richard A. Stillman,et al.  Conserving Bird Biodiversity: Predicting the impact of environmental change , 2002 .

[65]  L. Pennycuick,et al.  A computer model of the Oxford great tit population. , 1969, Journal of theoretical biology.

[66]  Richard A. Stillman,et al.  Individual variation in intake rate: the relative importance of foraging efficiency and dominance , 2000 .

[67]  Stephen T. Buckland,et al.  Trends in the abundance of farmland birds: a quantitative comparison of smoothed Common Birds Census indices , 1998 .

[68]  I. Newton,et al.  Population Limitation in Birds , 1998 .

[69]  Robert M. West,et al.  Predicting the Impacts , 1994 .

[70]  Mike J. May,et al.  An introduction to the Farm‐Scale Evaluations of genetically modified herbicide‐tolerant crops , 2003 .