|
BBWC Home > Contents
> Discussion
> Changes in breeding performance
4.5 Changes in breeding
performance
Changes in a range of aspects of breeding performance can be measured
under the Nest Record Scheme (NRS) and the
Constant Effort Sites (CES) scheme. The former
provides information on components of breeding performance per nesting
attempt. The latter provides an index of breeding performance accrued
over all nesting attempts in a particular year, combined with the
effect of changes in the survival of fledglings once they have left
the nest but before they are caught as juveniles – a period
when losses of young can be high.
Breeding performance may be influenced by a variety of factors,
including food availability, predation pressure and weather conditions.
Variation in breeding performance may help to influence a population,
and may even be the main demographic factor responsible for determining
its size. Conversely, the breeding performance of a population may
be negatively related to its size, with productivity decreasing
as the number of individuals increases, and vice versa. This relationship
may be due to the action of density-dependent factors, such as competition
for resources: as numbers increase, competition for resources is
likely to increase, possibly resulting in poorer productivity. Alternatively,
increases in abundance may be accompanied by range expansion into
new, suboptimal habitats where breeding performance is poorer, thus
reducing the average productivity of the population; conversely,
where declines result from the loss of individuals from these suboptimal
habitats, there may be a subsequent increase in average productivity.
4.5.1 Changes in clutch and brood size
from Nest Record Scheme data
Those species exhibiting statistically significant trends in clutch
and brood size over the past 38 years (1968–2006) are shown
in Tables 4.5.1.1 and 4.5.1.2. More species showed decreases than
increases in clutch size (19 decreases, 15 increases) while the
reverse was true for brood size (18 decreases, 22 increases).
Table 4.5.1.1
| Long-tailed Tit |
38 |
34 |
Linear decline |
7.63 eggs |
6.46 eggs |
-1.17 eggs |
|
| Magpie |
38 |
45 |
Curvilinear |
5.62 eggs |
4.56 eggs |
-1.06 eggs |
|
| Great Tit |
38 |
152 |
Linear decline |
8.32 eggs |
7.38 eggs |
-0.94 eggs |
|
| Hen Harrier |
38 |
13 |
Curvilinear |
5.48 eggs |
4.73 eggs |
-0.75 eggs |
Small sample |
| Moorhen |
38 |
91 |
Linear decline |
6.52 eggs |
5.96 eggs |
-0.56 eggs |
|
| Blue Tit |
38 |
156 |
Linear decline |
9.28 eggs |
8.74 eggs |
-0.54 eggs |
|
| Peregrine |
38 |
16 |
Linear decline |
3.58 eggs |
3.09 eggs |
-0.49 eggs |
Small sample |
| Twite |
38 |
12 |
Curvilinear |
5.43 eggs |
5.1 eggs |
-0.33 eggs |
Small sample |
| Mute Swan |
38 |
22 |
Curvilinear |
5.89 eggs |
5.64 eggs |
-0.25 eggs |
Small sample |
| Pied Wagtail |
38 |
59 |
Linear decline |
5.12 eggs |
4.92 eggs |
-0.2 eggs |
|
| Nightjar |
38 |
17 |
Linear decline |
2.02 eggs |
1.82 eggs |
-0.2 eggs |
Small sample |
| Greenfinch |
38 |
93 |
Curvilinear |
4.73 eggs |
4.54 eggs |
-0.19 eggs |
|
| Chaffinch |
38 |
86 |
Curvilinear |
4.22 eggs |
4.03 eggs |
-0.19 eggs |
|
| Linnet |
38 |
108 |
Curvilinear |
4.7 eggs |
4.57 eggs |
-0.13 eggs |
|
| Common Sandpiper |
38 |
11 |
Curvilinear |
3.99 eggs |
3.88 eggs |
-0.11 eggs |
Small sample |
| Sedge Warbler |
38 |
37 |
Curvilinear |
4.95 eggs |
4.85 eggs |
-0.1 eggs |
|
| Spotted Flycatcher |
38 |
81 |
Curvilinear |
4.22 eggs |
4.15 eggs |
-0.07 eggs |
|
| Rook |
38 |
13 |
Curvilinear |
4.15 eggs |
4.12 eggs |
-0.03 eggs |
Small sample |
| Grey Wagtail |
38 |
38 |
Curvilinear |
4.68 eggs |
4.65 eggs |
-0.03 eggs |
|
| Carrion Crow |
38 |
33 |
Curvilinear |
4.08 eggs |
4.09 eggs |
0.01 eggs |
Includes Hooded Crow |
| Dipper |
38 |
72 |
Curvilinear |
4.48 eggs |
4.5 eggs |
0.02 eggs |
|
| Yellowhammer |
38 |
44 |
Curvilinear |
3.35 eggs |
3.39 eggs |
0.04 eggs |
|
| Swallow |
38 |
220 |
Curvilinear |
4.46 eggs |
4.51 eggs |
0.05 eggs |
|
| Lapwing |
38 |
122 |
Linear increase |
3.69 eggs |
3.82 eggs |
0.13 eggs |
|
| Mistle Thrush |
38 |
35 |
Linear increase |
3.88 eggs |
4.09 eggs |
0.21 eggs |
|
| Jackdaw |
38 |
43 |
Linear increase |
4.35 eggs |
4.57 eggs |
0.22 eggs |
|
| Little Owl |
38 |
18 |
Linear increase |
3.39 eggs |
3.62 eggs |
0.23 eggs |
Small sample |
| Dunnock |
38 |
99 |
Linear increase |
3.94 eggs |
4.2 eggs |
0.26 eggs |
|
| Skylark |
38 |
38 |
Linear increase |
3.37 eggs |
3.68 eggs |
0.31 eggs |
|
| Redstart |
38 |
48 |
Curvilinear |
5.89 eggs |
6.23 eggs |
0.34 eggs |
|
| Sand Martin |
38 |
32 |
Curvilinear |
4.68 eggs |
5.06 eggs |
0.38 eggs |
|
| Tree Sparrow |
38 |
155 |
Curvilinear |
4.71 eggs |
5.11 eggs |
0.4 eggs |
|
| Starling |
38 |
76 |
Linear increase |
4.42 eggs |
4.97 eggs |
0.55 eggs |
|
| Barn Owl |
38 |
22 |
Linear increase |
4.53 eggs |
5.15 eggs |
0.62 eggs |
Small sample |
See Help
for help with interpretation
Nine species (Nightjar, Pied Wagtail,
Spotted Flycatcher, Long-tailed Tit,
Blue Tit, Great Tit, Magpie,
Chaffinch and Greenfinch) exhibited
decreases in both clutch size and brood size over the period, whilst
another eight species (Barn Owl, Skylark,
Swallow, Dipper, Dunnock,
Redstart, Tree Sparrow and Yellowhammer)
exhibited increases in both clutch size and brood size. Moorhen,
Grey Wagtail, Rook and Linnet
all showed a decline in average clutch size and an increase in average
brood size, although the magnitude of the change in Rook
clutch sizes and in Grey Wagtail and Linnet
brood sizes was small (<0.04 eggs/chicks). Jackdaw
and Carrion Crow showed the opposite pattern, with
clutch sizes increasing while brood sizes decreased, although again
the magnitude of the change in Carrion Crow clutch
size was very small (0.01 eggs); note that, for historical reasons,
Carrion Crow figures include a small proportion
of data from Hooded Crow.
Table 4.5.1.2
| Great Tit |
38 |
287 |
Linear decline |
7.57 chicks |
6.24 chicks |
-1.33 chicks |
|
| Blue Tit |
38 |
270 |
Linear decline |
8.32 chicks |
7.35 chicks |
-0.97 chicks |
|
| Long-tailed Tit |
38 |
28 |
Curvilinear |
6.68 chicks |
6.17 chicks |
-0.51 chicks |
Small sample |
| Yellow Wagtail |
38 |
13 |
Linear decline |
4.83 chicks |
4.34 chicks |
-0.49 chicks |
Small sample |
| House Sparrow |
38 |
111 |
Curvilinear |
3.39 chicks |
2.92 chicks |
-0.47 chicks |
|
| Greenfinch |
38 |
115 |
Curvilinear |
4.03 chicks |
3.61 chicks |
-0.42 chicks |
|
| Raven |
38 |
67 |
Linear decline |
3.23 chicks |
2.83 chicks |
-0.4 chicks |
|
| Carrion Crow |
38 |
79 |
Curvilinear |
2.87 chicks |
2.48 chicks |
-0.39 chicks |
Includes Hooded Crow |
| Chiffchaff |
38 |
33 |
Linear decline |
5.12 chicks |
4.74 chicks |
-0.38 chicks |
|
| Bullfinch |
38 |
36 |
Curvilinear |
4.11 chicks |
3.79 chicks |
-0.32 chicks |
|
| Magpie |
38 |
79 |
Curvilinear |
3.09 chicks |
2.84 chicks |
-0.25 chicks |
|
| Pied Wagtail |
38 |
114 |
Linear decline |
4.53 chicks |
4.34 chicks |
-0.19 chicks |
|
| Corn Bunting |
38 |
12 |
Curvilinear |
3.07 chicks |
2.89 chicks |
-0.18 chicks |
Small sample |
| Nightjar |
38 |
24 |
Curvilinear |
1.82 chicks |
1.7 chicks |
-0.12 chicks |
Small sample |
| Jackdaw |
38 |
91 |
Curvilinear |
2.69 chicks |
2.6 chicks |
-0.09 chicks |
|
| Chaffinch |
38 |
136 |
Curvilinear |
3.57 chicks |
3.49 chicks |
-0.08 chicks |
|
| Robin |
38 |
169 |
Curvilinear |
4.41 chicks |
4.36 chicks |
-0.05 chicks |
|
| Spotted Flycatcher |
38 |
130 |
Curvilinear |
3.61 chicks |
3.6 chicks |
-0.01 chicks |
|
| Grey Wagtail |
38 |
80 |
Curvilinear |
3.95 chicks |
3.95 chicks |
0 chicks |
|
| Linnet |
38 |
122 |
Curvilinear |
4.07 chicks |
4.08 chicks |
0.01 chicks |
|
| Stock Dove |
38 |
111 |
Curvilinear |
1.82 chicks |
1.84 chicks |
0.02 chicks |
|
| Blackbird |
38 |
151 |
Curvilinear |
3.35 chicks |
3.38 chicks |
0.03 chicks |
|
| Swallow |
38 |
378 |
Curvilinear |
4.07 chicks |
4.12 chicks |
0.05 chicks |
|
| Yellowhammer |
38 |
67 |
Curvilinear |
2.96 chicks |
3.03 chicks |
0.07 chicks |
|
| Buzzard |
38 |
94 |
Curvilinear |
1.87 chicks |
1.95 chicks |
0.08 chicks |
|
| Kestrel |
38 |
121 |
Curvilinear |
3.74 chicks |
3.83 chicks |
0.09 chicks |
|
| Collared Dove |
38 |
70 |
Linear increase |
1.76 chicks |
1.85 chicks |
0.09 chicks |
|
| Barn Owl |
38 |
149 |
Curvilinear |
3.01 chicks |
3.12 chicks |
0.11 chicks |
|
| Rook |
38 |
85 |
Curvilinear |
2.22 chicks |
2.34 chicks |
0.12 chicks |
|
| Reed Warbler |
38 |
127 |
Linear increase |
3.45 chicks |
3.58 chicks |
0.13 chicks |
|
| Dunnock |
38 |
106 |
Linear increase |
3.48 chicks |
3.63 chicks |
0.15 chicks |
|
| Skylark |
38 |
67 |
Curvilinear |
3.1 chicks |
3.29 chicks |
0.19 chicks |
|
| Merlin |
38 |
55 |
Linear increase |
3.52 chicks |
3.79 chicks |
0.27 chicks |
|
| Dipper |
38 |
135 |
Curvilinear |
3.4 chicks |
3.69 chicks |
0.29 chicks |
|
| Sparrowhawk |
38 |
71 |
Curvilinear |
3.11 chicks |
3.45 chicks |
0.34 chicks |
|
| Tree Pipit |
38 |
28 |
Linear increase |
4.38 chicks |
4.74 chicks |
0.36 chicks |
Small sample |
| Redstart |
38 |
85 |
Curvilinear |
5.1 chicks |
5.48 chicks |
0.38 chicks |
|
| Tree Sparrow |
38 |
197 |
Curvilinear |
3.78 chicks |
4.21 chicks |
0.43 chicks |
|
| Nuthatch |
38 |
62 |
Curvilinear |
4.05 chicks |
4.87 chicks |
0.82 chicks |
|
| Moorhen |
38 |
77 |
Curvilinear |
3.12 chicks |
4.3 chicks |
1.18 chicks |
|
See Help
for help with interpretation
Long-term changes in clutch or brood size are associated with long-term
population trends in a number of species. Here we highlight those
changes that are both statistically significant and likely to be
of biological importance.
Declines in population size and productivity were identified for
Spotted Flycatcher (clutch and brood size), House
Sparrow and Bullfinch (brood size). The
mean number of eggs and chicks produced by Spotted Flycatcher
began to fall in the mid 1980s, a worrying trend for a species that,
by this point, had been in rapid decline for at least two decades.
Population modelling work undertaken by Freeman
& Crick (2003) suggests that reduced survival rates of first-year
birds drove the initial population decline, but an additive effect
of reduced reproductive output may now be a possibility. Declines
in Bullfinch populations are also thought to have
begun due to falling survival rates (Proffitt
et al. 2004, Marquiss
2007), although the mechanism is not clear-cut (Siriwardena
et al. 2001) and a reduction in brood size over the
last 25 years may again have had detrimental effects at a population
level.
In the case of the House Sparrow, population modelling
based on BTO data has shown that declines in rural areas were caused
by reduced survival rates but that these declines were mainly halted
due to improvements in breeding performance (Crick
et al. 2002). The apparently accelerating reduction
in brood size is therefore of some concern. Peach
et al. (2008) suggested that insect food for the chicks
may be limited in certain situations and recent brood size reductions
may be a manifestation of this at a wider scale. However, it should
be noted that, over the long term, some of the reduction in brood
size might have been compensated for by reduced nest failure rates
at the egg and chick stages.
It is worth noting that Pied Wagtail and Grey
Wagtail are also exhibiting significant declines in both
clutch and brood sizes – data from WBS
suggest that populations using rivers and canals declined significantly
between the 1970s and the 1990s, although BBS
results suggest that Pied Wagtail populations in
the wider countryside are stable.
Several increasing species exhibit concurrently increasing brood
sizes, particularly Sparrowhawk, Collared
Dove, Redstart and Nuthatch.
Sparrowhawk has returned to eastern areas of the
UK, where populations of songbird prey are greater, which may have
impacted positively on breeding success, although both the population
and the brood size trends began to level out in the early to mid
1990s. Collared Dove has spread rapidly since colonising
the UK in the 1950s, and brood sizes have exhibited a steady increase
over the past 35 years. Redstart is one of the
only long-distance migrant passerines currently exhibiting significant
population growth, and increasing clutch and brood sizes over the
last three decades may have contributed to this. The UK Nuthatch
population, which has been expanding northwards and has increased
considerably in size since the 1970s, currently produces 0.75 more
young per nesting attempt than it did on average during the late
1960s. It would seem likely that this has helped to drive the population
increase of this species; brood sizes have started to fall in the
last decade, however, possibly indicating the onset of density dependent-reductions
in productivity (see below).
Inverse associations between clutch or brood size and population
trend are found in some 23 species (i.e. they show lower productivity
with higher population size). Such relationships may arise through
density-dependent processes, whereby increased competition leads
to reduced clutch or brood sizes at higher population densities.
Eleven increasing species and 12 decreasing species show such associations.
Notable examples amongst increasing species include Magpie,
Blue Tit, Great Tit, Long-tailed
Tit, Chaffinch, Greenfinch
(clutch and brood size) Robin and Chiffchaff
(brood size). Amongst declining species examples include Skylark,
Dunnock, Tree Sparrow (clutch
and brood size), Lapwing, Starling
and Mistle Thrush (clutch size).
4.5.2
Changes in nest failure rates from Nest Record Scheme data
Statistically significant trends in the daily nest failure rates
at the egg and chick stages over the past 38 years (1968–2006)
are shown in Tables 4.5.2.1 and 4.5.2.2. The number of species exhibiting
declines in failure rates at the egg stage (39) was treble the number
displaying increases (13), and while 26 species exhibited declines
in chick-stage failure rates, only 13 displayed increases. Thus,
the general picture is one of improving nesting success.
Table 4.5.2.1
| Woodlark |
38 |
20 |
Curvilinear |
0.0683 nests/day |
0.0275 nests/day |
-0.0408 nests/day |
Small sample |
| Long-tailed Tit |
38 |
52 |
Linear decline |
0.0358 nests/day |
0.0084 nests/day |
-0.0274 nests/day |
|
| Magpie |
38 |
52 |
Linear decline |
0.0273 nests/day |
0.0028 nests/day |
-0.0245 nests/day |
|
| Redshank |
38 |
33 |
Linear decline |
0.0398 nests/day |
0.0169 nests/day |
-0.0229 nests/day |
|
| Dipper |
38 |
100 |
Curvilinear |
0.0257 nests/day |
0.0033 nests/day |
-0.0224 nests/day |
|
| Snipe |
38 |
16 |
Linear decline |
0.033 nests/day |
0.0136 nests/day |
-0.0194 nests/day |
Small sample |
| Tree Pipit |
38 |
12 |
Curvilinear |
0.0487 nests/day |
0.0312 nests/day |
-0.0175 nests/day |
Small sample |
| Robin |
38 |
188 |
Curvilinear |
0.0247 nests/day |
0.0103 nests/day |
-0.0144 nests/day |
|
| Carrion Crow |
38 |
50 |
Linear decline |
0.0159 nests/day |
0.0022 nests/day |
-0.0137 nests/day |
Includes Hooded Crow |
| Treecreeper |
38 |
22 |
Linear decline |
0.0191 nests/day |
0.0062 nests/day |
-0.0129 nests/day |
Small sample |
| Sand Martin |
38 |
24 |
Linear decline |
0.0127 nests/day |
0.0001 nests/day |
-0.0126 nests/day |
Small sample |
| Yellowhammer |
38 |
66 |
Curvilinear |
0.05 nests/day |
0.038 nests/day |
-0.012 nests/day |
|
| Wood Warbler |
38 |
21 |
Linear decline |
0.0191 nests/day |
0.0079 nests/day |
-0.0112 nests/day |
Small sample |
| Redstart |
38 |
73 |
Linear decline |
0.0116 nests/day |
0.0031 nests/day |
-0.0085 nests/day |
|
| Stock Dove |
38 |
78 |
Curvilinear |
0.012 nests/day |
0.0036 nests/day |
-0.0084 nests/day |
|
| Pied Wagtail |
38 |
83 |
Curvilinear |
0.0152 nests/day |
0.0068 nests/day |
-0.0084 nests/day |
|
| Starling |
38 |
118 |
Linear decline |
0.0112 nests/day |
0.003 nests/day |
-0.0082 nests/day |
|
| Tawny Owl |
38 |
55 |
Linear decline |
0.0095 nests/day |
0.0018 nests/day |
-0.0077 nests/day |
Nocturnal species |
| House Sparrow |
38 |
92 |
Linear decline |
0.0115 nests/day |
0.0041 nests/day |
-0.0074 nests/day |
|
| Wheatear |
38 |
18 |
Curvilinear |
0.0082 nests/day |
0.0009 nests/day |
-0.0073 nests/day |
Small sample |
| Sedge Warbler |
38 |
44 |
Linear decline |
0.013 nests/day |
0.0061 nests/day |
-0.0069 nests/day |
|
| Greenfinch |
38 |
132 |
Linear decline |
0.0248 nests/day |
0.018 nests/day |
-0.0068 nests/day |
|
| Barn Owl |
38 |
18 |
Linear decline |
0.0075 nests/day |
0.001 nests/day |
-0.0065 nests/day |
Small sample |
| Marsh Tit |
38 |
20 |
Linear decline |
0.0076 nests/day |
0.0014 nests/day |
-0.0062 nests/day |
Small sample |
| Buzzard |
38 |
26 |
Linear decline |
0.007 nests/day |
0.0012 nests/day |
-0.0058 nests/day |
Small sample |
| Jackdaw |
38 |
54 |
Linear decline |
0.0076 nests/day |
0.002 nests/day |
-0.0056 nests/day |
|
| Kestrel |
38 |
40 |
Linear decline |
0.0055 nests/day |
0.0009 nests/day |
-0.0046 nests/day |
|
| Merlin |
38 |
26 |
Linear decline |
0.0067 nests/day |
0.0024 nests/day |
-0.0043 nests/day |
Small sample |
| Tree Sparrow |
38 |
207 |
Curvilinear |
0.0074 nests/day |
0.0032 nests/day |
-0.0042 nests/day |
|
| Wren |
38 |
141 |
Linear decline |
0.0183 nests/day |
0.0143 nests/day |
-0.004 nests/day |
|
| Sparrowhawk |
38 |
34 |
Linear decline |
0.0047 nests/day |
0.0009 nests/day |
-0.0038 nests/day |
|
| Stonechat |
38 |
35 |
Curvilinear |
0.0052 nests/day |
0.0027 nests/day |
-0.0025 nests/day |
|
| Great Tit |
38 |
265 |
Curvilinear |
0.0068 nests/day |
0.0043 nests/day |
-0.0025 nests/day |
|
| Blue Tit |
38 |
259 |
Linear decline |
0.0046 nests/day |
0.0025 nests/day |
-0.0021 nests/day |
|
| Raven |
38 |
22 |
Curvilinear |
0.0021 nests/day |
0.0009 nests/day |
-0.0012 nests/day |
Small sample |
| Dunnock |
38 |
143 |
Curvilinear |
0.0251 nests/day |
0.0248 nests/day |
-0.0003 nests/day |
|
| Spotted Flycatcher |
38 |
122 |
Curvilinear |
0.0177 nests/day |
0.0188 nests/day |
0.0011 nests/day |
|
| Peregrine |
38 |
21 |
Curvilinear |
0.0014 nests/day |
0.0028 nests/day |
0.0014 nests/day |
Small sample |
| Hen Harrier |
38 |
11 |
Curvilinear |
0.0003 nests/day |
0.0022 nests/day |
0.0019 nests/day |
Small sample |
| Ringed Plover |
38 |
125 |
Linear increase |
0.0236 nests/day |
0.0285 nests/day |
0.0049 nests/day |
|
| Linnet |
38 |
154 |
Curvilinear |
0.0165 nests/day |
0.0229 nests/day |
0.0064 nests/day |
|
| Chaffinch |
38 |
165 |
Curvilinear |
0.0297 nests/day |
0.0368 nests/day |
0.0071 nests/day |
|
| Willow Warbler |
38 |
69 |
Linear increase |
0.0093 nests/day |
0.0166 nests/day |
0.0073 nests/day |
|
| Lapwing |
38 |
133 |
Curvilinear |
0.0167 nests/day |
0.0245 nests/day |
0.0078 nests/day |
|
| Moorhen |
38 |
110 |
Curvilinear |
0.0135 nests/day |
0.0215 nests/day |
0.008 nests/day |
|
| Mute Swan |
38 |
30 |
Curvilinear |
0.0061 nests/day |
0.0141 nests/day |
0.008 nests/day |
Small sample |
| Bullfinch |
38 |
50 |
Curvilinear |
0.0333 nests/day |
0.0413 nests/day |
0.008 nests/day |
|
| Blackbird |
38 |
179 |
Curvilinear |
0.0257 nests/day |
0.0365 nests/day |
0.0108 nests/day |
|
| Oystercatcher |
38 |
112 |
Curvilinear |
0.0143 nests/day |
0.0272 nests/day |
0.0129 nests/day |
|
| Whinchat |
38 |
15 |
Linear increase |
0.0065 nests/day |
0.0217 nests/day |
0.0152 nests/day |
Small sample |
| Reed Bunting |
38 |
52 |
Linear increase |
0.0073 nests/day |
0.0274 nests/day |
0.0201 nests/day |
|
| Nightjar |
38 |
22 |
Linear increase |
0.0138 nests/day |
0.0355 nests/day |
0.0217 nests/day |
Small sample |
See Help for help
with interpretation
Increases in both egg-stage and chick-stage failure rates were
observed for four species: Nightjar, Spotted
Flycatcher, Linnet and Bullfinch.
Use of nest cameras to identify potential nest predators of Nightjar
nests is currently under way in Thetford Forest as part of a collaborative
project between BTO and the University of East Anglia, which is
also monitoring Woodlark. Researchers have also
used nest cameras to observe predation events at Spotted
Flycatcher nests, identifying Jay as the
main predator in their study population in SW England (Stevens
et al. 2008). Predation is not necessarily the only
cause of nest failure, but it is a major cause for open-nesting
bird species.
Eighteen species exhibited declines in both egg-stage and chick-stage
failure rates: Kestrel, Merlin,
Barn Owl, Tawny Owl, Stock
Dove, Sand Martin, Pied Wagtail,
Robin, Redstart, Stonechat,
Magpie, Jackdaw, Carrion
Crow, Raven, Starling,
House Sparrow, Tree Sparrow and
Yellowhammer. For a further six species (Tree
Pipit, Dipper, Whinchat,
Blackbird, Great Tit, Blue
Tit and Long-tailed Tit), better success
at one stage was partly cancelled out by increases in failure rates
at the other, suggesting that different factors may influence productivity
at egg and chick stages.
Table 4.5.2.2
| Grey Heron |
38 |
26 |
Linear decline |
0.054 nests/day |
0.0004 nests/day |
-0.0536 nests/day |
Non-breeders included |
| Corn Bunting |
38 |
11 |
Curvilinear |
0.045 nests/day |
0.0224 nests/day |
-0.0226 nests/day |
Small sample |
| Meadow Pipit |
38 |
60 |
Linear decline |
0.0271 nests/day |
0.0108 nests/day |
-0.0163 nests/day |
|
| Magpie |
38 |
50 |
Linear decline |
0.0173 nests/day |
0.0013 nests/day |
-0.016 nests/day |
|
| Sand Martin |
38 |
36 |
Linear decline |
0.0157 nests/day |
0.0008 nests/day |
-0.0149 nests/day |
|
| Reed Warbler |
38 |
110 |
Curvilinear |
0.0174 nests/day |
0.005 nests/day |
-0.0124 nests/day |
|
| Blackbird |
38 |
154 |
Linear decline |
0.0303 nests/day |
0.0192 nests/day |
-0.0111 nests/day |
|
| Grey Wagtail |
38 |
58 |
Linear decline |
0.0206 nests/day |
0.0098 nests/day |
-0.0108 nests/day |
|
| Jackdaw |
38 |
52 |
Linear decline |
0.0126 nests/day |
0.0024 nests/day |
-0.0102 nests/day |
|
| House Sparrow |
38 |
88 |
Linear decline |
0.013 nests/day |
0.0036 nests/day |
-0.0094 nests/day |
|
| Redstart |
38 |
52 |
Linear decline |
0.0123 nests/day |
0.0039 nests/day |
-0.0084 nests/day |
|
| Collared Dove |
38 |
55 |
Linear decline |
0.0182 nests/day |
0.0106 nests/day |
-0.0076 nests/day |
|
| Stonechat |
38 |
54 |
Curvilinear |
0.0116 nests/day |
0.004 nests/day |
-0.0076 nests/day |
|
| Robin |
38 |
162 |
Curvilinear |
0.0249 nests/day |
0.0177 nests/day |
-0.0072 nests/day |
|
| Merlin |
38 |
29 |
Linear decline |
0.0094 nests/day |
0.0024 nests/day |
-0.007 nests/day |
Small sample |
| Tree Sparrow |
38 |
151 |
Curvilinear |
0.0125 nests/day |
0.0064 nests/day |
-0.0061 nests/day |
|
| Carrion Crow |
38 |
42 |
Linear decline |
0.0074 nests/day |
0.0014 nests/day |
-0.006 nests/day |
Includes Hooded Crow |
| Stock Dove |
38 |
57 |
Linear decline |
0.012 nests/day |
0.0071 nests/day |
-0.0049 nests/day |
|
| Starling |
38 |
136 |
Linear decline |
0.0063 nests/day |
0.0019 nests/day |
-0.0044 nests/day |
|
| Pied Wagtail |
38 |
91 |
Linear decline |
0.0127 nests/day |
0.0084 nests/day |
-0.0043 nests/day |
|
| Yellowhammer |
38 |
52 |
Curvilinear |
0.0462 nests/day |
0.0423 nests/day |
-0.0039 nests/day |
|
| Great Spotted Woodpecker |
38 |
31 |
Linear decline |
0.0037 nests/day |
0.0002 nests/day |
-0.0035 nests/day |
|
| Tawny Owl |
38 |
82 |
Curvilinear |
0.0031 nests/day |
0.0011 nests/day |
-0.002 nests/day |
Nocturnal species |
| Barn Owl |
38 |
69 |
Linear decline |
0.0021 nests/day |
0.0003 nests/day |
-0.0018 nests/day |
|
| Kestrel |
38 |
65 |
Linear decline |
0.0022 nests/day |
0.0009 nests/day |
-0.0013 nests/day |
|
| Raven |
38 |
29 |
Curvilinear |
0.0003 nests/day |
0.0002 nests/day |
-0.0001 nests/day |
Small sample |
| Whinchat |
38 |
26 |
Curvilinear |
0.0261 nests/day |
0.0261 nests/day |
0 nests/day |
Small sample |
| Twite |
38 |
13 |
Curvilinear |
0.0061 nests/day |
0.0062 nests/day |
0.0001 nests/day |
Small sample |
| Dipper |
38 |
78 |
Curvilinear |
0.0059 nests/day |
0.0062 nests/day |
0.0003 nests/day |
|
| Blue Tit |
38 |
194 |
Linear increase |
0.0065 nests/day |
0.0087 nests/day |
0.0022 nests/day |
|
| Swallow |
38 |
251 |
Linear increase |
0.0028 nests/day |
0.0053 nests/day |
0.0025 nests/day |
|
| Great Tit |
38 |
197 |
Linear increase |
0.0057 nests/day |
0.0083 nests/day |
0.0026 nests/day |
|
| Spotted Flycatcher |
38 |
109 |
Linear increase |
0.0098 nests/day |
0.0143 nests/day |
0.0045 nests/day |
|
| Nightjar |
38 |
21 |
Curvilinear |
0.0005 nests/day |
0.0067 nests/day |
0.0062 nests/day |
Small sample |
| Bullfinch |
38 |
34 |
Curvilinear |
0.0336 nests/day |
0.0405 nests/day |
0.0069 nests/day |
|
| Linnet |
38 |
110 |
Linear increase |
0.0152 nests/day |
0.0224 nests/day |
0.0072 nests/day |
|
| Tree Pipit |
38 |
19 |
Curvilinear |
0.0337 nests/day |
0.0411 nests/day |
0.0074 nests/day |
Small sample |
| Long-tailed Tit |
38 |
37 |
Linear increase |
0.008 nests/day |
0.0171 nests/day |
0.0091 nests/day |
|
| Garden Warbler |
38 |
19 |
Linear increase |
0.0105 nests/day |
0.0257 nests/day |
0.0152 nests/day |
Small sample |
See Help for help
with interpretation
Long-term changes in egg-stage or chick-stage nest failure rates
are associated with long-term population trends in a number of species.
Here we highlight those changes that are both statistically significant
and likely to be of biological importance.
Increased nest failure rates were associated with long-term decreases
in population size for ten species, and may have contributed to
the observed population declines of Nightjar, Spotted
Flycatcher, Linnet, Bullfinch
(egg- and chick-stage failure rates increasing), Lapwing,
Willow Warbler and Reed Bunting
(egg-stage failure rates increasing). Although Nightjar
has shown a large historical decline and is red-listed because of
this, it should be noted that recent surveys show a population increase
(Conway et al. 2007).
Reductions in breeding performance at the egg stage have been implicated
in a detailed analysis of the population declines of the Linnet
(Siriwardena et
al. 2000b), but the extent to which decreased productivity
has influenced Bullfinch population trends is still not clearly
understood (Siriwardena
et al. 2001). It has also been suggested that
poor breeding performance may be preventing the recovery of Reed
Bunting populations (Peach
et al. 1999). The increasing trend in egg- and chick-stage
failure rates of Spotted Flycatcher has only recently
become significant and previous work suggested that other demographic
factors were more important in the decline of this species (Freeman
& Crick 2003). Researchers have failed to find any trend
in survival rates that might explain declines in Lapwing
numbers (Peach et al.
1994, King et al.
2008), and a fall in productivity is thought to have been a
major factor (Galbraith 1988),
although a recent study failed to find any correlation between nest
failure rates and changes in abundance at a regional scale (Sharpe
et al. 2008). The population decline of Willow Warbler
is much more pronounced in the south of the UK than in Scotland,
and collaborative project between BTO and the University of East
Anglia is currently investigating whether demographic parameters,
including productivity, exhibit the similar patterns of spatial
variation. Failure rates are also thought to be increasing at the
egg and chick stages for the declining Hen Harrier
and Twite, although sample sizes for both are extremely
limited, and at the egg stage for Moorhen, a species
for which the current population trajectory is unclear but which
did decline in abundance during the 1980s.
Sixteen species showed clear associations between long-term increases
in abundance and long-term reductions in nest failure rates. Sparrowhawk,
Buzzard, Wren and Greenfinch
experienced reduced nest failure rates at the egg stage, while Grey
Heron, Great Spotted Woodpecker and Collared
Dove exhibited a reduction in failure rates at the chick
stage. The remaining nine species (Barn Owl, Stock
Dove, Robin, Redstart,
Stonechat, Magpie, Jackdaw,
Carrion Crow and Raven) displayed
reduced failure rates at both the egg and chick stages. Corvids,
such as Magpie, Jackdaw, Carrion
Crow and Raven, appear to have benefited
from improvements in nesting success at the egg stage, as have owls
and raptors such as Barn Owl, Sparrowhawk
and Buzzard. Decreased persecution and reduction
in the use of pesticides are likely to have been important factors
in the recovery of these species. The improvements in the nesting
success of Stock Dove could have had a major impact
on the size of the population, given the high number of breeding
attempts made by this species each year, and the decreased chick-stage
failure rates of Collared Dove may have aided the
rapid growth of the UK population over the last 38 years. Grey
Heron populations have increased over the last 70 years,
and improvements in chick-stage nest survival may have played a
part in this increase. Greenfinch has rapidly adapted
to the provision of supplementary food in gardens and is now very
much associated with human habitats. Such provisioning may lead
to increased productivity because of its positive impact on adult
body condition. Causes of the reduction in failure rates for Wren,
Robin, Redstart and Stonechat
are less clear, although all feed primarily on ground-dwelling invertebrates
and changes in arthropod abundance or activity could be responsible.
Inverse associations between changes in egg- or chick-stage nest
survival and population trends are found in some 23 species. Such
relationships may arise through density-dependent processes where
increased competition leads to increased failure rates at higher
population densities. Four increasing species (Mute Swan,
Peregrine, Oystercatcher and Chaffinch)
showed long-term increases in egg-stage failure rates, while 19
declining species showed evidence of improving nesting success.
Ringed Plover, Snipe, Redshank,
Woodlark, Dunnock, Wheatear,
Sedge Warbler, Wood Warbler and
Marsh Tit showed decreasing failure at the egg
stage while decreasing chick-stage failure rates were identified
for Meadow Pipit, Grey Wagtail
and Corn Bunting. The remaining seven species,
Kestrel, Merlin, Starling,
House Sparrow, Tree Sparrow, Yellowhammer
and Pied Wagtail (which is thought to be declining
in waterway habitats), exhibited decreasing failure rates at both
stages.
Several species demonstrated a decrease in failure rates at one
stage but a compensatory increase at the other, including Dipper,
Great Tit, Blue Tit, Long-tailed
Tit, Tree Pipit, Whinchat
(declining egg failure, increasing chick failure) and Blackbird
(increasing egg-stage failure, declining chick-stage failure).
4.5.3 Changes in productivity from Constant
Effort Scheme ringing data
The CES started monitoring populations in 1983, so the changes
in productivity shown in Table 4.5.3 cover roughly half the time
period of the Nest Record Scheme results. The CES data set is unique
in providing relative measures of adult abundance and productivity
from the same set of sites in wetland and scrub habitats. While
the NRS data set monitors the productivity of individual nesting
attempts, the proportion of juveniles in the CES catch provides
a relative measure of annual variation in productivity that integrates
the effects of the number of fledglings produced per attempt, number
of nesting attempts and immediate post-fledging survival. Use of
these two techniques in combination provides a powerful method of
determining which factors are responsible for observed declines
in recruitment of young birds into the breeding population.
Overall, ten species exhibit declines of greater than 25% in the
proportion of juveniles captured, while only Chaffinch
shows an increase of greater than 25% in the ratio of juveniles
to adults. Six of these species, Nightingale, Sedge
Warbler, Blue Tit, Linnet,
Goldfinch and Reed Bunting, all
exhibit declines in the proportion of juveniles captured over the
last 20 years of greater than 50%, although it should be noted that
Nightingale occurs on a relatively small number
of plots. A further four species show reductions in relative productivity
of between 25% and 50%: Song Thrush, Blackcap,
Willow Warbler and Great Tit.
Of the nine of these species for which sufficient Nest Record Scheme
data are available for comparison (Nightingale
is excluded), six have also been identified as exhibiting negative
trends in either clutch size, brood size or nest survival (Sedge
Warbler, Willow Warbler, Blue
Tit, Great Tit, Linnet
and Reed Bunting).
Six of the ten species exhibiting productivity declines greater
than 25% (Nightingale, Song Thrush,
Sedge Warbler, Willow Warbler,
Linnet and Reed Bunting) have
experienced significant population declines, either on CES sites
or more widely (based on CBC/BBS figures). For Linnet
there is good evidence that variation in productivity has been important
in driving the decline (Siriwardena
et al. 2000b), but for Song Thrush,
Willow Warbler and Reed Bunting
other work indicates that variation in survival rates is likely
to have been a more important contributor to population changes
(Peach et al. 1995a,
Peach et al. 1999,
Robinson et al.
2004, Baillie et
al. 2008). The large decline in Nightingale
productivity may have contributed to the complex changes in its
distribution shown by the 1999
survey, which identified decreases in
abundance over large parts of the species' range. The four other
species (Blackcap, Great Tit,
Blue Tit, and Goldfinch) demonstrating
marked reductions in productivity on CES sites have not experienced
related declines in abundance, either on CES sites or more widely.
These productivity declines may be driven by density-dependent processes,
whereby increased competition for resources in an expanding population
reduces the mean breeding success per pair.
Taking the CES data set as a whole, 20 species show some decline
in productivity over the last 22 years while only five show increases.
The strong preponderance of trends towards lower productivity requires
urgent and more detailed investigation.
Table 4.5.3
See Help for help
with interpretation
4.5.4 Changes in average laying dates
from Nest Record Scheme data
Over the past 25 years, many species have exhibited a trend towards
progressively earlier clutch initiation (Crick
et al. 1997) with laying dates showing curvilinear
responses over the past 50 years as spring temperatures have cooled
and then warmed (Crick
& Sparks 1999). Table 4.5.4 confirms that over the past
38 years the majority of species exhibiting significant trends show
an advancement of laying dates rather than a delay. Thus 40 species
are laying between 31 days and 1 day earlier, on average, than they
were 38 years ago. Three species, Nightjar, Twite
and Wood Warbler, are added to the list of earlier
layers published in the previous report in this series. There are
no taxonomic or ecological associations between the species showing
such changes, and they seem to occur across a wide range of species
(Crick et al. 1997).
Only two species, Skylark and Yellowhammer,
show significant changes towards later laying, and sample sizes
are small. Both of these species are multi-brooded, however, and
it may be that differences in the ratio of first to repeat broods
initiated may be obscuring advances in laying date. Evidence of
temporal and spatial variation in Yellowhammer
repeat-brooding over time is currently being investigated in a collaborative
research project between BTO and Aberdeen University. It is likely
that the laying dates of the majority of those species that do not
show a significant trend in timing of laying are related to some
aspect of weather, but that those aspects do not show any trend
over time (Crick & Sparks
1999).
The significance of the changes in phenology for breeding performance
not well understood but is an active research area within several
research groups. Earlier average laying may be beneficial for birds
because earlier fledging is often related to improved survival to
the following year – early-nesting parents have an increased
chance of having their offspring recruited into the next generation
(Visser et al. 1998).
However, the timing of leaf emergence and the speed of caterpillar
development is also changing under increased temperatures (Buse
et al. 1999, Visser
& Holleman 2001) and the results of several recent studies
have suggested that some birds may be unable to advance their phenology
sufficiently to match phenological changes in their food supply,
such that later-nesting birds are suffering from poorer productivity.
Both et al. (2006)
demonstrated that mismatches between periods of food availability
and chick demand can affect abundance in Dutch Pied Flycatcher
populations, with those demonstrating the largest mismatches between
arrival in spring and peak caterpillar abundance exhibiting the
greatest declines. As a consequence of climate change there may
be an increasing mismatch between predator activities and the availability
of their food supplies at different trophic levels within ecosystems
(Both et al. 2009).
The conservation significance of such phenological disjunction remains
an active research area with potentially important policy implications
for conservation.
Table 4.5.4
| Magpie |
38 |
35 |
Curvilinear |
Apr 21 |
Mar 21 |
-31 days |
|
| Grey Heron |
38 |
26 |
Linear decline |
Apr 8 |
Mar 11 |
-28 days |
Non-breeders included |
| Long-tailed Tit |
38 |
44 |
Linear decline |
Apr 21 |
Apr 6 |
-15 days |
|
| Greenfinch |
38 |
95 |
Linear decline |
May 25 |
May 10 |
-15 days |
|
| Chiffchaff |
38 |
44 |
Linear decline |
May 17 |
May 3 |
-14 days |
|
| Redstart |
38 |
61 |
Curvilinear |
May 21 |
May 9 |
-12 days |
|
| Nuthatch |
38 |
26 |
Linear decline |
May 2 |
Apr 21 |
-11 days |
Small sample |
| Carrion Crow |
38 |
32 |
Curvilinear |
Apr 16 |
Apr 5 |
-11 days |
Includes Hooded Crow |
| Tree Pipit |
38 |
19 |
Linear decline |
May 25 |
May 16 |
-9 days |
Small sample |
| Dipper |
38 |
59 |
Linear decline |
Apr 18 |
Apr 9 |
-9 days |
|
| Blackcap |
38 |
37 |
Curvilinear |
May 20 |
May 11 |
-9 days |
|
| Marsh Tit |
38 |
14 |
Linear decline |
Apr 28 |
Apr 19 |
-9 days |
Small sample |
| Treecreeper |
38 |
13 |
Linear decline |
May 7 |
Apr 28 |
-9 days |
Small sample |
| Swallow |
38 |
105 |
Curvilinear |
Jun 20 |
Jun 12 |
-8 days |
|
| Garden Warbler |
38 |
21 |
Curvilinear |
May 25 |
May 17 |
-8 days |
Small sample |
| Chaffinch |
38 |
107 |
Linear decline |
May 11 |
May 3 |
-8 days |
|
| Oystercatcher |
38 |
46 |
Linear decline |
May 17 |
May 10 |
-7 days |
|
| Tawny Owl |
38 |
14 |
Linear decline |
Mar 29 |
Mar 22 |
-7 days |
Nocturnal species |
| Whitethroat |
38 |
18 |
Curvilinear |
May 26 |
May 19 |
-7 days |
Small sample |
| Blue Tit |
38 |
197 |
Linear decline |
May 3 |
Apr 26 |
-7 days |
|
| Great Tit |
38 |
176 |
Linear decline |
May 4 |
Apr 27 |
-7 days |
|
| House Sparrow |
38 |
51 |
Linear decline |
May 25 |
May 18 |
-7 days |
|
| Goldfinch |
38 |
22 |
Linear decline |
Jun 6 |
May 30 |
-7 days |
Small sample |
| Lesser Redpoll |
38 |
11 |
Curvilinear |
May 26 |
May 19 |
-7 days |
Small sample |
| Kestrel |
38 |
21 |
Linear decline |
May 4 |
Apr 28 |
-6 days |
Small sample |
| Robin |
38 |
120 |
Linear decline |
Apr 28 |
Apr 22 |
-6 days |
|
| Stonechat |
38 |
35 |
Curvilinear |
May 3 |
Apr 27 |
-6 days |
|
| Ring Ouzel |
38 |
24 |
Linear decline |
May 14 |
May 8 |
-6 days |
Small sample |
| Sedge Warbler |
38 |
49 |
Curvilinear |
May 29 |
May 23 |
-6 days |
|
| Reed Warbler |
38 |
159 |
Curvilinear |
Jun 16 |
Jun 10 |
-6 days |
|
| Willow Warbler |
38 |
84 |
Linear decline |
May 20 |
May 14 |
-6 days |
|
| Moorhen |
38 |
68 |
Linear decline |
May 10 |
May 5 |
-5 days |
|
| Wren |
38 |
87 |
Linear decline |
May 14 |
May 9 |
-5 days |
|
| Whinchat |
38 |
27 |
Curvilinear |
May 28 |
May 23 |
-5 days |
Small sample |
| Wood Warbler |
38 |
31 |
Curvilinear |
May 23 |
May 18 |
-5 days |
|
| Jackdaw |
38 |
23 |
Curvilinear |
Apr 23 |
Apr 18 |
-5 days |
Small sample |
| Tree Sparrow |
38 |
167 |
Linear decline |
May 29 |
May 24 |
-5 days |
|
| Twite |
38 |
16 |
Linear decline |
Jun 2 |
May 28 |
-5 days |
Small sample |
| Dunnock |
38 |
79 |
Linear decline |
May 3 |
Apr 29 |
-4 days |
|
| Nightjar |
38 |
18 |
Curvilinear |
Jun 17 |
Jun 16 |
-1 days |
Small sample |
| Skylark |
38 |
20 |
Curvilinear |
May 25 |
Jun 1 |
7 days |
Small sample |
| Yellowhammer |
38 |
27 |
Linear increase |
May 30 |
Jun 7 |
8 days |
Small sample |
See Help
for help with interpretation
Return to previous
page
Next page –
4.6 Conclusion
|