Female begging calls reflect nutritional need of nestlings in the hen harrier Circus cyaneus

BACKGROUND: Most birds exhibit bi-parental care with both sexes providing food for their young. Nestling signal food needs through begging. However, for some species, males rarely visit the nest, so have limited opportunity for gaining information directly from the chicks. Instead, females beg when males deliver food. We tested whether this calling signalled nutritional need and specifically the needs of the female (Breeder Need hypothesis) or that of their chicks (Offspring Need hypothesis). RESULTS: We observed begging and provisioning rates at 42 nests of hen harrier (Circus cyaneus) in Scotland, explored the factors associated with variation in begging rate and the relationship between begging and provisioning. We also tested the impact of food on begging and provisioning through a feeding experiment. Female begging rate increased up to a chick age of 3 weeks and then tailed off. In addition, begging increased when broods were large. CONCLUSIONS: Our data provided support for the Offspring Need hypothesis. At nests where adlib food was provided females reduced their begging rate. These patterns suggested that female begging was an honest signal of need. However, begging continued even with adlib food and was only weakly associated with greater provisioning by males, suggesting that these calls may also play an additional role, possibly reflecting sexual or parent-offspring conflict

Modelling Hen Harrier Dynamics to Inform Human-Wildlife Conflict Resolution : A Spatially-Realistic, Individual-Based Approach

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Ranging behaviour of hen harriers breeding in Special Protection Areas in Scotland

Capsule: Breeding female Hen Harriers hunted mostly within 1 km from the nest and males mostly within 2 km. Aims: To quantify temporal and spatial variation in home-range sizes and hunting distances of breeding male and female Hen Harriers. Methods: We radio-tracked ten breeding harriers (five males and five females) in three Special Protection Areas in Scotland between 2002 and 2004. Results: Male Hen Harriers travelled up to 9 km from nests but had a home-range size that averaged only 8 km2 (90% kernel); average home-range size for females was 4.5 km2. Hunting distances did not vary throughout the season. No significant differences were found among study areas, but there was large individual variability. Conclusion: Our results provide information on foraging harriers to support management: actions within 1 km of nesting sites will favour both sexes, and within 2 km will mostly favour males. Our data also suggest overlap between foraging areas of neighbouring birds. Thus, there is the potential for good foraging areas to be utilized by multiple breeding pairs

Individuals and Multilevel Management: A Study of the Perceived Adaptive Capacity of the Goose Management System among Farmers in Sweden

Agricultural damage by geese is a growing problem in Europe and farmers play a key role in the emerging multilevel adaptive management system. This study explored how characteristics associated with the farmer and the farm, along with experience of damage, cognitive appraisals, emotions, and management beliefs were associated with the perceived adaptive capacity of the goose management system among farmers in the south of Sweden (n = 1,067). Survey results revealed that owning a larger farm, a farm closer to water or formally protected areas, along with cultivating cereal and root crops, were associated with geese evoking stronger negative emotions. Further, more previous experience of damage was related to stronger negative emotions and lower levels of perceived adaptive capacity. However, even more important determinants of perceived adaptive capacity were cognitive appraisals, emotions, and management beliefs. Bridging the ties between individual farmers and the system is important for improved multilevel management

The role of parasite-driven selection in shaping landscape genomic structure in red grouse (Lagopus lagopus scotica)

Acknowledgements This study was funded by a BBSRC studentship (MAW) and NERC grants NE/H00775X/1 and NE/D000602/1 (SBP). The authors are grateful to Mario Röder and Keliya Bai for fieldwork assistance, and all estate owners, factors and keepers for access to field sites, most particularly MJ Taylor and Mike Nisbet (Airlie), Neil Brown (Allargue), RR Gledson and David Scrimgeour (Delnadamph), Andrew Salvesen and John Hay (Dinnet), Stuart Young and Derek Calder (Edinglassie), Kirsty Donald and David Busfield (Glen Dye), Neil Hogbin and Ab Taylor (Glen Muick), Alistair Mitchell (Glenlivet), Simon Blackett, Jim Davidson and Liam Donald (Invercauld), Richard Cooke and Fred Taylor† (Invermark), Shaila Rao and Christopher Murphy (Mar Lodge), and Ralph Peters and Philip Astor (Tillypronie). S.B.P. and S.M.R. conceived and designed the study. M.A.W. performed field and laboratory work. A.D. and M.C.J. developed SNP markers. M.A.W. analysed the data. M.A.W. and S.B.P. wrote the manuscript.Peer reviewedPostprin

Experimental study on the effect of cover and vaccination on the survival of juvenile European rabbits

et al.In Mediterranean ecosystems, the European rabbit is a keystone species that has declined dramatically, with profound implications for conservation and management. Predation and disease acting on juveniles are considered the likely causes. In the field, these processes are managed by removing predators, increasing cover to reduce predation risk and by vaccinating against myxomatosis. These manipulations can be costly and, when protected predators are killed, they can also be damaging to conservation interests. Our goal was to test the effectiveness of cover and vaccination on juvenile survival in two large enclosures, free of mammalian predators, by adding cover and vaccinating juveniles. Rabbit warrens were our experimental unit, with nine replicates of four treatments: control, cover, vaccination, and cover and vaccination combined. Our results showed that improved cover systematically increased juvenile rabbit survival, whereas vaccination had no clear effect and the interactive effect was negligible. Our experimental data suggest that improved cover around warrens is an effective way of increasing rabbit abundance in Mediterranean ecosystems, at least when generalist mammalian predators are scarce. In contrast the vaccination programme was of limited benefit, raising questions about its efficacy as a management tool.Funding was provided by Confederación Hidrográfica del Guadalquivir and the projects CGL2009-11665/BOS, PEII 09-0097-4363, POII09-0099-2557. C.F. was supported by a PhD grant (Ref. SFRH/BD/22084/2005) funded by the Fundaçao para a Ciência e Tecnologia of the Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior, Portuguese government. S.R. was supported by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology and a grant from NERC.Peer Reviewe

The State of Knowledge and Practice on Human-Wildlife Conflicts

Conflicts in conservation are widespread issues of global concern, seriously threatening worldwide goals of biodiversity preservation and sustainable development. As the human population rises, and wider environmental issues, such as climate change and habitat degradation, continue to escalate, conflicts are predicted to increase in both frequency and intensity. In recognition of the severity of such problems and the multiple threats they present, international organisations, governments, and research institutes alike have expanded their efforts into the understanding and resolution of conflicts. Despite this increasing attention from both academic and empirical perspectives, conflicts persist, fostering environmental, social, economic and political problems on a global scale. Scholars and experts have suggested that, in order to progress, a complete overhaul is required in how we frame, think about, and manage conflicts in conservation. However, such suggestions are yet to be translated into a more practical context. A consortium of Griffith University in Australia, the Namibian Nature Foundation, and WWF, being incubated by the Luc Hoffmann Institute, is exploring the potential for a novel initiative that will address the shortcomings of present management efforts. This initiative would involve developing and testing a new process in conflict management: the creation of a standard to guide and improve approaches to conflicts globally. This report provides the starting point for this process. From an extensive review of the literature and interviews with leading experts, we present an overview of current conflict management, associated problems. and knowledge gaps, as well as areas in which management might be improved. We then examine the possibility of combining these insights into a standardised approach to guide future management, focusing on the governance and social outcomes of conflict management

The State of Knowledge and Practice on Human-Wildlife Conflicts

Conflicts in conservation are widespread issues of global concern, seriously threatening worldwide goals of biodiversity preservation and sustainable development. As the human population rises, and wider environmental issues, such as climate change and habitat degradation, continue to escalate, conflicts are predicted to increase in both frequency and intensity. In recognition of the severity of such problems and the multiple threats they present, international organisations, governments, and research institutes alike have expanded their efforts into the understanding and resolution of conflicts. Despite this increasing attention from both academic and empirical perspectives, conflicts persist, fostering environmental, social, economic and political problems on a global scale. Scholars and experts have suggested that, in order to progress, a complete overhaul is required in how we frame, think about, and manage conflicts in conservation. However, such suggestions are yet to be translated into a more practical context. A consortium of Griffith University in Australia, the Namibian Nature Foundation, and WWF, being incubated by the Luc Hoffmann Institute, is exploring the potential for a novel initiative that will address the shortcomings of present management efforts. This initiative would involve developing and testing a new process in conflict management: the creation of a standard to guide and improve approaches to conflicts globally. This report provides the starting point for this process. From an extensive review of the literature and interviews with leading experts, we present an overview of current conflict management, associated problems. and knowledge gaps, as well as areas in which management might be improved. We then examine the possibility of combining these insights into a standardised approach to guide future management, focusing on the governance and social outcomes of conflict management

Fighting talk: organisational discourses of the conflict over raptors and grouse moor management in Scotland

Conflict is currently one of the greatest challenges facing wildlife conservation. Whilst conflicts may first appear to concern wildlife, they are often embedded within wider debates surrounding land use, land ownership, and the governance of natural resources. Disputes over the impacts or management of a species therefore become symbols for conflicts that are fundamentally between the divergent interests and values of the people involved. NGOs representing the interests of local stakeholders can become actors within the conflict, often utilising publicly available platforms such as websites and social media in an attempt to influence over others and gain a dominant foothold in the debate. Here, we examined discourses of organisations in relation to a contentious and high-profile case of conflict in Scotland, that occurs between interests of raptor conservation and grouse moor management. News articles sourced from the websites of six organisations – identified as key voices in the debate – were subjected to discourse analysis. 36 storylines were drawn from common phrases and statements within the text. Storylines demonstrated a clear divide in the discourse; organisations differed not only in their portrayal of central issues, but also in their representation of other actors. Discourses were strategic; organisations interpreted the situation in ways that either supported their own interests and agendas, or damaged the image of opposing parties. We argue that discursive contestation at this level could be damaging to mitigation efforts – widening barriers between stakeholders and risking already fragile relationships. This in turn reduces the likelihood of consensus and impacts on successful decision-making and policy implementation. We conclude that conflict managers should be aware of the contestation between high-profile actors, and the ramifications this may have for conflict mitigation processes. An understanding of what constitutes these discourses should therefore be used as a foundation to improve dialogue and collaborative management

Who knows best? Understanding the use of research-based knowledge in conservation conflicts

The way in which research-based knowledge is used, interpreted and communicated by different actors can influence the dynamics of conservation conflicts. The conflict that occurs between grouse shooting interests and the conservation of birds of prey in Scotland is notoriously complex, involving multiple actors at multiple levels, and shaped by the values and world views of these actors. This paper explores how research-based knowledge is used in the debate by six key organisations, and looks to understand the drivers that may influence knowledge use and interpretation in this, and other, cases of conservation conflict. Research was used to both legitimise and reinforce certain world views, and to support associated political actions that would cause these to become reality. Actors offered divergent interpretations of the same piece of research, emphasising different findings and outcomes. Research-based knowledge was thus employed by actors to support or counter the ‘status quo’, and challenge other claims that clashed with their own values. Although the intention of such knowledge use is unclear, the selective reconstruction of research by actors could stem from, and reiterate, divergent value systems. This may pose significant challenges to conflict mitigation efforts; whilst some may look to research-based knowledge as the bringer of truth, its interpretation by different actors may exacerbate existing rifts between stakeholders; promoting polarisation of views. Mitigation strategies should be sensitive to this, and aim to improve the inclusiveness and transparency of the knowledge transfer process