CONSERVATIONSCIENCE IN THE RSPB
2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001
The RSPB works for a healthy environment rich in birds and
wildlife. It depends on the support and generosity of others to
make a difference. The RSPB works with bird and habitat
conservation organisations worldwide in a global partnership
called BirdLife International.
The RSPB prides itself on using the best scientific evidence
available to guide its conservation policies and practice. Only by
basing our work on such evidence can we be confident that our
actions will be of benefit to birds and other wildlife.
For further copies of this report, please contact the Conservation
Science Department, The RSPB, UK Headquarters, Sandy,
Bedfordshire SG19 2DL, or visit www.rspb.org.uk.
1CONSERVATION SCIENCEIN THE RSPB, 2001
Andrew Hay (RSPB Im
ages)Andrew
Hay (RSPB Images)
FOREWORDmanagement of our 172 nature reserves and
to influence government policy, nationally
and internationally. If the RSPB is to achieve
its ambitious future conservation goals then
we will need to combine our scientific
knowledge with policy development and
advocacy to influence not only UK wildlife
legislation but also wider policy areas such
as agriculture, fisheries and planning.
For many declining species, RSPB research
has provided much of the information on
which successful conservation action has
been based. This has led to marked
population recoveries. For example, we have
shown that to reverse the rapid decline of
the bittern population it was necessary to
halt the natural succession of its reed habitat
to scrub. This knowledge was used to
manage RSPB and other reserves, such that
bittern numbers have tripled in the last five
years. For several birds of farmland,
including corncrakes, stone-curlews and cirl
buntings, research to elucidate causes of
decline was followed by implementation of
2
Dr Mark Avery
Director,
Conservation,
The RSPB
Supported by more than one
million members, the RSPB is
the largest wildlife conservation
charity in Europe. We promote
and practise evidence-based
conservation, and endeavour to
use the best scientific evidence
available to guide our work.
During its 112-year history, the RSPB has
aspired to develop a blueprint for translating
the results of scientific research into
successful conservation action. Working with
an array of partners, we monitor bird
populations to set conservation priorities, to
assess the efficacy of conservation actions
and to produce indicators of sustainability
that have been adopted by government.
Through our research, we have diagnosed
the causes of decline of many species, have
developed and tested practical solutions,
and have used this knowledge to guide the
RSPB research wascentral to recovery ofcirl buntings in the UK.
Mik
e La
ne (R
SPB
Imag
es)
government- and occasionally RSPB-funded
farm-based conservation programmes. These
too led to marked population recoveries.
The RSPB works with other BirdLife partners
in many countries worldwide and research
has contributed to significant population
increases in such critically endangered
species as the bald ibis and Seychelles
magpie-robin.
To ensure that our conservation work is based
on scientific evidence, we invest – and will
continue to invest – in applied conservation
science. A core of 70 or so permanent and
long-term contract staff undertakes this work,
most within the RSPB’s Conservation Science
Department but also in our Reserves Ecology
Section, Biodiversity Unit and Conservation
Data Management Unit. Between them, these
staff are involved in more than 100 projects
annually, ranging from surveys of little-known
but threatened invertebrates to predicting
the likely impacts of climate change on
Europe’s birds.
The RSPB is committed to sharing its
scientific knowledge with as wide an audience
as possible, and it is for this reason that I
have great pleasure in presenting the RSPB’s
first report on its scientific work, Conservation
science in the RSPB, 2001. While this report
does not attempt to cover all of our scientific
work, it uses the results from 24 projects to
illustrate the depth and breadth of our
research and monitoring.
We hope to be able to produce such reports
annually, and would be delighted to hear
any suggestions you may have to improve
the report’s content.
FORE
WOR
D
3
Left: RSPB researchcontributed to recovery of theSeychelles magpie-robin.
Below: Gillian Gilbert (r) andSarah Ruff (l) electrofishing.
Bottom: Ken Smith (r) andGlen Tyler (l) radio-trackingbitterns.Ch
ris G
omer
sall
(RSP
B Im
ages
)An
drew
Hay
(RSP
B Im
ages
)An
drew
Hay
(RSP
B Im
ages
)
Arguably, 2001 was the most
inauspicious year on which to
base the first annual report of the
RSPB’s conservation science
programme. It was the first year
in memory that the RSPB has
cancelled such a high proportion
of its planned fieldwork, due to
the outbreak of foot-and-mouth
disease. The timing of the
outbreak could barely have been
worse for our research and
monitoring work, as many of the
season’s field staff had been
appointed only a few days before
the initial outbreak.
The near-total closure of the countryside
across much of UK at the outset of bird
breeding seasons meant that we had to
postpone many field projects. We were able
to continue some, but greatly scaled down.
Viewed over the longer term, perhaps, the
impact of foot-and-mouth on our scientific
work will not seem quite so devastating.
Most projects postponed in 2001 re-started
in 2002, so we will have collected the
information, but a year later. It is probably
our monitoring work, undertaken principally
with the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO),
the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust (WWT) and
the statutory nature conservation agencies,
which suffered most. We will have lost the
best part of a year of data from several long-
running monitoring schemes.
Despite the bleak start to the year, there
were still many highlights. One of the
greatest of these was the government’s
increasing commitment to agri-environment
schemes, such as the roll-out of arable
options within the Countryside Stewardship
Scheme (CSS), in which farmers manage
land to benefit wildlife. The CSS has been a
product of close collaboration between
government, independent scientists –
including those from the RSPB – farmers
and advisors. It contains a menu of practical
and effective prescriptions to make farmland
more wildlife-friendly; many of these
prescriptions are based on RSPB research.
Our work on cirl buntings (p 20) and
breeding waders (p 35), for example,
demonstrates that carefully targeted
schemes can improve biodiversity. The
RSPB’s acquisition of Hope Farm, a lowland
arable farm in Cambridgeshire, allows us to
trial such prescriptions on our own land.
During 2001, we began research aimed at
returning some of the beneficial
characteristics of spring cropping to wildlife-
unfriendly winter wheat fields.
Although much of the monitoring in which
the RSPB is a partner was cancelled, three
common bird monitoring schemes, in Spain
(p 11), Hungary and Poland, continued
unaffected. At the same time, we instigated
a new project to collate common bird
monitoring information across Europe to
allow us to produce pan-European trends.
Back in the UK, we worked with the BTO and
the Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs (DEFRA) to update the wild bird
‘quality of life’ indicator (p 13) and with the
BTO and WWT to produce State of the UK’s
birds, 2000, the second in a series of annual
reports. Ten years of monitoring birds on
our own land has demonstrated the
importance of the RSPB reserve network in
conserving the UK’s most threatened species
(p 14).
4 INTRODUCTION
Dr David Gibbons
Head of
Conservation
Science, The RSPB
Not all of the monitoring work in which we are
involved is on birds. For example, a survey of
the hoverfly Hammerschmidtia ferruginea in
aspen stands in North Scotland estimated its
UK population at 300 individuals. We also now
have a more thorough understanding of the
status and distribution of the medicinal leech
following a UK-wide survey.
Over the last two decades, the RSPB has
developed a well-respected niche in diagnosing
the causes of decline of many threatened bird
species through research into their ecology.
Our work on skylarks (p 18), for example, has
shown that the switch from spring to autumn
sowing of cereals has been one of the main
drivers of this species decline. Some of the
results of this research were published in 2001
in The ecology and conservation of skylarks,
the proceedings of an RSPB/BTO conference.
Our work on song thrushes (p 19) suggests that
in arable landscapes, woodland and grassland
are needed to ensure sufficient invertebrates to
allow thrushes to continue nesting throughout
the summer.
RSPB/English Nature (EN) research has shown
that the natural succession of reedbeds to carr
makes them less suitable for bitterns (p 21).
Therefore, reedbeds need to be made wetter to
halt this succession and the bittern’s decline.
Our research on the black-tailed godwit (p 22),
by contrast, has shown that this species needs
less, rather than more, water as its decline at
the Ouse Washes, formerly its stronghold, has
been driven by the increased incidence of
spring flooding.
Abroad, the alarming decline of Gyps vultures
in India became ever more apparent (p 25) and
we stepped up our efforts to diagnose the
cause of these declines. On the sub-continent,
we also obtained the first recording of the call
of the globally threatened Jerdon’s courser,
which will allow us to assess its status more
fully in the future. On the south Atlantic island
of Gough, we discovered that introduced house
mice may be predators of globally threatened
Tristan albatross chicks (p 26), while on the
Caribbean island of Montserrat, introduced rats
INTR
ODUC
TION
5
Left: Research has shownthe need to keepreedbeds wet for bitterns.
Below: The impact ofpredators on capercailliehas been testedexperimentally.
Bottom: DPhil studentDavid Hole and SashaNorris check a housesparrow nestbox.
Andr
ew H
ay (R
SPB
Imag
es)
Rich
ard
Broo
ks (R
SPB
Imag
es)
Pete
Cai
rns
(RSP
B Im
ages
)
reduced the nesting success of the island’s
endemic oriole, a species that has already
lost two-thirds of its range to volcanic
activity. All of our international projects are
undertaken with a range of partners. The UK
Government, specifically the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office and the Darwin
Initiative, help fund many of them.
Though research into the ecology of
threatened species will always form a large
part of the RSPB’s work, there are
circumstances where it may be more efficient
to undertake research on an ecological
process. Because of this, research into
process ecology has accounted for an
increasing proportion of our work. Here we
report on research into a range of ecological
processes, from the impacts of intensive
agriculture on European birds (p 30) and
grazing on moorland birds (p 32), to the
impact of native and introduced predators on
capercaillies (p 33) and breeding waders
respectively (p 34). In addition to undertaking
our own research on the effects of climate
change on European breeding bird
distributions (p 37) in 2001, we published
with partners the conference proceedings
Impacts of climate change on wildlife.
For clarity, the bulk of this report is divided
into three sections, covering the main
aspects of our work – ie monitoring and
prioritisation, species ecology, and process
ecology. In the interests of brevity, we do
not report on all of the scientific work
undertaken during 2001, but provide brief
synopses of the results of 24 projects.
Some of these have recently finished, with
results published or in press, while others
are at an earlier stage of development, so
the results are only provisional. We have
listed all scientific projects undertaken by
the RSPB at the end of the report.
The RSPB invests considerable resources
on the results of its scientific research and
asks others to do the same. It is therefore
vital that our research is of the highest
quality, which is why we place great
emphasis on publishing our results in
peer-reviewed scientific journals. To allow
the reader to judge the quality of our
work, we have included a full list of our
scientific publications for 2001 and the
first half of 2002 towards the back of
this report.
I hope that you find the report interesting.
INTR
ODUC
TION
6
Mik
e Re
ad (R
SPB
Imag
es)
The RSPB’s OuseWashes reserve inCambridgeshire.
FUNDINGWhile its members and supporters fund
most of the RSPB’s scientific work, many
organisations (listed below) have funded
specific projects through, for example,
research contracts and grants towards
partnership projects. Many of those listed
are also active partners in the research, or
may have provided support for wider
conservation action.
Anglian WaterBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilBritish Potato CouncilCJ WildBird FoodsCountryside Council for WalesCrop Protection Association UKDarwin InitiativeDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural AffairsEnglish NatureEnvironment and Heritage ServiceEU LIFE FundForeign and Commonwealth OfficeForestry CommissionFrizzell InsuranceGlaxoSmithKlineHome Grown Cereals AuthorityJoint Nature Conservation CommitteeNational TrustSafeway Stores plcSainsbury’s Supermarkets LtdScottish Natural HeritageScottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs DepartmentSyngenta Crop Protection UKTesco
FUN
DIN
G
7Sources of fundingfor RSPB science2001/02.
RSPB scienceexpenditure 2001/02(£3,142,985).
By working with a wide range of partners,
listed below, the RSPB is able to maximise
both the quantity and quality of conservation
science that it undertakes. The value of
partnerships is nowhere more evident than in
the contribution made by the thousands of
birdwatchers that take part in bird monitoring.
Their contribution is invaluable.
Academy of Sciences, BelarusAculeate Conservation GroupAgricultural Development and Advisory ServiceAtlantic Frontier Environmental NetworkAquatic Warbler Conservation TeamAustralian Animal Health LaboratoryBird Conservation Belarus (APB) (the BirdLife partner in Belarus) Bird Conservation NepalBirdLife InternationalBirdWatch Ireland (the BirdLife partner in Ireland)BirdLife South Africa (the BirdLife partner in South Africa)British Antarctic SurveyBritish Museum of Natural HistoryBiomathematics and Statistics ScotlandBombay Natural History Society (BNHS) (the BirdLife partner in India)Botanical Society of the British IslesBritish BirdsBritish Bryological SocietyBritish Ornithologists’ UnionBritish Trust for OrnithologyBritish Lichen SocietyBumblebee Working GroupButterfly ConservationCambridge Conservation ForumCape Verde GovernmentCentre for Agri-Environmental ResearchCentre for Ecology and HydrologyCentral Science LaboratoryThe Chough Study GroupsCzech Society for Ornithology (CSO) (the BirdLife partner in the CzechRepublic)Département des Eaux et Forêts – MoroccoDepartment of Agriculture and Rural Development (Northern Ireland)Direction Regionale des Eaux et Forêts du Sud-ouest, Agadir, MoroccoDurrell Wildlife Conservation TrustDoñana Biological StationECOSA (Ecological Survey and Assessment)Entotax Consultants UKEnvironment AgencyEuronaturEuropean Bird Census CouncilForestry CommissionForest EnterpriseFrizzell InsuranceThe Game Conservancy TrustGhana Wildlife Society (the BirdLife partner in Ghana)G Spoor AssociatesThe Hawk and Owl TrustHungarian Ornithological Nature Conservation Society (MME)Institute of Grassland and Environmental ResearchInvertebrate Link
Gdansk Ornithological Station – Polish Academy of Sciences (GOS)Institute of ZoologyMr Jonathan TipplesLaboratoire D’Analyses et Récherches Vétérinaires D’Agadir, Agadir,MoroccoLake District National Park AuthorityLeicestershire and Rutland Wildlife TrustLinking Environment and FarmingThe Macaulay InstituteMakerere University Institute of the Environment and Natural ResourcesMalloch SocietyMinistry of DefenceMinsk Institute of ZoologyMinistre Délégué, Chargé des Eaux et Forêts, Morocco Montserrat Ministry of Agriculture, Lands, Housing & EnvironmentMontserrat National TrustNational Audubon Society (the BirdLife partner designate in the USA)National Bird of Prey CentreNational Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New ZealandNational Trust for ScotlandNatural Environment Research CouncilNature Uganda (the BirdLife partner in Uganda) Nature Kenya (the BirdLife partner in Kenya)Nigerian Conservation Foundation (the BirdLife partner in Nigeria)Nyiregyhaza College, HungaryParc National de Souss-MassaPenny Anderson AssociatesPercy Fitzpatrick Institute of OrnithologyPlantlifePolish Society for the Protection of Birds (OTOP) (the BirdLife partner inPoland)Portuguese Society for the Study of Birds (SPEA) (the BirdLife partner inPortugal)Poultry Diagnostics Research Centre – IndiaThe Raptor Study GroupRare Breeding Birds PanelRoyal Holloway CollegeRussian Bird Conservation Union (the BirdLife partner in Russia)Scottish Environmental Protection AgencyScottish Agricultural CollegeScottish Forestry AllianceThe Scottish Raptor Study GroupsThe Seabird GroupShetland Oil Terminal Environmental Advisory GroupSpanish Ornithological Society (SEO) (the BirdLife partner in Spain)Statistics NetherlandsUniversities Federation for Animal WelfareThe following universities:Aberdeen, Adam Mickiewicz (Poland), Cambridge, Cape Town, Copenhagen,Cork, Cranfield, De Montfort, Durham, East Anglia, Edinburgh, Glasgow,Harper Adams, Helsinki, Hull, Lancaster, Liverpool, Manchester, Minsk,Montana, Newcastle, Oxford, Queens (Belfast), Reading, Riga, Southampton,Stirling, Wolverhampton, York and the Open UniversityUK Overseas Territories Conservation ForumUNEP World Conservation Monitoring CentreThe Welsh Kite TrustWildlife Conservation Society of Tanzania (the BirdLife partner in Tanzania)The Wildlife TrustsThe Wildfowl & Wetlands TrustThe Woodland TrustWWF-UKYorkshire Dales National Park AuthorityZoological Society of London
PART
NER
SHIP
S
8 PARTNERSHIPS
The RSPB is involved in a wide variety of monitoring
schemes for birds and, to a lesser extent, other
taxonomic groups. These include annual, multi-
species monitoring schemes carried out in
partnership with other organisations (principally
the Breeding Birds Survey, the Wetland Birds
Survey, the Rare Breeding Birds Panel and the
Seabird Monitoring Programme), monitoring
programmes on our own reserves, and single-
species surveys undertaken as part of the
Statutory Conservation Agencies/RSPB
Annual Breeding Bird Scheme
(SCARABBS). We have established a
biodiversity monitoring scheme on our
reserves, covering a wide range of taxa,
and are involved in UK-wide common
plant monitoring and in surveys of a
variety of UK Biodiversity Action
Plan priority species.
9MONITORING ANDPRIORITISATION, DATAAND INDICATORS
Red kite by Chris Gomersall (RSPB Im
ages)
The Statutory Conservation
Agencies/RSPB Annual Breeding
Bird Scheme (SCARABBS) is a
rolling programme of surveys
covering about 50 species.
The species monitored in the scheme are
either too rare or localised to be covered by
standard schemes such as the Breeding Bird
Survey (BBS), or need special survey
techniques. Some species are surveyed each
year, and others are surveyed every 5 or 10
years. As well as allowing population trends
to be monitored, SCARABBS provides
regularly revised population estimates for
each species.
Species surveyed recently include the ring
ouzel (in partnership with Scottish Natural
Heritage (SNH), the Countryside Council for
Wales and English Nature (EN)), the twite
(with the Joint Nature Conservation
Committee and EN) and the red kite (with
EN and SNH). The ring ouzel and twite
surveys were carried out in 1999, and were
the first sample surveys designed to provide
UK population estimates for these species;
because of this, field methods had to be
tailor-made. The ring ouzel survey used tape
playback and indicated that there were a
minimum of 6,155 territories (95%
confidence interval (CI) 3,586–9,369) and a
maximum of 7,547 territories (95% CI
4,469–11,200) in the UK. The results of this
survey suggested that the ring ouzel had
undergone a further contraction in range
and probably a further decline in numbers.
The twite also showed a further contraction
in breeding range, even in parts of its former
strongholds, such as Shetland and Orkney.
The population of this species was
estimated to be between 5,000 and 15,000
pairs, with the majority (9,948 pairs, 95% CI
6,293–14,586) being in Scotland and
England. Both of these surveys provided
baseline estimates for future comparisons.
The first co-ordinated survey of red kites in
Britain since reintroduction began in 1989
took place in 2000. There were estimated to
be 430 breeding pairs (95% CI 372–490), of
which 259 were in Wales (95% CI 200–318)
and 109 were in the Chilterns (95% CI
96–124). A further 40 pairs were found in
Scotland, and the remainder were scattered
across several locations in England.
MON
ITOR
ING
AND
PRIO
RITI
SATI
ON, D
ATA
AND
INDI
CATO
RS
10 The ups and downs ofspecies monitoring
Wotton SR, Langston RHW andGregory RD (2002) The breedingstatus of the ring ouzel Turdustorquatus in the UK in 1999. BirdStudy 49: 26–34.
Wotton SR, Carter I, Cross AV,Etheridge B, Snell N, Duffy K,Thorpe R and Gregory RD (2002)Red kites Milvus milvus in Britainin 2000. Bird Study (in press).
The UK population ofthe ring ouzel was
assessed in 1999.
John
Far
mer
(RSP
B Im
ages
)
The RSPB has supported several
new schemes designed to
monitor common bird
populations in European
countries.
One such scheme, known as SACRE
(Programa de Seguimiento de Aves
Comunes Reproductoras en España), was
established by SEO (the BirdLife partner in
Spain) in 1996. The aims of the survey are:
to improve knowledge of common bird
populations, paying particular attention to
factors associated with declines; to identify
the areas where declines are most
pronounced; to identify the habitats that are
suffering the greatest damage; and to
promote the conservation of birds and
habitats by involving large numbers of
volunteers.
The design of SACRE is modified from that
of the UK Breeding Bird Survey. Sample
squares, each 10 km by 10 km, are chosen at
random within circles of 100-km radius
centred on selected urban centres. The plan
is to increase coverage progressively by
adding new focal areas as the scheme
develops. In addition, SEO aims to set up a
network of regional coordinators and
increase training for prospective counters. In
a trial designed to increase participation in
the scheme, volunteers have been allowed
to survey squares of their own choice if they
have no suitable random square nearby.
Each square is visited twice in the breeding
season, and birds are surveyed using a point
count method. The same squares are
surveyed year after year.
The number of squares counted has
increased annually. In 2000, the fifth year of
SACRE, nearly 300 squares were surveyed
around Madrid, León, Sevilla, Valencia,
Vitoria, Cataluña and Galicia; 65% of these
squares were selected randomly. Some
225 species were recorded, the most
abundant being the house sparrow, swift,
spotless starling, swallow and goldfinch.
Although the time series is short, trend
analyses suggest that most populations
are doing quite well. Only seven of 50
abundant species show signs of decline
between 1996 and 2000; these are the bee-
eater, crested lark, skylark, pied wagtail,
Sardinian warbler, coal tit and azure-
winged magpie. Continued monitoring is
needed to see if these trends persist and
to help us understand what might be
causing them.
MON
ITOR
ING
AND
PRIO
RITI
SATI
ON, D
ATA
AND
INDI
CATO
RS
11Common bird monitoring in Spain
SEO/BirdLife (2001) Tendencias de laspoblaciones de aves comunes enEspaña (1996-2000), Progama SACRE,Informe 2000. SEO/BirdLife, Madrid.
The distribution of SACRE squares in 2000.
The population status of birds in
the UK has recently been
assessed in a collaborative
review led by the RSPB and
involving the UK’s leading
governmental and non-
governmental conservation
organisations.
We used seven criteria to place
each regularly occurring
species onto one of three lists:
‘red’, ‘amber’ or ‘green’. This
categorisation gives an
indication of the relative
priority that should be given to
each species, and the lists will
help to guide conservation
efforts in the UK between 2002
and 2007.
Red list species are those that are globally
threatened, whose population or range has
declined rapidly in recent years (ie by more
than 50% in 25 years), or which have
declined historically and not recovered.
Amber list species are those whose
population or range has declined moderately
in recent years (by more than 25% but less
than 50% in 25 years), those whose
population has declined historically but
recovered recently, rare breeders (fewer
than 300 pairs), those with internationally
important populations in the UK, those with
localised populations, and those with an
unfavourable conservation status in Europe.
The red list therefore reflects only the
extent to which a species is threatened,
whereas the amber list reflects both threat
status and the UK’s responsibility for bird
populations. Species that meet none of
these criteria are green-listed.
Of the 247 species assessed, 40 (16%) were
red-listed, 121 (49%) were amber-listed and
86 (35%) were green-listed. The number of
red list species has increased by four since
a previous review, Birds of conservation
concern, was published in 1996, and the
number of amber list species has increased
by eleven. Of the 40 species on the red list,
nine are new to this list; all of these species
have been added because of declines in
breeding populations. Five species have
moved from the red to the amber list
because their populations have more than
doubled in the last 25 years.
Several themes emerge from the new list,
some familiar, some less so. Farmland
birds again feature strongly on the red list,
and the yellowhammer is new to this list. A
suite of rare species remain red-listed
despite targeted conservation action by the
RSPB and others. For some of these
species, like the bittern, corncrake and
stone-curlew, the prognosis is relatively
rosy. For others, like the black grouse and
capercaillie, the outlook is bleak. Perhaps
surprisingly, several widespread woodland
birds now feature on the red list, indicating
that there has been some deterioration in
this habitat, and two urban birds, the house
sparrow and starling, have been added to
the red list because of long-term declines.
MON
ITOR
ING
AND
PRIO
RITI
SATI
ON, D
ATA
AND
INDI
CATO
RS
12
Gregory RD, Wilkinson NI, NobleDG, Robinson JA, Brown AF,Hughes J, Procter D, Gibbons DWand Galbraith C (2002) Thepopulation status of birds in theUnited Kingdom, Channel Islandsand Isle of Man: an analysis ofconservation concern 2002–2007.British Birds 95: 410–448.
The population status of birds inthe UK: birds of conservationconcern, 2002–2007
The front cover ofThe populationstatus of birds in theUK. For moreinformation on thenew lists visitwww.rspb.org.uk.
In 1999, the Government
published the White Paper
Achieving a better quality of life,
which contained a draft set of 150
indicators of the sustainability
of lifestyles in the UK. Fifteen of
the proposed indicators were
identified as ‘headline’
indicators, and one of these
was based on population trends
of breeding birds.
The publication of a wildlife indicator
alongside more familiar economic and social
indicators reinforces the point that the
maintenance of biodiversity is a key part of
sustainability. Birds were chosen for the
indicator partly because the data for this
group are so good, but also because they
have varied ecologies and widespread
distributions across the UK and can
therefore be used as ‘barometers’ of change
in the wider environment. Whether birds can
act as bio-indicators in all situations is
unclear, and care is needed when promoting
them as indicators for other wildlife.
The wild bird indicator was developed jointly
by the RSPB, the British Trust for
Ornithology and the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(DEFRA). It is based on an average trend
across species, calculated on a geometric
scale and with missing data imputed. The
indicator summarises information on the
status of more than 100 commoner breeding
species over the last 30 years. It rose slightly
until the mid-1970s and then went into a
shallow decline until 1998, when it showed a
marked upturn; overall, it fell by more than
5% between the mid-1970s and 2000. The
recent upturn is due partly to mild winters,
which have increased the survival of small
birds vulnerable to cold weather.
The ‘headline indicator’ is broken down into
indicators for different habitats to reveal
underlying trends. Woodland specialists
show a slow but steady drop in numbers,
decreasing by 22% between the mid-1970s
and 2000. However, they have increased
every year since 1998; this increase has been
driven partly by mild winter weather, but
other factors also seem to have played a part.
Farmland specialists have declined severely,
decreasing by an average of 46% between
the mid-1970s and 2000. Recent warm
winters do not seem to have helped much,
and a number of farmland birds remain in a
precarious position. It is generally accepted
that the decline in farmland birds has been
driven by agricultural intensification.
The Government has pledged to reverse the
long-term trends in woodland and farmland
birds. In particular, DEFRA has published a
Public Service Agreement target to reverse
the long-term decline in the number of
farmland birds by 2020. Although a series of
policy initiatives have been launched to help
farmland birds, meeting this target will be a
significant challenge.
MON
ITOR
ING
AND
PRIO
RITI
SATI
ON, D
ATA
AND
INDI
CATO
RS
13The ‘quality of life’ indicator forbreeding birds
Anon (2001) Achieving a better quality oflife. Review of progress towardssustainable development. Governmentannual report 2000. Department of theEnvironment, Transport and Regions,London.
Gregory RD, Noble DH, Field RF,Marchant JH and Gibbons DW (2002)Using birds as indicators of biodiversity.Ornis Hungarica (in press).
The UK wild birdpopulations headlineindicator, 2001.
Nature reserves are a widely used
mechanism for conserving
biodiversity. However, there is
little published information on the
effectiveness of nature reserve
networks in conserving national
or regional biodiversity.
We have evaluated the contribution made by
RSPB reserves to conserving breeding
populations of birds of conservation concern
in the UK (ie species on the red and amber
lists in the 1996 publication Birds of
conservation concern (BoCC)) in two ways.
First, we have calculated the proportion of
the UK population of each BoCC species that
is supported by our reserve network. Second,
we have modelled population trends of BoCC
species in the reserve network over the
period 1990–99, using a loglinear model with
Poisson errors, and compared these trends
(where sufficient data are available) with
those on non-RSPB land.
In 2000, the RSPB’s reserve network
comprised 161 sites (currently 172) covering
0.46% of the UK’s land surface. It supported a
mean of 9.3% of the UK’s populations of
BoCC species, and a mean of 17.3% of the
UK’s populations of BoCC species with
national populations of less than 1,000 pairs.
Lowland wetlands support the highest
proportion of national populations of BoCC
species relative to their area on RSPB
reserves.
Of the 68 regularly breeding BoCC species on
RSPB reserves for which sufficient data were
available, 26 showed a significant upward
population trend, 10 showed a significant
downward trend and 32 showed no significant
trend. The majority of species showing
significant upward trends were birds with
small UK populations, associated primarily
with lowland wetlands, uplands and coastal
habitats. The majority of species showing
significant downward trends were birds with
only a small proportion (less than 2%) of their
national populations on RSPB reserves –
mainly birds of farmland and woodland.
Five species showed more favourable trends
on RSPB reserves than elsewhere (lapwing,
redshank, black-tailed godwit, capercaillie and
corncrake). Seven additional species may also
have done so, but there were insufficient data
to be sure. For most remaining species, there
were no significant differences between
trends on RSPB and non-RSPB land; however,
one species, the avocet, increased more on
non-RSPB than RSPB land. Up to 1990, avocet
numbers increased on RSPB reserves, which
held most of the UK population. Since then,
numbers on our reserves have stabilised, and
the avocet has spread to other areas and is
increasing in these areas.
In conclusion, the RSPB’s reserve network
contributes to conserving national populations
of BoCC species primarily by maintaining or
increasing numbers of birds with small UK
populations, especially those associated with
lowland wetland, upland and coastal habitats.
MON
ITOR
ING
AND
PRIO
RITI
SATI
ON, D
ATA
AND
INDI
CATO
RS
14 The contribution of RSPB reserves toconserving bird populations
The percentage of the UKpopulation of eachbreeding BoCC speciesfound on RSPB reservesplotted against the total UKpopulation of each species.
Advances in desktop computer technology
over the past 10 years have moved us from
an essentially text-based environment into a
new world where visualising information on
maps is commonplace. As part of a drive to
maximise the use of its conservation data, the
RSPB has developed an in-house Geographic
Information System (GIS) called Merlin,
enabling staff without specialist GIS skills to
analyse and present bird, site and habitat
data. This system is proving to be a valuable
tool across the RSPB, with over 100 regular
users. Merlin has a customised user interface,
based on MapInfo, linked to a heavy-duty
Sybase database.
As well as taking advantage of Merlin, an
increasing number of staff are using MapInfo
itself to handle more specialist tasks, some of
which relate to countries other than the UK.
For example, the RSPB, in conjunction with
country BirdLife partners, has assessed the
potential impact of proposed changes to road
infrastructure in those eastern European
countries that are planning to join the
European Union (EU) in the near future. We
did this by measuring the proximity of
Important Bird Areas (IBAs) to proposed road,
rail and waterway developments. A total of 85
sites were found to be affected by the
proposed developments – 21% of all IBAs in
the countries concerned. These sites hold
internationally important populations of 128
bird species, including more than two-thirds
of the countries’ populations of three globally
threatened species: Dalmatian pelican, red-
breasted goose and aquatic warbler. A report
on this work was presented to EU
Environment Ministers in the summer of 2001.
MON
ITOR
ING
AND
PRIO
RITI
SATI
ON, D
ATA
AND
INDI
CATO
RS
15Geographic Information Systems andconservation at the RSPB
IBAs and proposedroad networkchanges in Hungary.
The Dalmationpelican is threatenedby transportdevelopments.
Fisher I and Waliczky Z (2001) Anassessment of the potential impactof the TINA network on ImportantBird Areas (IBAs) in the accessioncountries. BirdLifeInternational/RSPB, Sandy.
Richard Brooks (RSPB Images)
THE ECOLOGY OFTHREATENED SPECIES
Research into the ecology of threatened species is a particular strength
of the RSPB, and can provide a wealth of valuable information to guide
conservation work. Such research usually focuses on the birds
themselves, but habitat studies may also be needed. Outside the UK,
most of our ecological research is undertaken on globally threatened
species in RSPB ‘focal’ countries. In the UK, however, where there are
few globally threatened species, research is directed at those species
that have declined the most in recent decades.
17
Bittern by Andrew Hay (RSPB Im
ages)
Of all the farmland birds that
have declined over the last 25
years, none is missed more than
the skylark. Although this species
has declined less in percentage
terms than some others, its
abundance means that the
number we have lost (more than
two million) is greater than for
any other species.
on average than nests in any other habitat.
We have found that territory densities are
consistently higher in traditional spring-sown
crops than in the autumn-sown crops that
have largely replaced them. This may be due
entirely to differences in crop structure: the
taller, more developed swards of winter
cereals hold lower densities of skylarks than
shorter, patchier spring cereal swards.
Furthermore, as crop height increases over
the summer, territory densities fall. The
reasons for this are likely to be related to the
availability of safe nesting sites. As the
sward becomes thicker and taller during the
growing season, access to nests becomes
more difficult and skylarks increasingly build
their nests in tramlines, the unsown tractor
tracks that never develop a sward.
Unfortunately, survival rates of nests on
tramlines are less than half as good as those
of nests built further into the crop, as
tramline nests are easily found by predators.
Experiments with ‘skylark scrapes’ are now
being carried out at the RSPB’s Hope Farm
and elsewhere. We hope that these
unplanted patches away from tramlines will
allow skylarks to nest successfully late in the
season, and will therefore represent a simple
way in which winter cereals can be managed
to provide some of the beneficial features of
spring crops.
THE
ECOL
OGY
OF T
HREA
TEN
ED S
PECI
ES
18 Ecology and conservation of skylarks
Donald PF, Evans AD, BuckinghamDL, Muirhead LB and Wilson JD(2001) Factors affecting the territorydistribution of skylarks Alaudaarvensis breeding on lowlandfarmland. Bird Study 48: 271–278.
Donald PF, Evans AD, Muirhead LB,Buckingham DL, Kirby WB andSchmitt SIA (2002) Survival rates,causes of failure and productivity ofskylark Alauda arvensis nests onlowland farmland. Ibis 144: 652–664.
This study was supported by Tesco.
Paul Donald
Skylark nest on a tramline.
Skylark territory density and crop height in autumn-sown and spring-sown cereals. The points representtwo-weekly means from two breeding seasons, andeach is the mean of a large number of fields.
The reasons for the decline of the skylark
have been the subject of intense RSPB
research over the last few years. This
research has focused on cereal crops,
because a high proportion of the UK’s
skylarks nest in such crops and because
skylark nests in cereals produce more chicks
Between 1972 and 1996, the
British song thrush population
declined by 66% on farmland
(British Trust for Ornithology
data).
This rapid decline led to the initiation of an
RSPB study to identify the demographic and
environmental factors responsible. Given the
large number of environmental factors that
might have contributed to the decline, we
decided to compare demography and
habitat requirements in two study areas, one
with a stable population and one with a
declining population.
The success of individual nesting attempts
was similar in the two populations, with
approximately 30% of nests producing at
least one fledgling, and the brood size of
successful nests averaged 3.4 young in both
areas. What differed between populations
was the number of nesting attempts per pair
per summer; this averaged 4–5 in the stable
population but only 2–3 in the declining
population. Consequently, only 1.8–2.5
fledglings were reared by each pair in the
declining population compared to 4.5–4.8 in
the stable population. This difference in
annual productivity was large enough to
account for the contrasting trends in the two
populations. It seems that thrushes in the
declining population were taking much
longer to resume nesting following a
previous attempt than those in the stable
population.
The environmental factor that is most likely
to account for longer intervals between
nesting attempts is lack of food. The second
phase of the study therefore focused on
habitat selection and food resources. The
stable population was located in mixed
farmland with relatively large areas of
woodland and grazed grassland, while the
declining population was located on
intensive arable farmland dominated by
winter cereals. Radio-tracking showed that
woodland and grazed grassland were the
main summer foraging habitats for breeding
thrushes in the stable population,
particularly later in the breeding season
when dry soil conditions make key
invertebrates like earthworms much less
available. Thrushes in the arable landscape
spent much more time foraging in arable
fields, which supported much lower
earthworm densities than the woods and
pastures available to the stable population.
The study therefore suggests that woodland
and grazed grassland can allow song
thrushes to continue nesting throughout the
summer. In arable-dominated landscapes
lacking woodland and grassland, the
availability of earthworms and other
invertebrates may limit the ability of
thrushes to nest later in the season.
Conservation measures for song thrushes
should aim to provide invertebrate-rich
habitats throughout the summer.
Maintaining damper soil conditions in
ditches or on grass fields might be one way
to do this.
THE
ECOL
OGY
OF T
HREA
TEN
ED S
PECI
ES
19Breeding ecology of farmlandsong thrushes
Thomson D and Cotton P (2000)Understanding the decline of theBritish population of song thrushes.In: Aebischer NJ, Evans AD, GricePV and Vickery JA (eds) Ecologyand conservation of lowlandfarmland birds. BritishOrnithologists’ Union, Tring: 151–155.
Peach W, Taylor R, Cotton P, GruarD, Hill I and Denny M (2002) Habitatutilisation by song thrushes onlowland farmland during summerand winter. Aspects of AppliedBiology 67: 11–20.
This study was supported by FrizzellInsurance.
Bob Glover (RSPB Images)
When a survey in 1989 indicated
that the British cirl bunting
population had fallen to just 118
pairs, alarm bells began to ring.
Extinction from the British mainland of this
attractive farmland specialist was a real
possibility. A research project was launched
that aimed to identify the main reasons for
the population decline. Weedy stubble fields
were found to be the main winter feeding
habitat, providing a rich source of weed
seeds and grain. Unimproved grassland
proved to be a key foraging habitat during
the breeding season, providing large
invertebrates like grasshoppers for cirl
buntings to feed to their chicks.
At about the same time, reform of the
Common Agricultural Policy led to the
introduction of agri-environment schemes
under which farmers could receive
payments for introducing wildlife-friendly
management prescriptions to their farms.
The Countryside Stewardship Scheme (CSS)
became available to farmers in south Devon
and included low-intensity grazing as one of
its prescriptions. Negotiations with the
Countryside Commission and subsequently
the Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs led to the introduction of a
minimal-herbicide, spring barley option that
provides weedy winter stubbles and is
specifically targeted at cirl buntings.
Additional funding from English Nature
allowed the employment of a Cirl Bunting
Project Officer who helped local farmers
develop applications for CSS agreements.
Since the start of the CSS in 1992, the RSPB
has monitored changes in the numbers of
cirl buntings across south Devon. Between
1992 and 1998, cirl bunting numbers
increased by 83% on land under CSS
agreements and by just 2% on surrounding
countryside. Increases in cirl bunting
numbers were greatest on land under
agreements providing grass margins around
arable fields and weedy barley stubbles.
This is one of very few examples of a
targeted agri-environment scheme
delivering clear conservation benefits. We
believe that the success of the CSS in
conserving cirl buntings has been due to the
presence of two essential elements: carefully
designed prescriptions providing key
limiting resources (in this case, winter seeds
and summer invertebrates) and dedicated
staff to help and encourage farmers to
follow these prescriptions in priority
locations. By 1998, the British cirl bunting
population had increased to 450 pairs.
THE
ECOL
OGY
OF T
HREA
TEN
ED S
PECI
ES
20
Evans AD (1997) Cirl buntings inBritain. British Birds 90:267–282.
Peach WJ, Lovett LJ, Wotton SRand Jeffs C (2001) Countrysidestewardship delivers cirlbuntings (Emberiza cirlus) inDevon, UK. BiologicalConservation 101: 361–373.
Changes in the relativedensity of cirl buntingterritories between 1992and 1999 on land enteringCSS agreements andadjacent countryside notentering agreements. Theerror bars show ± onestandard error.
Countryside Stewardship deliverscirl buntings in Devon
Our bittern research and
monitoring programme, which
is jointly funded by English
Nature, aims to improve our
understanding of the factors
limiting the population of this
rare and elusive breeding
species in the UK.
We have monitored the bittern population
since 1990 by counting ‘booming’ (singing)
males, and have measured numbers of
nesting attempts and breeding success at
key sites since 1998.
We use sound spectrograms to identify
individual males from their booms. This
not only helps us to determine population
size, but also allows us to estimate the
local annual survival rate of males. This
rate is higher when there is more rain
during January to March, probably because
high rainfall results in deeper water which
leads in turn to reduced mortality or
permanent emigration.
The characteristics of sites with breeding
birds and the locations of territorial males
determined from radio-tracking have
shown that bitterns need wet reedbeds
with an extensive interface between reeds
and open water. Natural succession of
reedbeds to carr habitats tends to make
them less suitable for bitterns. This
information has been used to improve the
management of RSPB and other reedbed
sites with spectacular results. At the RSPB’s
Minsmere reserve, for example, the
number of booming bitterns has increased
from one in 1991 to seven in 2002
following lowering of the reedbed to make
it wetter. We have carried out reedbed
restoration and habitat creation at 13 sites
as part of an EU–LIFE Nature project, and
bitterns are responding well to this
management. The UK population
increased for the fourth successive year in
2001, with 30 booming males at 19 sites –
the highest figure since the 1980s. Most of
this increase has occurred at sites where
the habitat has been specifically managed
for bitterns.
Analysis of the diet of bittern nestlings has
highlighted the importance of eels, rudd
and sticklebacks, and work is in hand to
improve the numbers and availability of
these prey species at bittern sites.
Valuable data on productivity, survival and
dispersal have been collected by radio-
tagging young bitterns in the nest between
1997 and 2001. This has shown that young
birds can travel more than 200 km to seek
out new sites during their first winter, and
that they can successfully breed in these
new sites in their first year. This
information has helped us secure funding
for a second EU LIFE Nature project to
create a network of suitable sites for
bitterns so they can become established
away from their current strongholds in
East Anglia.
THE
ECOL
OGY
OF T
HREA
TEN
ED S
PECI
ES
21Bittern ecology
Tyler GA, Smith KW and Burges DJ(1998) Reedbed management andbreeding Bitterns Botaurus stellaris inthe UK. Biological Conservation 86:257–266.
Gilbert G, Tyler GA and Smith KW(2001) Local annual survival ofbooming male Great Bittern Botaurusstellaris in Britain, in the period1990–1999. Ibis 144: 51–61.
Fish selection by bitternsfor nestlings. Positivevalues indicate preferenceand negative valuesindicate avoidance.
The population of breeding black-
tailed godwits at the RSPB’s Ouse
Washes reserve declined during
the period 1970–2002, while that
at the Nene Washes reserve
increased.
Prior to the decline at the Ouse Washes, this
site supported more than 90% of the UK
breeding population. The discrepancy in
trends between the two sites is probably
explained by an increased incidence of spring
flooding at the Ouse Washes. Flooding
inundates breeding habitat, resulting in any
nests present being washed away and forcing
birds to nest on arable land where success is
low. We have tested engineering measures to
mitigate flooding using hydraulic models, but
the benefits of these measures for godwit
breeding success were unclear. We have therefore
undertaken research to inform a cost-benefit
analysis of the various flood mitigation options.
We constructed models of godwit productivity
using breeding parameters measured at the Ouse
and Nene Washes. In the absence of flooding,
godwit productivity was 0.79 chicks per pair,
which would result in a population increase of
about 3% per year. Flooding at the Ouse Washes
resulted in productivity being below the level
required to maintain a stable population in 67% of
the years assessed, but in only 16% of these years
at the Nene Washes. Population models with
constant adult and immature survival rates and
flood-dependent productivity explained 89% of
the variation in observed population trends at the
two sites.
We used the models, together with data provided
by the Environment Agency, to predict the effects
of flood mitigation options on godwit productivity
and population trends. Individual flood mitigation
options, such as river re-profiling or an upstream
flood storage reservoir, proved inadequate to
produce a recovering population, as did pairs of
these options. However, all of the options
combined produced a viable and rapidly
recovering population. Unfortunately, this
approach would cost £87 million, and is therefore
unlikely to be affordable or practical in the short
term. Further hydraulic modelling is needed to
examine which measures could be removed
without reducing godwit population viability.
We have also examined initiatives to create wet
grasslands next to the Ouse Washes that would
not be flooded, so that godwits could breed
successfully during flood years. Models show that
this initiative would produce an increasing and
viable population at a fraction of the cost of the
flood mitigation measures (£44,000). We have
recently taken out a management agreement on
44 ha of arable fields and are currently converting
these into wet grassland.
THE
ECOL
OGY
OF T
HREA
TEN
ED S
PECI
ES
22 Black-tailed godwit population viabilityand flooding at the Ouse Washes
Observed and predictedpopulation trends of black-tailed godwits at the Ouseand Nene Washes. Thepredicted trends come froma population model inwhich all variables wereconstant except forproductivity, which variedas a function of floodingpatterns.
The Scottish crossbill was
originally thought to be a sub-
species of the common crossbill.
However, when it was discovered
that the two birds nested in the
same woods but did not
interbreed, the Scottish crossbill
was given full species status and
became Britain’s only endemic
bird.
There are no plumage differences between
Scottish, common and parrot crossbills, and
although the Scottish crossbill is
intermediate in size between common and
parrot crossbills, it overlaps in size with both.
This raises questions about the accuracy of
identification in earlier studies, and has
prompted debate concerning the taxonomic
status and identification of the Scottish
crossbill. Only if the Scottish crossbill can be
identified in the field will it be possible to
assess its population size and habitat
preferences for conservation purposes. Most
work to date has focused on resolving the
taxonomic status of Scottish crossbills and
on developing a reliable method of field
identification. Recently, parrot crossbills were
found to be breeding in Scotland, further
complicating the situation.
Sonograms of the calls of crossbills of known
bill size (and, therefore, putative identity)
have shown that the three crossbill species
have different calls, with the common
crossbill having three call types. These
distinctions, though subtle, may assist with
identification in the field.
If the Scottish crossbill is a biological species,
the composition of its neutral (non-
functional) DNA should have diverged
substantially from that of the common and
parrot crossbill. In a collaborative study with
Aberdeen University and the Centre for
Ecology and Hydrology, two types of neutral
DNA were examined: microsatellites and the
control gene of mitochondrial DNA. No
differences were found among any of the
three crossbill types – not even common and
parrot crossbills, whose species status has
never been questioned.
There are three possible explanations for
this result. First, the three crossbill types
interbreed freely and are not species but
different morphs. Second, a low level of
hybridisation prevents divergence of the
neutral DNA, but all three types remain
phenotypically distinct. Finally, the three
species diverged only recently and the
neutral DNA has not had time to diverge
sufficiently to reveal differences. These
hypotheses are now being tested by a study
of call types and morphology in pairs of
crossbills in the field.
THE
ECOL
OGY
OF T
HREA
TEN
ED S
PECI
ES
23The taxonomic status andidentification of the Scottish crossbill
Piertney SB, Summers RW and MarquissM (2001) Microsatellite and mitochondrialDNA homogeneity among phenotypicallydiverse crossbill taxa in the UK.Proceedings of the Royal Society ofLondon 268: 1511–1517.
Summers RW (2002) Parrot crossbillsbreeding in Abernethy Forest, Highlands.British Birds 95: 4–11.
Summers RW, Jardine DC, Marquiss Mand Rae R (2002) The distribution andhabitats of crossbills Loxia spp. in Britain,with special reference to the Scottishcrossbill Loxia scotica. Ibis 144: 393–410.
Sonograms of theexcitement calls fordifferent crossbill species.
The major remaining wild
population of the critically
endangered northern bald ibis
breeds in coastal Morocco, in the
Souss-Massa National Park and
at an undesignated site 100 km to
the north in the region of Tamri.
The birds nest and roost on sea
cliffs and feed inland in semi-arid
areas, mainly on invertebrates,
skinks and lizards.
The Moroccan national parks service Eaux et
Forêts asked for help with setting up a
monitoring system and collecting data that
could be used to develop conservation
recommendations for the species. The RSPB
has provided this help on behalf of the
BirdLife International partnership since 1994.
During this time, a team of local wardens
has been trained and managed, disturbance
by fishermen and birdwatchers has been
controlled, cliffs have been modified by
volunteer climbers and a limited amount of
predator control has been carried out. An
experiment begun in 1998 has shown that
providing water in small artificial ponds near
sub-colonies can increase ibis breeding
success.
Daily monitoring of each breeding attempt,
combined with regular and systematic
recording of where birds feed, has shown
the importance of several areas of littoral
steppe and fallow fields as foraging sites in
certain seasons and years. A hotel
development was proposed for one of these
areas in 2001, and the foraging data proved
invaluable during negotiations with the
developers.
Overall, the number of breeding pairs
increased slightly in 2001 to 66 pairs, and
the population is now larger than at any
time since the 1996 population crash in
which 38 full-grown birds – out of a global
population of 223 – died over the course of a
few days. The cause of this mortality event
is still being investigated, but disease seems
the most likely explanation.
Because local involvement with and support
for the ibis is essential, small-scale,
ecologically sound developments are being
encouraged. BirdLife support to the national
park for these, and ultimately for all aspects
of the ibis project, is becoming the
responsibility of SEO, the Spanish BirdLife
partner.
THE
ECOL
OGY
OF T
HREA
TEN
ED S
PECI
ES
24 The northern bald ibis in Morocco
Bowden CGR, Aghnaj A, Smith KWand Ribi M (2002). The status andrecent breeding performance ofthe critically threatened NorthernBald Ibis Geronticus eremita onthe Atlantic coast of Morocco. Ibis(in press).
Touti J, Oumellouk F, Bowden CGR,Kirkwood JK and Smith KW (1999)Mortality incident in Northern BaldIbis Geronticus eremita inMorocco in May 1996. Oryx 33:160–167.
Chris Gomersall (RSPB Im
ages)
Monitoring at Keoladeo National
Park in India revealed severe
population declines in Indian
white-backed and long-billed
vultures in the 1990s, and
anecdotal reports of similar
declines were received from all
over India.
This prompted the Bombay Natural History
Society (BNHS), the BirdLife partner in India, to
conduct a nationwide vulture survey with the
support of the RSPB to quantify the extent of
the declines and investigate possible causes. In
2000, transect counts were conducted along
more than 6,000 km of roads across protected
and unprotected areas of India, replicating
counts from the early 1990s.
The survey revealed huge declines in both
species in all parts of the country, exceeding
92% overall. Rates of decline did not differ
between protected areas and unprotected
areas. Moribund birds were observed in all
regions, and dead adults and juveniles were
frequently seen. Food availability did not
decline greatly between the two surveys, but
most livestock carcasses seen in 2000 had no
attendant vultures.
The RSPB engaged the services of a wildlife
pathologist from the Institute of Zoology (IoZ),
and – together with a consortium involving IoZ,
BNHS, the National Bird of Prey Centre and the
Poultry Diagnostic and Research Centre –
applied successfully for Darwin funding to
investigate the problem. The Australian Animal
Health Laboratory is also assisting.
Freshly dead vultures were collected from
different regions. Gross post-mortem findings
commonly included enteritis, and histo-
pathological findings included visceral gout.
Some birds had severe and almost certainly
fatal renal gout, although this appeared to be
the proximate cause of death rather than the
underlying problem. A phenomenon known
as perivascular lymphocytic cuffing was
observed in most birds. This phenomenon is
typically associated with infectious agents,
usually of viral origin.
The hypothesis that the population declines
have been caused by an infectious disease is
supported by epidemiological and other
evidence. Only vultures of the genus Gyps
appear to be affected, and genus specificity is
typical of some groups of diseases,
particularly viral diseases. Infectious disease
is one of the few things that could explain the
speed of the declines and the fact that they
occurred nationwide, in both protected and
unprotected areas and in both rural and
urban areas. Tissue analyses for a wide range
of contaminants have so far proved negative,
and contaminant poisoning would be unlikely
to cause such an extensive and non site-
specific pattern of deaths.
Investigations are continuing. An avian
diagnostics laboratory with dedicated project
staff was set up in India in 2001, and a captive
care centre was constructed in 2002 to study
the progress of the disease in sick birds and
investigate remedial measures. Although
disease remains the most likely cause, other
avenues are also being explored.
THE
ECOL
OGY
OF T
HREA
TEN
ED S
PECI
ES
25
Cunningham AA, Prakash V, Ghalsasi GRand Pain D (2001) Investigating the causeof catastrophic declines in Asian griffonvultures (Gyps indicus and G.bengalensis). In: Katzner T, Parry-Jones J(eds) Reports from the workshop onIndian Gyps vultures, 4th EurasianCongress on Raptors; 10–11. (Documentcan be downloaded fromwww.vulturedeclines.org)
Prakash V (1999) Status of vultures inKeoladeo National Park, Bharatpur,Rajasthan, with special reference topopulation crash in Gyps species.Journal of the Bombay Natural HistorySociety 96: 365–378.
Prakash V, Pain DJ, Cunningham AA,Donald PF, Prakash N, Verma A, Gargi R,Sivakumar S and Rahmani A (2003)Catastrophic collapse of Indian white-backed Gyps bengalensis and long-billedGyps indicus vulture populations.Biological Conservation (in press).
Investigating causes of the collapseof Gyps vulture populations in India
Road transect counts ofGyps vultures in 1991–93and 2000.
Andrew Cunningham
Gough Island in the South
Atlantic is one of the most
important seabird islands in the
world. Twenty seabird species
breed here, of which five are
globally threatened and two are
near-endemics.
There are also two globally threatened
endemic land birds. Gough is part of the UK
Overseas Territory of Tristan da Cunha, and
the UK therefore has a responsibility to help
conserve this World Heritage Site.
Between 2000 and 2002, a joint
RSPB/University of Cape Town project
established the first major ornithological
fieldwork programme on Gough. The project
was funded by the UK Foreign and
Commonwealth Office and assisted by the
British Antarctic Survey. Some of the work
carried out is summarised below.
Satellite tracking of the endangered Tristan
albatross has given us a detailed picture of
the distribution of this bird at sea, and
indicates that there is substantial overlap
with longline fishing activity. A population
model suggests that adult mortality is high,
and it appears that the Tristan albatross is
particularly at risk of longline mortality in
south-west Atlantic waters.
New anecdotal observations suggest that
introduced house mice prey on chicks of the
Tristan albatross and the globally threatened
Atlantic petrel. Predation levels may be high
enough to constitute a significant
conservation problem, and further work on
this issue is planned. Experiments with
dummy eggs imply that mouse predation on
nests of the endemic Gough bunting may
also be very high, preventing the bunting
occupying otherwise suitable lowland areas.
We have collated new and existing data to
assess the health of populations of key
species. It appears that sooty albatrosses
have declined steeply since the 1970s, while
rockhopper penguins have remained stable
and Southern giant-petrels have probably
increased. We have established repeatable
monitoring schemes for a range of
threatened and endemic species, and a
manual for these is in preparation.
THE
ECOL
OGY
OF T
HREA
TEN
ED S
PECI
ES
26
Satellite tracking locationsof Tristan albatrosses.White spot = Gough Island;purple dots = females; reddots = males.
RSPB biologist Richard Cuthbert and a Tristanalbatross chick.
Gough Island research and monitoring
ECOLOGICAL PROCESSRESEARCHEcological processes (eg predation, pollution, land-use and climate
change) are responsible for widespread and varied effects on
species’ populations and habitat quality. Because of this, research
into process ecology can provide a more effective scientific
understanding of anthropogenic impacts on bird communities and
their habitats than single-species studies. Research into ecological
processes has therefore become an increasingly important part of
RSPB’s research portfolio.
27
House sparrows by Chris Gom
ersall (RSPB Images)
Stubble fields support high
wintering densities of many seed-
eating birds. As part of a joint study
involving the RSPB, Oxford
University and the Biotechnology
and Biological Sciences Research
Council, factors affecting the use of
such fields by eight bird species
were examined.
The study took place on mixed, lowland
farmland in central England, and included
organic and non-organic wheat and barley
stubble fields. General linear models were used
to test for associations between the frequency
of occupancy of fields by birds, seed
abundance and physical field characteristics.
seed abundance and sparse vegetation cover
than wheat stubbles. Seed numbers fell
throughout the winter in all stubble types, but
reductions were greatest on ‘intensive’ (ie not
organically managed) barley stubbles,
intermediate on intensive wheat stubbles and
lowest on undersown organic wheat stubbles.
A more detailed study of foraging site selection
by linnet flocks showed that, within fields
occupied by this species, areas used for
feeding had significantly greater quantities of
seeds known to be important in their diet. They
also had a greater area of bare earth than
randomly selected areas where linnets were
not seen feeding.
Linnets and reed buntings were rarely found
on fields where densities of weed seeds
important in their diets were below 250/m2. In
autumn, yellowhammers and grey partridges
rarely fed in fields where cereal grain density
was below 50/m2. In spring, however, the
distributions of these species were unaffected
by grain density, perhaps indicating that they
switched to other food sources as the densities
of their preferred seed types declined.
These results suggest that land managers
wishing to maximise the value of over-winter
stubble fields for seed-eating birds should
locate them where there is substantial natural
regeneration of weed flora and where previous
cropping (eg barley) is likely to leave a sparse
stubble with substantial areas of bare ground.
Further research is needed to understand
whether the selection of relatively sparsely
vegetated areas within stubble fields by seed-
eating birds is a response to greater
accessibility of seed food, predation risk or a
combination of the two. These hypotheses are
now being tested by research at Oxford
University, funded jointly by the Natural
Environment Research Council and the RSPB.
ECOL
OGIC
AL P
ROCE
SS R
ESEA
RCH
28
Moorcroft D, Whittingham MJ,Bradbury RB and Wilson JD(2002) The selection of stubblefields by wintering granivorousbirds reflects vegetation coverand food abundance. Journal ofApplied Ecology 39: 535–547.
The predicted effect (fromeach species’ model) ofthe proportion of bareearth on field occupancy.
The use of stubble fields by winteringseed-eating birds
Higher seed abundance was associated with
greater occupancy by linnets, grey partridges,
chaffinches, yellowhammers, reed buntings
and corn buntings. Larger areas of bare earth
within stubble fields were associated with
greater occupancy by linnets, yellowhammers,
reed buntings and corn buntings, but lower
occupancy by woodpigeons. Barley stubbles
were more likely to offer a combination of high
During the past three decades,
agricultural pesticide use in the
UK has increased substantially. A
1997 report highlighted concerns
that pesticides may have an
indirect effect on birds by
reducing the abundance of plant
seeds and invertebrate food.
The Game Conservancy Trust has provided
experimental proof of such an effect for the
grey partridge. In 1999, the Ministry of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (now the
Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs) commissioned a consortium,
led by the Central Science Laboratory and
including the RSPB, to investigate the
possibility that pesticides indirectly affect
other species and, if appropriate, to propose
ways to ameliorate any effects. The RSPB’s
role was to analyse data on nesting success
and/or foraging locations for lapwings,
swallows, skylarks and yellowhammers in
relation to food availability and pesticide
applications
Pesticide use significantly affected two
species, the yellowhammer and the skylark.
Early in the breeding season, foraging adult
yellowhammers used fields with summer
applications of insecticide (and consequently
relatively few invertebrates) less than fields
with no such applications. Later in the
season, however, adults showed no
preference for fields with no summer
insecticide applications; this was probably
because yellowhammer chicks are fed
entirely on invertebrates early in the season,
but eat cereal grains as well later on. In both
yellowhammers and skylarks, chick
condition was poorer when insecticides
were used. In addition, there was a trend
towards higher mortality in yellowhammer
broods next to fields exposed to herbicides.
These results extend the range of species for
which indirect effects of pesticides are
known. It appears that the timing of
pesticide application is critical: most
significant effects on breeding birds were
associated with pesticide use in summer,
rather than cumulative use over the crop
year. The results have clear implications for
the development of prescriptions for agri-
environment schemes.
ECOL
OGIC
AL P
ROCE
SS R
ESEA
RCH
29
Campbell LH, Avery MI, Donald P, EvansAD, Green RE and Wilson JD (1997) Areview of the indirect effects ofpesticides on birds. JNCC Report no 227.
Morris AJ, Bradbury RB and Wilson JD(2002) Determinants of patch selection byyellowhammers Emberiza citrinellaforaging in cereal crops. Aspects ofApplied Biology 67: 43–50.
Morris AJ, Bradbury RB and Wilson JD(2003) Indirect effects of pesticides onyellowhammers Emberiza citrinella.Proceedings of BCPC Pests and DiseasesConference, 2002 (in press).
Modelled densities of foraging yellowhammers forearly and late nests in fields with and withoutsummer insecticide applications.
Fields sprayed with insecticides in summer are usedless by yellowhammers, than those that are not.
Indirect effects of pesticides on birds
Roger Wilm
shurst (RSPB Images)
Numerous studies by the RSPB
and others have demonstrated
that agricultural intensification in
the UK has had deleterious
effects on farmland bird
populations.
If these findings hold across Europe, we
would expect countries with more intensive
agriculture to have suffered more severe
bird population declines.
We tested this prediction by obtaining
population trend information for 52 farmland
bird species from the European Bird Census
Council/BirdLife International European Bird
Database. From these data, we were able to
calculate the mean trend across all farmland
birds in each country between 1970 and
1990, taking into account the quality of the
data. These trends showed that farmland
bird populations declined in most European
countries during that period, but that there
was considerable variation between
countries. These differences between
countries could be explained in terms of
several measures of agricultural intensity. As
predicted, bird population declines were
significantly greater in countries with more
intensive agriculture, with cereal and dairy
yields explaining a substantial proportion of
the variation.
Population declines were greater in
European Union (EU) countries, subject to
the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), than
ECOL
OGIC
AL P
ROCE
SS R
ESEA
RCH
30 Agricultural intensification and thecollapse of Europe’s farmland birdpopulations
The relationship betweenagricultural intensity (cerealyield) and mean farmlandbird trend in each Europeancountry.
Au = Austria; Be = Belgium;Br = Belarus; Bu = Bulgaria;Cr = Croatia; Cz = CzechRepublic; De = Denmark; Es = Estonia; Fi = Finland; Fr = France; Ge = Germany;Gr = Greece; Hu = Hungary; Ir = Ireland; It = Italy; La= Latvia; Li = Lithuania; Mo = Moldova; Ne = The Netherlands; No = Norway; Pl = Poland; Po = Portugal; Ro = Romania;Se = Slovenia; Sl = Slovakia;Sp = Spain; Sw = Sweden; Sz = Switzerland; UK = UK; Ur = Ukraine.
in former Communist countries. The
UK has one of the greatest cereal yields
and, perhaps unsurprisingly, the
steepest farmland bird declines. These
results show that agricultural
intensification can affect bird
populations on a continental scale and
should be regarded as a major threat to
biodiversity. The RSPB is using the
results of this study to argue for a
greening of the CAP, in particular to
ensure that the conservation status of
farmland birds in eastern European
countries does not worsen when these
countries accede to the EU.
ECOL
OGIC
AL P
ROCE
SS R
ESEA
RCH
31
Donald PF, Green RE and Heath MF(2001) Agricultural intensification andthe collapse of Europe’s farmland birdpopulations. Proceedings of the RoyalSociety of London B, 268: 25–29.
Donald PF, Pisano G, Rayment MD andPain DJ (2002). The CommonAgricultural Policy, EU enlargementand the conservation of Europe’sfarmland birds. Agriculture,Ecosystems & Environment (in press).
Mean farmland birddeclines in eachEuropean country.
Agricultural intensification has led to a decline in greatbustards across Europe.
Chris Gomersall (RSPB Im
ages)
Sheep numbers have increased
markedly in the uplands in recent
decades. Associated with this,
heather moorland has decreased
in extent and has been partly
replaced by grassland. Few
studies have quantified the
impact of these changes on bird
populations.
low grazing pressure (particularly medium to
tall heather cover), although both species
preferred heterogeneous habitats to a
monoculture of tall heather. Although
moorland breeding waders are often thought
to have declined due to increases in grazing
pressure, we found no evidence to support
this hypothesis in southern Scotland. Indeed,
the affinity of golden plovers for open
vegetation suggests that high grazing
pressure may enhance densities of this
species. Skylark and wheatear densities were
highest on moorland with short vegetation,
while whinchats and meadow pipits were
most abundant where bracken and grass
respectively predominated over heather.
These four species are therefore unlikely to
have been adversely affected by increased
grazing on heather moorland.
The results of this study confirm that few
moorland bird species are closely associated
with extensive heather cover, and
demonstrate that changes to grazing
regimes need to be tailored to the existing
habitat condition of a site if they are to be
beneficial for moorland birds. Widespread
losses of hill sheep may be detrimental to
some moorland birds of conservation
importance.
ECOL
OGIC
AL P
ROCE
SS R
ESEA
RCH
32 Grazing and moorland birds
Pearce-Higgins JW and GrantMC (2001) The effects ofgrazing-related variation inhabitat on the distribution ofmoorland skylarks Alaudaarvensis and meadow pipitsAnthus pratensis. Aspects ofApplied Biology 67: 155–163.
Summary of thedistribution of ninewidespread moorland birdspecies in southernScotland according tograzing-related habitatvariation. The linesindicate the range ofhabitats occupied, and thesolid lines indicatepreferred habitats.
The golden plover favours areas of open vegetation.
In a study conducted by the RSPB in
collaboration with the Game Conservancy
Trust and Scottish Natural Heritage, the
abundance of a suite of moorland breeding
bird species was measured and related to
detailed vegetation assessments across 85
plots in southern Scotland that had been
subject to a range of historical grazing
regimes. General linear models were used
to analyse the effect of non-vegetation
factors such as altitude, soils and crow
abundance on bird distribution. Then, the
effect of grazing-related vegetation variables
in explaining residual variation in bird
abundance was determined.
Of the nine species considered in detail,
only red grouse and stonechats were
associated with vegetation characteristic of
Stev
e Kn
ell (
RSPB
Imag
es)
When the RSPB acquired its
Abernethy Forest reserve and
started to monitor the
capercaillie, it soon became
evident that chick production was
very poor.
In 1989, 1990 and 1991, productivity was
only 0.6, 0.0 and 0.1 chicks per hen
respectively. We thought that predation on
capercaillie nests by crows might be the
cause, as crow-predated eggs were found.
Remains of a capercaillie were also found at
a fox den. However, we did not know if the
level of predation was sufficient to cause the
poor productivity.
To investigate the effect of crows and red
foxes on capercaillie productivity, we carried
out a study in which crows and foxes were
culled for a number of years (1992–1996)
and productivity was compared with years
when there was no culling (1989–1991 and
1997–1999). In order to measure the
effectiveness of predator control, we
obtained indices of predator numbers. These
included the number of fox scats along
tracks and the number of territorial crows. In
addition, we estimated the likely predation
pressure on capercaillie nests from the rate
of predation on artificial nests containing
domestic hens’ eggs set in the forest in May.
Chick production was measured in
July/August. Finally, in order to check
whether any changes in productivity
observed at Abernethy were unique, several
reference sites elsewhere in Scotland were
studied.
The results showed that, during the latter
part of the predator culling period
(1994–1996), productivity at Abernethy
improved greatly and was greater than
productivity at the reference sites; at other
times, productivity at Abernethy was lower
than elsewhere. Regression analysis showed
that capercaillie productivity was high when
the predation rate on artificial nests by
crows was low and when June rainfall was
low. High June rainfall was probably
associated with low productivity, because
rain wets newly hatched chicks. It therefore
seems likely that crow control could benefit
capercaillies, but only in years when June is
dry. Although we attempted fox control,
there was no detectable change in fox
numbers, and no association was detected
between capercaillie productivity and fox
numbers.
ECOL
OGIC
AL P
ROCE
SS R
ESEA
RCH
33
This study was conducted withthe Centre for Ecology andHydrology and the GameConservancy Trust.
Productivity of capercaillies atAbernethy and reference sitesbetween 1989 and 1999. Theerror bars show 95%confidence intervals.Predators were culled atAbernethy between 1992 and1996.
Capercaillie productivity andpredators at Abernethy Forest
Based on these results, the RSPB has
reinstated crow control at Abernethy to
benefit the capercaillie. Although this study
did not produce good evidence that foxes
are a major problem, a Swedish study has
shown that this predator can affect
productivity. Because of this, and the fact
that the capercaillie is in danger of
extinction in the UK, fox culling has also
been reinstated.
Introduced predators are a major
threat to island avifaunas
worldwide. In the Western Isles of
Scotland, recently introduced
hedgehogs have become a serious
predator of the eggs of the
internationally important
populations of wading birds
nesting there.
Previous research
by the RSPB had
strongly suggested
that egg predation
by hedgehogs was
largely responsible
for the declines of
several waders,
including dunlins,
redshanks, snipe
and lapwings. To
further test this
hypothesis, we
carried out an
experiment in which we removed hedgehogs
from two fenced plots and compared the
hatching success of waders (mainly dunlins and
lapwings) within these plots and in nearby
control areas.
The hatching success of waders nesting inside
the plots was approximately 2.4 times that of
birds nesting in the control areas. There was no
evidence of a compensatory increase in egg
loss to native avian predators. It is therefore
likely that removal of hedgehogs on a larger
scale would result in a large increase in nest
success.
The removal experiment also tested the
practicalities of using relatively cheap fences
against hedgehogs. Fences were generally
effective, but on dry, sandy ground rabbits
burrowed under them, enabling some
hedgehogs to re-enter plots. Well-designed
fences could be used as a conservation tool,
both as a barrier to protect key sites and slow
further spread, and to aid the trapping and
removal of hedgehogs. However, fences
cannot be seen as a long-term solution to the
problem.
The threat to biodiversity, particularly on
islands, from the redistribution of native
species within a country is generally
overlooked and under-appreciated. The
establishment of hedgehogs in the Western
Isles provides an example of a threat to
biodiversity following human-mediated
redistribution of a species native to the UK to
parts of the country outside that species’
natural range, an activity that is not currently
prohibited by law. Policy action to deter or
control introductions should consider species’
ecological ranges within national boundaries.
In partnership with Scottish Natural Heritage
and the Scottish Executive, the RSPB is
currently seeking solutions to the problem of
introduced hedgehogs on the islands.
ECOL
OGIC
AL P
ROCE
SS R
ESEA
RCH
34
Jackson DB and Green RE (2000)The importance of the introducedhedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus)as a predator of the eggs ofwaders (Charadrii) on the machairin South Uist, Scotland. BiologicalConservation 93: 333–348.
Jackson DB (2001) Experimentalremoval of introduced hedgehogsimproves wader nest success inthe Western Isles, Scotland.Journal of Applied Ecology 38: 802–812.
Daily failure rates of wader nests (% per day)due to hedgehogs on unfenced and fenced plotsat two study sites.
The impact of introduced hedgehogson wader nesting success
Hedgehog eatinglapwing eggs.
DB J
acks
on
The two principal mechanisms
available to conserve breeding
wading birds on lowland wet
grassland in England are nature
reserves and agri-environment
schemes, particularly the
Environmentally Sensitive Area
(ESA) scheme.
ESAs offer payments to landowners in
return for maintaining (‘low tier options’) or
enhancing (‘high water level options’) the
landscape, biodiversity and historic value of
the land. In this study, we evaluated the
effectiveness of RSPB reserves and different
ESA tier options in conserving breeding
lapwings, redshanks and snipe. Population
trends of these species on RSPB reserves
were estimated using a loglinear model with
Poisson errors incorporating adjustments for
overdispersion. Population trends and
densities on sample areas of ESAs were
derived from existing survey reports.
Habitat management on RSPB lowland wet
grassland nature reserves has been
successful at increasing breeding lapwings
and redshanks but unsuccessful at
conserving breeding snipe on non-peat soils.
Overall, breeding lapwings and redshanks
have increased by an estimated 51% and
58% respectively on RSPB lowland wet
grassland reserves between 1987 and 2000.
Numbers of breeding snipe on RSPB
lowland wet grassland reserves declined by
an estimated 70% over the same period.
This is mainly due to a large decline at their
most important lowland RSPB site, the Ouse
Washes, probably caused by an increase in
the frequency of spring and summer
flooding.
Within ESAs, populations of breeding
wading birds fared better on land entered
into high water level options than on land
entered into low tier options. High water
level options also supported more pairs of
breeding wading birds per £ of ESA grant
received than low tier options. ESAs could
therefore be more cost-effective at
conserving breeding wading birds if a higher
proportion of land was entered into high
water tiers. This might be achieved by
increasing the level of advice given to
landowners and increasing payments for the
high water level options relative to those for
low tier options.
ECOL
OGIC
AL P
ROCE
SS R
ESEA
RCH
35Nature reserves for breeding wadingbirds and implications for ESAs
Ausden M and Hirons GJM (2002)Grassland nature reserves forbreeding wading birds in Englandand the implications for the ESAagri-environment scheme. BiologicalConservation 106: 279–291.
Population trend ofbreeding lapwings onlowland wet grassland onRSPB reserves inEngland. The error barsshow ± one standarderror.
Chris Knights (RSPB Images)
Water entering the Ouse Washes
has long been known to contain
high concentrations of nutrients,
particularly phosphorus, and
attempts have been made in the
Ouse catchment to reduce point
source pollution from sewage
works. The RSPB and English
Nature have been monitoring the
ditch flora of the Ouse Washes
since 1978 to investigate whether
there has been any improvement
in water quality.
We surveyed 600 10-metre lengths of ditch
in 1978, 1992 and 2001 (the same lengths
were surveyed on each occasion). For each
length, we recorded the percentage cover of
floating, submerged and emergent plants.
The study area covered the length of the
Ouse Washes (some 32 km) from Earith to
north of Welney, and encompassed the
RSPB’s Ouse Washes reserve.
Of the 20 submerged and floating taxa that
occur at the Ouse Washes, six expanded
their distribution significantly between 1978
and 2001 (Spirodela polyrhiza, Potamogeton
trichoides, Cladophera, Ceratophyllum
demersum, Elodea nutallii and Lemna minor)
and four contracted significantly
(Enteromorpha, Callitriche spp, Lemna gibba
and Ranunculus circinatus). All of these species
are typical of nutrient-rich conditions. It is
therefore apparent that the site has not been
colonised by species typical of lower nutrient
conditions, and although some species typical
of nutrient-rich conditions have declined, none
have become extinct at the site. It seems that
the reduction in the amount of nutrients
entering the Ouse Washes has been insufficient
to improve the diversity of the ditch flora.
Of the 29 emergent plant species occurring at
the Ouse Washes, eight increased significantly
between 1978 and 2001 (Alisma plantago-
aquatica, Alisma lanceolatum, Berula erecta,
Butomus umbellatus, Eleocharis palustris,
Equisetum fluviatile, Rorripa amphibia and
Sparganum erectum) and two decreased
significantly (Apium nodiflorum and
Oenanthe aquatica). All of these 10 species are
indicative of moderately high nutrient
concentrations, so, once again, there is little
evidence of any change in water quality. The
spread of these emergent macrophytes is
instead linked to improved habitat
management by the RSPB involving reprofiling
of ditches to enlarge the area of marginal
habitat along their edges.
ECOL
OGIC
AL P
ROCE
SS R
ESEA
RCH
36 Ditch flora changes at theOuse Washes
Changes in the ditch floraat the Ouse Washesprovide little evidence ofan improvement in waterquality.
Mike Richards (RSPB Im
ages)
ECOL
OGIC
AL P
ROCE
SS R
ESEA
RCH
37
A study carried out jointly by the
RSPB and the Environmental
Research Centre at the University
of Durham is exploring the
possible effects of climate change
on European breeding birds.
The first step in this study was to make
simulation models of the recent distributions
of all European breeding birds, based on the
European Bird Census Council’s atlas of
European breeding birds. The models
describe the probability that a given species
breeds in each 50-km square in Europe as a
function of the long-term averages of three
bioclimate variables: the sum of day-degrees
above 5°C (a measure of summer warmth
and the duration of the growing season); the
mean temperature of the coldest winter
month; and a measure of the availability of
water to plants. The distributions predicted
from these models fit the real distributions
very well for the great majority of species.
The next step was to take a scenario for the
future climate of Europe, generated by a
global climate model, and then to use the
bird distribution models to identify the areas
each species would have to occupy in the
future if it was to keep the climatic conditions
in its breeding range the same. This exercise
showed that, for many species, there is likely to
be a substantial shift in the location of their
‘typical climate space’ by the end of the 21st
century. Climate change scenarios vary
substantially according to the assumptions and
details of the model used to generate them, but
our study used a scenario from the middle of the
range.
We do not know how birds will respond to these
projected changes. Some species may shift their
geographical range so that the climatic conditions
they experience remain similar to those they live
in now. However, some species may not be able
to do this. This could be the case if change is too
rapid to be tracked by essential habitat features
such as plants or insects, or if a bird’s powers of
dispersal are insufficient to cross landscapes in
which its habitat has been fragmented by
humans. Species that do not shift their range will
experience climate conditions that they have not
encountered in the recent past, and this may
place them under stress.
A compendium of the present and projected
future locations of the typical climate spaces of all
European breeding birds is to be published. This
will be valuable in helping researchers to identify
the species and the parts of Europe for which
future impacts of climate change can be expected
to be most severe.
Current (left) andsimulated future (right)distribution of the marshtit. The simulateddistribution is based ona climate changescenario for 2070–99.Dark blue showsoccupied and yellowunoccupied squares.
Climate change and the distribution ofEuropean breeding birds
Although only established and
long-term contract staff are
listed, we appoint many senior
research assistants and research
assistants for short fieldwork
contracts each year.
Head of Conservation Science Department Dr David Gibbons
Research Coordinator Anita McClune
Principal Research Biologist Dr Rhys Green1
Research Biologistc Dr Jorn Scharlemann1
Principal Research Manager Dr Lennox Campbell
Research Biologist Dr Ian Johnstone
Head of Aquatic Research Dr Ken Smith
Senior Research Biologist Dr Norman Ratcliffe
Senior Research Assistant Georgina Pickerell(until May 2002)
Senior Research Assistant Sabine Schmitt
Research Biologist Dr Mark Bolton(from May 2002)
Senior Research Assistantc Nick Wilkinson
Senior Research Assistantc Roy Bamford
Senior Research Assistantc Richard Allcorn
Research Biologist Dr Gillian Gilbert
Senior Research Assistantc Chris Dunn
Research Biologist Dr Glen Tyler (until April 2002)
Research Biologistc Dr Jeremy Lindsell(from August 2002)
Technical Development Officer Nigel Butcher
Assistant p/t (volunteer) Colin Gooch
Head of International Research Dr Debbie Pain
Research Biologist Chris Bowden
Research Biologist p/t Dr Geoff Hilton
Research Biologistc Dr Richard Cuthbert(until July 2002)
Research Biologist Dr Paul Donald
Research Biologistc Dr Charlie Williams
Research Biologistc p/t Dr Thais Martins
Head of Monitoring and Survey Dr Richard Gregory
Senior Research Assistant Innes Sim
Research Biologist Dr Rowena Langston
Senior Research Assistant Simon Wotton
Research Biologist Dr Mark Eaton
European Monitoring Coordinator Dr Petr Vorisek2
Head of Research, Scotland Dr Jeremy Wilson
Secretary Alix Middleton
Senior Research Biologist Dr Ron Summers
Research Biologistc Dr Alastair Hamilton(until Jan 2002)
Research Biologist Mark Hancock
Senior Research Assistantc Allan Perkins
Research Assistant Bob Proctor
Senior Research Biologist Dr Murray Grant
Research Biologistc Dr James Pearce-Higgins
Senior Research Assistantc Dr Alison Taylor
Research Biologistc Dr Graeme Buchanan
Research Biologist Dr Digger Jackson
Research Biologist Dr Mark O'Brien
Head of Terrestrial Research Dr Andy Evans
Secretary Kathy Berkery
Senior Research Assistantc Sarah Nelson
Senior Research Biologist Dr Will Peach
Research Biologistc Dr Nick Brickle(until March 2002)
Research Biologist Dave Buckingham
Senior Research Assistantc Kim Fenton
Research Biologistc Dr Matt Denny(until September 2001)
Senior Research Assistant Derek Gruar
Research Assistantc Dave Barritt
Research Biologist Dr Guy Anderson
Research Biologistc Dr Rob Field
Senior Research Assistantc Danae Stevens
38 RSPB SCIENTIFIC STAFF2001/02
Senior Research Assistantc Trevor Smith
Research Assistantc Dominic Coath
Research Assistantc Emily Woodfield
Research Assistantc Roger Taylor
Research Biologist Dr Richard Bradbury
Research Biologist Tony Morris
Research Assistantc Chris Bailey
Senior Research Assistant Will Kirby
Head of Conservation DataManagement Unit Ian Fisher
Data Management Officer Ellen Kelly
Data Management Officer Rhoda Kennedy
Data Management Assistant Paul Britten
Data Management Assistant p/t Stephen Blain
Data Management Assistant p/t Irene Hutson
Data entry volunteer p/t Eric Readman
Data entry volunteer p/t Margaret Burgess
Data entry volunteer p/t John Davies
Head of Reserves Ecology3 Dr Graham Hirons
Senior Departmental Secretary Anne Smith
Reserves Ecologist Dr Malcolm Ausden
Reserves Ecologist (monitoring) Julianne Evans
Reserves Ecologist Dr Joanne Gilbert
Reserves Ecologist Dr Matt Self
Reserves Ecologistc (biodiversity) Dr Mark Gurney
Reserves Ecologist (biodiversity) Matt Shardlow(until February 2002)
Senior Reserves Ecologist, Scotland4 Dr Dave Beaumont
Reserves Ecologist, Scotland Dr Neil Cowie
Biodiversity Science Officer5 Dr Jane Sears
Invertebrate Conservation Officerc Dr Ian Middlebrook6
1 based at University of Cambridge2 based at Czech Ornithological Society3 part of Conservation Management Department4 part of Land Management Department, Scotland5 part of Sites and Species Conservation Department6 based at Butterfly Conservationc contract staff
RSPB
SCI
ENTI
FIC
STAF
F 20
01/2
39
Niall Benvie (RSPB Im
ages)Andrew
Hay (RSPB Images)
Bob Proctor collectinga core sample from aScots pine.
Will Kirby surveyingbirds and butterflies.
The RSPB funds and supervises a substantial number of PhD
studentships each year. This is a valuable mechanism for
undertaking important research, and shows the RSPB’s commitment
to training conservation biologists.
The following list shows those PhD studentships involving the RSPB that were active at
some stage during 2001 and 2002. All projects were funded and supervised by the RSPB to
varying extents, with the exception of those marked with an asterisk, for which the RSPB
provided supervision only. In addition, the RSPB helped initiate and funds the annual
Student’s Conference on Conservation Science at Cambridge.
Research project Student University / college Other partners
Bombus distinguendus ecology Tom Charman Cambridge NERC, IoZ
Breeding ecology of ring ouzels Ian Burfield Cambridge NERC
Egg-shell thinning Jorn Scharlemann Cambridge BMNH
Ouse Washes ditch flora Rob Cathcart Cambridge
Stone-curlew disturbance Elisabeth Taylor Cambridge EN
Stone-curlews and roads Tom Day Cambridge
Rudd's lark ecology David Maphisa Cape Town
Urban & suburban house sparrows Kate Vincent De Montford EN
Dartford warblers and disturbance Giselle Murison East Anglia EN
Red-breasted geese in Romania Dan Hulea East Anglia
Management of blanket bog Allan Gray Edinburgh
Breeding wader declines in N Britain Mark O'Brien Edinburgh
Seabird survival rates Sarah Davies Glasgow NERC
Skuas, discards and seabird predation Steve Votier Glasgow
Lapwings & arable stewardship Rob Sheldon Harper Adams
Non-inversion tillage Heidi Cunningham Harper Adams
Farmland birds in the Baltic Republics* Irina Herzon Helsinki
Reedbeds & fish availability Richard Noble Hull
Belarus bitterns Marina Dzmitranok Minsk
Bullfinch declines Fiona Proffitt Oxford NERC
Ecology of malimbes in Nigeria Manu Shiiwua Oxford
Farmland house sparrows Dave Hole Oxford NERC
Stubble field prescriptions Simon Butler Oxford BBSRC
Swallows & agricultural intensification Karl Evans Oxford
Ecology of crows in pastoral areas Ian Adderton Queens, Belfast DARD
Northern Ireland foxes Declan O'Mahoney Queens, Belfast DARD
Intensification of lowland grassland Dave Buckingham Reading
Orthoptera & grassland management David Smith Reading
Seychelles magpie-robin Peter Njoroge Reading
Conservation of Bryozoa Samantha Hill Reading EA
Corncrakes in Latvia Oskars Keiss Riga, Latvia
Avermectin and dung invertebrates Lisa Webb SAC
Heathland grazing Sophie Lake Southampton
Farmland processes, insects and birds Jenny Bright Stirling
Lapwing management at Gruinart Claire McKeever Stirling
Remote sensing of wetlands Crona O’Shea Stirling
Corncrakes on Shannon callows* Anita Donaghy University College, Cork
Kite population dynamics* Andrew Simpkins Wolverhampton
PhD
TRAI
NIN
G
40 PhD TRAINING
The complete list of all of the
RSPB’s scientific publications for
2001, and the first half of 2002, is
as follows.
Publications in scientificjournals and booksAghnaj A, Smith KW, Bowden CGR and Ribi M (2001) Studiesof the feeding ecology and habitat use of Northern Bald Ibis,Geronticus eremita, in the Souss-Massa National Park,Morocco. Ostrich Supplement 15: 197.
Amar A and Burthe S (2001) Observations of predation ofHen Harrier nestlings by Hooded Crows in Orkney. ScottishBirds 22: 65–66.
Amar A and Redpath SM (2002) Determining the cause of thehen harrier decline on the Orkney Islands: an experimentaltest of two hypotheses. Animal Conservation 5: 21–28.
Anderson GQA, Gruar DJ, Wilkinson NI and Field RH (2002)Tree sparrow Passer montanus chick diet and productivity inan expanding colony. Aspects of Applied Biology 67: 35–42.
Ausden M (2001) The effects of flooding grassland on foodsupply for breeding waders. British Wildlife 12: 179–187.
Ausden M, Banks B, Donnison E, Howe M, Nixon A, PhillipsD, Wicks D and Wynne C (2002) The status, conservationand use of the medicinal leech. British Wildlife 13: 229–238.
Ausden M and Hirons GJM (2002) Grassland nature reservesfor breeding wading birds in England and their implicationsfor the ESA agri-environment scheme. BiologicalConservation 106: 279–291.
Ausden M, Sutherland WJ and James R (2001) The effects offlooding lowland wet grassland on soil macroinvertebrateprey of breeding wading birds. Journal of Applied Ecology38: 320–338.
Balmford A, Bruner A, Cooper A, Costanza R, Farber S,Green RE, Jenkins M, Jefferiss P, Jessamy V, Madden J,Munro K, Myers N, Naeem A, Paavola J, Rayment M,Rosendo S, Roughgarden J, Trumper K and Turner RK (2002)Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science 297:950–953.
Boatman ND, Carter N, Evans AD, Grice PV, Stoate C, andWilson JD (eds) (2002) Birds and agriculture. Aspects ofApplied Biology 67. The Association of Applied Biologists,Warwick.
Bowden CGR (2001) The birds of Mount Kupe, southwestCameroon. Malimbus 23: 13–44.
Bowden CGR, Aghnaj A, Smith KW and Ribi M (2001)Conservation actions for the last wild population ofNorthern Bald Ibis, Geronticus eremita: results andimplications from a five year study in Morocco. OstrichSupplement 15: 252.
Bowden CGR, Fenton C, Gray GAL, Mackley L, Hilton GMand Atkinson PW (2001) The Montserrat oriole: in troubleagain. Dodo 37: 100–110.
Bradbury RB, Payne RJH, Wilson JD and Krebs JR (2001)Predicting population responses to resource management.Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16: 440–445.
Buckingham D (2001) Within-field habitat selection bywintering skylarks Alauda arvensis in southwest England.In: Donald PR and Vickery JA (eds) The ecology andconservation of skylarks Alauda arvensis. The RSPB,Sandy; 149–158.
Buckingham DL, Peach WJ and Fox D (2002) Factorsinfluencing bird use of different pastoral systems. In: FrameJ (ed) Conservation pays? BGS Occasional Symposium no36; 55–58.
Cadbury CJ and Ausden M (2001) Bird communities ofcoastal shingle and lagoons. In: Packham JR, Randall RE,Barnes RSK and Neal A (eds) Ecology and geomorphologyof coastal shingle. Westbury Academic & ScientificPublishing, Otley; 304–319.
Clausen P, Fredricksen M, Percival SM, Anderson GQA andDenny MJH (2001) Seasonal and annual survival rates ofEast-Atlantic Light-bellied Brent Geese Branta berniclahrota assessed by capture-recapture analysis. Ardea 89:101–110.
Cook AS, Grant MC, McKay CR and Peacock MA (2001)Status, distribution and breeding success of the Chough inScotland in 1998. Scottish Birds 22: 82–91.
Cunningham HM, Chaney K, Wilcox A and Bradbury R(2002) The effect of non-inversion tillage on earthworm andarthropod populations as potential food sources forfarmland birds. Aspects of Applied Biology 67: 101–106.
Dawson RJG, Bowden CGR, Cameron HM (2001) Pelagicseabird report and status review of selected speciesoccurring off the Atlantic coast of Morocco. Bulletin of theAfrican Bird Club 8: 107–112.
De Swardt DH and Peach WJ (2001) Annual survival ofGurney’s Sugarbird, Promerops gurneyi. Ostrich 72:199–218.
Donald PF, Buckingham DL, Moorcroft D, Muirhead LB,Evans AD and Kirby WB (2001) Habitat use and diet ofskylarks Alauda arvensis wintering on lowland farmland insouthern Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology 38: 536–547.
Donald PF, Buckingham DL, Muirhead LB, Evans AD, KirbyWB and Schmitt SIA (2001) Factors affecting clutch size,hatching rates and partial brood losses in skylark Alaudaarvensis nests on lowland farmland. In: Donald PF andVickery JA (eds) The ecology and conservation of skylarksAlauda arvensis. The RSPB, Sandy; 63–77.
41PUBLICATIONS
Donald PF, Evans AD, Buckingham DL, Muirhead LB andWilson JD (2001) Factors affecting the territory distributionof skylarks Alauda arvensis breeding on lowland farmland.Bird Study 48: 271–278.
Donald PF, Evans AD, Muirhead LB, Buckingham DL, KirbyWB and Schmitt SIA (2002) survival rates, causes of failureand productivity of skylark Alauda arvensis nests onlowland farmland. Ibis 144: 652–664.
Donald PF, Green RE and Heath MF (2001) Agriculturalintensification and the collapse of Europe’s farmland birdpopulations. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B268: 25–29.
Donald PF and Greenwood JJD (2001) Spatial patterns ofrange contraction in British breeding birds. Ibis 143:593–601
Donald PF, Muirhead LB, Buckingham DL, Evans AD, KirbyWB and Gruar D (2001) Body condition, growth rates anddiet of skylark Alauda arvensis nestlings on lowlandfarmland. Ibis 143: 658–669.
Donald PF, Pisano G, Rayment MD and Pain DJ (2002) TheCommon Agricultural Policy, EU enlargement and theconservation of Europe’s farmland birds. Agriculture,Ecosystems and Environment 89: 167–179.
Donald PF and Vickery JA (eds) (2001) The ecology andconservation of skylarks Alauda arvensis. The RSPB,Sandy.
Edwards PJ, Schmitt SIA, Jenner T, Cracknell J and EverettCJ (2001) Research into the value of field margins forskylarks Alauda arvensis. In: Donald PR and Vickery JA(eds) The ecology and conservation of skylarks Alaudaarvensis. The RSPB, Sandy; 203–207.
Evans AD and Armstrong-Brown S (2002) The role ofresearch and development in the evolution of a "smart" agri-environment scheme. Aspects of Applied Biology 67:253–262.
Gibbons DW and Avery MI (2001) Birds. In: Hawksworth D(ed) The changing wildlife of Great Britain and Ireland.Taylor & Francis, London; 373–404.
Gilbert G (2002) The status and habitat of Spotted CrakesPorzana porzana in Britain in 1999. Bird Study 49: 79–86.
Gilbert G, Tyler G and Smith K (2002) Local annual survivalof booming male Great Bittern Botaurus stellaris in Britain,in the period 1990–1999. Ibis 144: 51–61.
Gill JA, Norris KJ and Sutherland WJ (2001) The effects ofdisturbance on habitat use by black-tailed godwits Limosalimosa. Journal of Applied Ecology 38: 846–856.
Goddard PJ, Summers RW, Macdonald AJ, Murray C andFawcett AR (2001) Behavioural responses of red deer tofences of five different designs. Applied Animal BehaviourScience 73: 289–298.
Grant MC (2002) Effects of radiotagging on the weight gainand survival of Curlew Numenius arquata chicks. BirdStudy 49: 172–176.
Green RE (2002) Diagnosing causes of population declinesand selecting remedial actions. In: Norris K and Pain DJ(eds) Conserving bird biodiversity: general principles andtheir application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge:139–156.
Green RE (2002) Corncrakes, conservation management andagri-environment schemes. Aspects of Applied Biology 67:189–190.
Green RE, Schäffer N and Wend D (2001) A method forageing adult Corncrakes Crex crex. Ringing & Migration 20:352–357.
Gregory RD, Wilkinson NI, Noble DG, Robinson JA, BrownAF, Hughes J, Procter D, Gibbons DW and Galbraith C (2002)A priority list for bird conservation in the United Kingdom,Channel Islands and Isle of Man: Birds of ConservationConcern, 2002–2007. British Birds 95: 410–450.
Hancock MH and Wilson JD (2002) Winter habitatassociations of grey partridge Perdix perdix in Scotland,1997–1999. Aspects of Applied Biology 67: 171–178.
Heaney V, Ratcliffe N, Brown A, Robinson PJ and Lock L(2002) The status of European Storm-petrels Hydrobatespelagicus and Manx Shearwaters Puffinus puffinus on theIsle of Scilly. Atlantic Seabird 4: 1–16.
Hole DG, Whittingham MJ, Bradbury RB, Anderson GQA,Lee PLM, Wilson JD and Krebs JR (2002) Widespread localextinctions of House Sparrows are caused by agriculturalintensification. Nature 418: 931–932.
Hopkinson P, Travis JMJ, Evans J, Gregory RD, Telfer MGand Williams PH (2001) Flexibility and the use of indicatortaxa in the selection of sites for nature reserves.Biodiversity and Conservation 10: 271–285.
Jackson DB (2001) Experimental removal of introducedhedgehogs improves wader nest success in the WesternIsles, Scotland. Journal of Applied Ecology 38: 802–812.
Jeganathan P, Green RE, Bowden CGR, Norris KI, Pain Dand Rahmani A (2002) Use of tracking strips and automaticcameras for detecting critically endangered Jerdon’scoursers Rhinoptilus bitorquatus in scrub jungle in AndhraPradesh, India. Oryx 36: 182–188.
Johnstone I, Whitehead S and Lamacraft D (2002) Theimportance of grazed habitats for foraging choughsPyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax, and its implication for agri-environment schemes. Aspects of Applied Biology 67:59–66.
Langston RHW, Gregory RD and Adams R (2002) The statusof the Hawfinch in the UK 1975–1999. British Birds 95:166–173.
Lee PLM, Bradbury RB, Wilson JD, Flanagan NS,Richardson L, Perkins AJ and Krebs JR (2001) Microsatellitevariation in the Yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella:population structure of a declining farmland bird.Molecular Ecology 10: 1633–1644.
Lee PLM, Collins KP, Richardson L and Bradbury RB (2001)Loss of genetic variation in the declining Irish population ofYellowhammers Emberiza citrinella. Irish Birds 6: 590–592.
PUBL
ICAT
ION
S
42
Lee PLM, Richardson LJ and Bradbury RB (2001) Thephylogenetic status of the Corn Bunting Miliaria calandrabased on mitochondrial control-region DNA sequences.Ibis 143: 299–303.
Manu S (2001) Possible factors influencing the decline ofNigeria’s rarest endemic bird, the Ibadan MalimbeMalimbus ibadanensis. Ostrich Supplement 15: 119–121.
Moorcroft D, Whittingham MJ, Bradbury RB and Wilson JD(2002) The selection of stubble fields by winteringgranivorous birds reflects vegetation cover and foodabundance. Journal of Applied Ecology 39: 535–547.
Morris AJ, Bradbury RB and Wilson JD (2002) Determinantsof patch selection by yellowhammers Emberiza citrinellaforaging in cereal crops. Aspects of Applied Biology 67:43–50.
Morris AJ, Whittingham MJ, Wilson JD, Bradbury RB,Kyrkos A, Buckingham DL and Evans AD (2001) Foraginghabitat selection by yellowhammers (Emberiza citrinella)nesting in agriculturally contrasting regions in lowlandEngland. Biological Conservation 101: 197–210.
Norris K and Pain DJ (eds) (2002) Conserving birdbiodiversity: general principles and their application.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
O’Brien M (2002) The relationship between field occupancyrates by breeding lapwing and habitat management onupland farmland in Northern Britain. Aspects of AppliedBiology 67: 85–92.
O’Brien M and Bainbridge IP (2001) The evaluation of keysites for breeding waders in lowland Scotland. BiologicalConservation 103: 51–63.
Ogilvie MA and the Rare Breeding Birds Panel (2001) Rarebreeding birds in the United Kingdom in 1999. British Birds94: 344–381.
Ogilvie MA and the Rare Breeding Birds Panel (2001) Non-native birds breeding in the United Kingdom in 1999. BritishBirds 94: 518–522.
Owen KM and Marrs RH (2001) The use of mixtures of sulfurand bracken litter to reduce pH of former arable soils andcontrol of ruderal species. Restoration Ecology 9: 397–409.
Pain DJ and Donald PF (2002) Outside the reserve:pandemic threats to bird diversity. In: Norris K and Pain DJ(eds) Conserving bird diversity: general principles and theirapplication. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge;157–179.
Peach WJ, Hanmer DB and Oatley TB (2001) Do southernAfrican songbirds live longer than their Europeancounterparts? Oikos 93: 235–249.
Peach WJ, Lovett LJ, Wotton S and Jeffs C (2001)Countryside Stewardship delivers cirl buntings (Emberizacirlus) in Devon, UK. Biological Conservation 101: 361–373.
Peach W, Taylor R, Cotton P, Gruar D, Hill I and Denny M(2002) Habitat utilisation by song thrushes Turdusphilomelos on lowland farmland during summer and winter.Aspects of Applied Biology 67: 11–20.
Pearce-Higgins JW (2001) A model describing theexchange of individuals between Turnstone Arenariainterpres roosts on the North Wales coast. Ringing &Migration 20: 209–212.
Pearce-Higgins JW and Grant MC (2002) The effects ofgrazing-related variation in habitat on the distribution ofmoorland skylarks Alauda arvensis and meadow pipitsAnthus pratensis. Aspects of Applied Biology 67: 155–164.
Pearce-Higgins JW and Yalden DW (2002) Variation in thegrowth and survival of golden plover Pluvialis apricariachicks. Ibis 144: 200–209.
Perkins AJ and Anderson GQA (2002) Seed selection bytree sparrows Passer montanus: determining appropriateseeds for supplementary feeding on farmland. Aspects ofApplied Biology 67: 213–220.
Piertney SB, Summers RW and Marquiss M (2001)Microsatellite and mitochondrial DNA homogeneity amongcrossbill taxa extant in the UK. Proceedings of the RoyalSociety of London 268: 1511–1517.
Proctor R and Summers RW (2002) Nesting habitat, clutchsize and nest failure of Capercaillie Tetrao urogallus inScotland. Bird Study 49: 190–192.
Ratcliffe N, Catry P, Hamer KC, Klomp NI and Furness RW(2002) The effect of age and year on the survival of adultbreeding great skuas Catharacta skua in Shetland. Ibis 144:384–392.
Reid J, Ruxton GD, Monaghan P and Hilton GM (2002) Theenergetic consequences of clutch size for an uniparentalintermittent incubator. Auk 119: 54–61.
Robinson RA, Wilson JD and Crick HQP (2001) Theimportance of arable habitat for farmland birds in grasslandlandscapes. Journal of Applied Ecology 38: 1059–1069.
Scharlemann JPW (2001) Museum egg collections asstores of long-term phenological data. InternationalJournal of Biometeorology 45: 208–211.
Shardlow ME (2001) A review of the conservationimportance of shingle habitats for invertebrates in theUnited Kingdon (UK). In: Packham JR, Randall RE, BarnesRSK and Neil A. Ecology and geomorphology of coastalshingle. Westbury Academic and Scientific Publishing,Otley.
Sheldon RD, Chaney K and Tyler G (2002) Lapwings,earthworms and agriculture. Aspects of Applied Biology 67:93–100.
Sim IMW, Cross AV, Lamacraft DL and Pain DJ (2001)Correlates of Common Buzzard Buteo buteo density andbreeding success in the West Midlands. Bird Study 48:317–329.
Sim IMW and Zefania S (2002) Extension of the knownrange of the Red-shouldered Vanga Calicalicusrufocarpallis in southwest Madagascar. Bulletin of theBritish Ornithologists’ Club 122: 194–196.
Siriwardena GM, Baillie SR, Crick HQP and Wilson JD(2001) Changes in agricultural land use and breedingperformance of some granivorous farmland passerines.Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 84: 191–206.
PUBL
ICAT
ION
S
43
Siriwardena GM, Wilson JD, Baillie SR and Crick HQP(2001) Can the historical CBC trend for skylarks be‘recovered’ using present-day agricultural habitatpreferences and changes in agricultural land use? In:Donald PF and Vickery JA (eds) The ecology andconservation of skylarks Alauda arvensis. The RSPB,Sandy; 53–60.
Stanbury A, O’Brien M and Donaghy A (2001) Trends inbreeding wader populations on ‘Key Areas’ within NorthernIreland between 1986 and 2000. Irish Birds 6: 513–526.
Stevens DK, Donald PF, Evans AD, Buckingham DL andEvans J (2002) Territory distribution and foraging patterns ofcirl buntings (Emberiza cirlus) breeding in the UK.Biological Conservation 107: 307–313.
Stillman R, Goss-Custard J, West A, McGrorty S, Caldow R,le V dit Durrell S, Norris K, Johnstone I, Ens B and Triplet P(2001) Predicting shorebird mortality and population sizeunder different regimes of shellfishery management.Journal of Applied Ecology 38: 857–868.
Stoate C, Morris RM and Wilson JD (2001) Cultural ecologyof Whitethroat (Sylvia communis) habitat management byfarmers. Part I: field boundary vegetation in lowlandEngland. Journal of Environmental Management 62:329–341.
Stoate C, Morris RM and Wilson JD (2001) Cultural ecologyof Whitethroat (Sylvia communis) habitat management byfarmers. Part II: winter in farmland trees and shrubs inSenegambia. Journal of Environmental Management 62:343–356.
Summers RW (2001) High-level mist-netting. Ringers’Bulletin 10: 76.
Summers RW (2002) Parrot crossbills breeding in AbernethyForest. British Birds 95: 4–11.
Summers RW and Canham M (2001) The distribution ofCrested tits in Scotland during the 1990s. Scottish Birds 22:20–27.
Summers RW and Dugan D (2001) An assessment ofmethods used to mark fences to reduce bird collisions inpinewoods. Scottish Forestry 55: 23–29.
Summers RW, Jardine DC, Marquiss M and Rae R (2002)The distribution of crossbills Loxia spp. in Britain, withspecial reference to the Scottish Crossbill Loxia scotica.Ibis 144: 393–410.
Summers RW, Peach W and Nicoll M (2001) Numbers,migration phenology and survival of purple sandpipersCalidris maritima at Gourdon, eastern Scotland. Bird Study48: 139–146.
Summers RW, Underhill LG and Simpson A (2002) Habitatpreferences of waders (Charadrii) on the coast of theOrkney Islands. Bird Study 49: 60–66.
Swetnam RD, Wilson JD, Bradbury RB and Krebs JR (2001)Modelling the effects of agricultural change on skylarknumbers using GIS. In: Donald PF and Vickery JA (eds) Theecology and conservation of skylarks Alauda arvensis. TheRSPB, Sandy; 209–219.
Tharme AP, Green RE, Baines D, Bainbridge IP and O’BrienM (2001) The effect of management for red grouse shootingon the population density of breeding birds on heather-dominated moorland. Journal of Applied Ecology 38:439–457.
Underhill L and Gibbons DW (2002) Mapping and monitoringbird populations: their conservation uses. In: Norris K andPain D (eds) Conserving bird biodiversity: general principlesand their appliaction. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge; 34–60.
Van den Berg LJL, Bullock JM, Clarke RT, Langston RHWand Rose RJ (2001) Territory selection by the Dartfordwarbler (Sylvia undata) in Dorset, England: the role ofvegetation type, habitat fragmentation and population size.Biological Conservation 101: 217–228.
Vanhinsbergh D and Evans A (2002) Habitat associations ofthe Red-backed Shrike (Lanius collurio) in Carinthia,Austria. Journal für Ornithologie 143: 000–000.
Van Strien AJ, Pannekock J and Gibbons DW (2001)Indexing European bird population trends using results ofnational monitoring schemes: a trial of a new method. BirdStudy 48: 200–214.
Vickery JA and Buckingham DL (2001) The value of set-aside for skylarks Alauda arvensis in Britain. In: Donald PFand Vickery JA (eds) The ecology and conservation ofskylarks Alauda arvensis. The RSPB, Sandy; 161–175.
Votier SC, Bearhop S, Ratcliffe N and Furness RW (2001)Pellets as indicators of diet in Great Skuas Catharacta skua.Bird Study 48: 373–376.
Whittingham MJ, Bradbury RB, Wilson JD, Morris AJ,Perkins AJ and Siriwardena GM (2001) Chaffinch Fringillacoelebs foraging patterns, nestling survival and territorydensity on lowland farmland. Bird Study 48: 257–270.
Wilkinson NI, Langston RHW, Gregory RD, Gibbons DW andMarquiss M (2002) Capercaillie Tetrao urogallus abundanceand habitat use in Scotland, in winter 1998–99. Bird Study49: 177–185.
Wilson JD (2001) Weeds as a food resource for farmlandbirds: what, where and how many should we leave?Brighton Crop Protection Conference 2001 – Weeds 1:391–398.
Wilson JD (2001) Foraging habitat selection by skylarksAlauda arvensis on lowland farmland during the nestlingperiod. In: Donald PF and Vickery JA (eds) The ecology andconservation of skylarks Alauda arvensis. The RSPB,Sandy; 91–101.
Wilson JD, Akriotis T, Balmer DE and Kyrkos A (2001)Identification of Marsh Warblers Acrocephalus palustrisand Reed Warblers A. scirpaceus on autumn migrationthrough the eastern Mediterranean. Ringing & Migration20: 224–232.
Wilson AM, Vickery JA and Browne SJ (2001) Numbers anddistribution of Northern Lapwings Vanellus vanellusbreeding in England and Wales in 1998. Bird Study 48: 2–17.
PUBL
ICAT
ION
S
44
Wolfenden IH and Peach WJ (2001) Temporal changes inthe survival rates of skylarks breeding in duneland in NWEngland. In: Donald PF and Vickery JA (eds) The ecologyand conservation of skylarks Alauda arvensis. The RSPB,Sandy; 79–89.
Wotton SR, Langston RHW and Gregory RD (2002) Thebreeding status of the Ring Ouzel Turdus torquatus in theUK in 1999. Bird Study 49: 26–34.
Reports, theses and other publicationsAmar A (2001) Determining the cause of the hen harrierdecline on Orkney. PhD thesis, University of Aberdeen.
Amar A, Arroyo B and Redpath S (2002) Analysis ofbreeding success of Orkney hen harriers in relation tohabitat. Report to SNH.
Anderson GQA, Bradbury RB and Evans AD (2001) Evidencefor the effects of agricultural intensification on wild birdpopulations in the UK. RSPB report, Sandy.
Bradbury RB (2001) Winter birds. In: Ecological evaluationof the arable stewardship pilot schemes, 1998–2000.Technical Annex VI/1. MAFF, London.
Bradbury RB (2001) Breeding birds. In: Ecologicalevaluation of the arable stewardship pilot schemes,1998–2000. Technical Annex VI/2. MAFF, London.
Cadbury CJ, Shardlow M and Buisson R (2001) Salinelagoons: a scarce habitat of biodiversity importance. RSPBConservation Review 13: 75–84.
Cunningham AA, Prakash V, Ghalsasi GR and Pain D (2001)Investigating the cause of catastrophic declines in Asiangriffon vultures (Gyps indicus and G. bengalensis). In:Katzner T and Parry-Jones J (eds) Reports from theworkshop on Indian Gyps vultures, 4th Eurasian Congresson Raptors, Seville, Spain. Estación Biológica Donaña,Raptor Research Foundation; 10–11.
Donald PF and Gregory RD Silent fields: the decline offarmland birds in Europe. Biologist 49: 101–106.
Evans AD and Wilson JD (2001) The implication of ten yearsof research on lowland farmland birds: an RSPBperspective. RSPB Conservation Review 13: 7–17.
Evans KL (2001) The effect of agriculture on swallowsHirundo rustica. DPhil thesis, University of Oxford.
Fisher I and Waliczky Z (2001) An assessment of thepotential impact of the TINA network on Important BirdAreas (IBAs) in the accession countries. BirdLifeInternational/The RSPB, Sandy, UK.
Green RE, Harley M, Spalding M and Zöckler C (2001) (eds)Impacts of climate change on wildlife. The RSPB, Sandy.
Gregory RD, Noble DH, Cranswick PA, Campbell LH,Rehfisch MM and Baillie SR (2001) The state of the UK’sBirds 2000. RSPB/BTO/WWT.
Hancock M, Summers R and Clark L (2001) Slavonian grebestudies, 2001. Nest outcomes from timelapse videocameras, mammal records from triggered still cameras,and stickleback surveys. RSPB report, Sandy.
Hilton GM, Bowden CGR, Ratcliffe N, Lucking V andBrindley E (2001) Bird conservation priorities in the UKOverseas Territories. RSPB Research Report no 1. TheRSPB, Sandy.
Jackson DB (2001) Uist wader surveys 2000: provisionalestimates and recent trends. In: Rabbitts B (ed) OuterHebrides Bird Report 2000. SOC, Edinburgh.
Johnstone I and Norris K (2001) Oystercatchers andcockles: a management tool for fisheries and conservation.RSPB Conservation Review 13: 53–59.
Kirby W (2001) A summary of monitoring at Grange Farm,Knapwell for the year 2000. RSPB report, Sandy.
Langston R (2002) Wind energy and birds: results andrequirements. RSPB Research Report no 2. The RSPB,Sandy.
Martin J, Dunn CJ, Douglas D, Calbrade N, Gilbert G andSmith KW (2001) Bittern Botaurus stellaris monitoring andresearch in the UK. Summary of the 2001 season. RSPBreport, Sandy.
Mavor RA, Pickerell G, Heubeck M and Thompson KR(2001). Seabird numbers and breeding success in Britainand Ireland, 2000. JNCC, Peterborough.
O’Brien M (2001) Factors affecting the numbers anddistribution of breeding waders on upland enclosedgrassland in northern Britain. PhD thesis, University ofEdinburgh.
Pain DJ, Rose L and Castro F (2001) The Doñana disaster.RSPB Conservation Review 13: 32–38.
Peach WJ (2001) Minimum breeding population of BeardedTits on the Tay reedbeds in 2000: an analysis of Tay RingingGroup mark recapture data. In: Robertson D (ed) TayRinging Group Report 1998–2000; 24–28.
Pickerell G (2001) The National Beached Bird Survey, 2001.RSPB report, Sandy.
Schäffer N and Green RE (2001) The global status of thecorncrake. RSPB Conservation Review 13: 18–24.
Scharlemann JPW (2001) Eggshell thickness of some birdsis declining. Nature First 24: 16.
Summers RW (2001) The status of aspen Populus tremula atAbernethy Forest. RSPB report, Sandy.
Summers RW and Clark LE (2001) The Slavonian grebepopulation in Scotland, 1971–2000. RSPB report, Sandy.
Summers RW and Donald C (2001) Scottish Crossbill nestcovered by snow. Scottish Bird News 62: 5.
Thomas M, Elliott G and Gregory R (2001) The impact of eggcollecting on scarce breeding birds 1982–1999. RSPBConservation Review 13: 39–44.
PUBL
ICAT
ION
S
45
We have provided a full list of
RSPB projects for 2001 and those
running during the first half of
2002, with similar projects
combined for brevity. Major
funders (bold type) and partners
are given for each project. City
names refer to universities. PhD
projects are listed separately on
p 40.
Conservation ScienceDepartmentMonitoring, prioritisation and indicatorsWetland Birds Survey (JNCC, BTO, WWT)
Breeding Bird Survey (JNCC, BTO)
Rare Breeding Birds Panel (JNCC, BTO, British Birds)
Seabird Monitoring Programme (JNCC, SOTEAG)
Seabird 2000 (JNCC, BirdWatch Ireland, SOTEAG, SeabirdGroup)
Shetland skua survey (SNH, AFEN, SOTEAG)
Sample cirl bunting survey (EN)
UK peregrine (BTO, SNH) and bearded tit (EN) surveys
Britain and Ireland chough survey (CCW, BirdWatch Ireland)
Repeat upland birds survey, UK (EN, DEFRA, CCW, LNDPA,YDNPA)
Repeat breeding waders of wet meadows survey, E & W(DEFRA, EN)
Repeat woodland birds surveys, UK (DEFRA, EN, FC, WoodlandTrust, BTO)
‘Quality of life’ wild bird indicator (DEFRA, BTO)
Spanish (SEO), Hungarian (MME, Nyiregyhaza) and Polish(OTOP, GOS) breeding bird surveys
Pan-European breeding bird monitoring (CSO, EBCC, StatisticsNetherlands, BTO)
Bird monitoring priorities in UK Overseas Territories
Surveys of corncrakes in Russia (RBCU) and spotted eagles inBelarus (APB)
Gough Island bird surveys (FCO, Cape Town)
IBAs in Uganda (Cambridge & Copenhagen, MUIENR)
The ecology of threatened speciesBittern ecology (EN)
The ecology of yellow wagtails on wet grassland
Productivity and survival of capercaillie (CEH, GCT)
Taxonomic status of crossbills in Scotland (CEH, Aberdeen)
Causes of breeding failure in Slavonian grebes (SNH)
Hen harrier habitat use and range management (SNH, GCT,CEH)
Correlates of black grouse decline
Habitat management for red-necked phalaropes
The ecology of farmland song thrushes (Frizzell) and reedbuntings (EN)
Tree sparrow ecology (EN, Anglian Water, CJ WildBirdFoods, L&RWT)
Causes of house sparrow declines (NERC, DEFRA, CJWildBird Foods, Oxford)
Conservation of bald ibis (SEO, Parc National de Souss-Massa, DWCT, Euronatur)
Ecology of the Razo lark (SEO, SPEA)
Ecology of the Rudd’s lark (BirdLife South Africa, PercyFitzpatrick Institute)
The ecology of Jerdon’s courser (Reading, BNHS, DarwinInitiative)
Gyps vulture declines in Asia (IoZ, BHNS, PDRC, NBPC,Darwin Initiative, AAHL)
Monitoring Ascension Island seabirds following feral catremoval (FCO)
Conservation of Montserrat orioles (FCO, MNT, MALHE,DWCT, Montana)
Tern trapping in Ghana (GWS)
Using stable isotopes to understand declines of rockhopperpenguins (NIWAR)
Determining the winter range of aquatic warblers usingstable isotopes
Determining the breeding range of slender-billed curlewsusing stable isotopes
Lead poisoning in Spanish imperial eagles (DoñanaBiological Station, Aberdeen)
Ecological process researchPredators and breeding lapwing experiment
Hedgehog predation and breeding waders on the Uists(SNH, UFAW)
Reducing the impact of cat predation on garden birds
The impacts of flooding and predation on breeding black-tailed godwits
Wet grassland ESA management for breeding waders
The effects of surface slotting of grassland on breedingwaders (Manchester, Silsoe)
46 THE RSPB’S SCIENTIFICPROJECTS IN 2001
Grassland re-seeding and corncrakes
Moorland management and birds at Geltsdale
The abundance of moorland birds and grazing pressure
Environmentally sustainable and economically viable grazingsystems (DEFRA, ADAS, IGER, SAC, Newcastle, CEH)
Grazing management and upland birds (SEERAD, Macaulay,SAC, CEH, BioSS)
Remote sensing upland habitats
Foot-and-mouth and breeding waders (EN) and barnaclegeese (SEERAD, WWT)
Population dynamics of, and seed regeneration in, nativeCaledonian pine
The role of fire and grazing in native Caledonian pinewoods
Indirect effects of pesticides on birds (DEFRA, CSL, GCT,CEH, Oxford)
Seed selection trials (CJ WildBird Foods)
Factors affecting lowland grassland birds (EN)
Predicting responses of farmland birds to agriculturalchange (DEFRA, BTO, GCT)
Corn buntings and Rural Stewardship Scheme (SNH)
Arable silage and corn buntings on the Uists
The effects of reduced crop density on skylarks (EN)
Stubble management and birds (Oxford, BBSRC)
Agri-environment schemes and winter bird food (DEFRA,BTO, UEA)
Sustainable arable farming for an improved environment(ADAS, BTO, CAER, CEH, CSL, GCT, CPA, Syngenta CropProtection, NT, LEAF, BPC, HGCA, Sainsbury’s, Safeway, MrJonathan Tipples, DEFRA, SEERAD, EN,
The impact of artificial food on breeding and wintering farmbirds (BirdAid)
Monitoring of Hope Farm
Factors affecting Polish farmland birds (OTOP)
European ornithological climate change atlas (Durham)
Climate change and the African IBA network (BirdLifeInternational, Copenhagen and Durham)
Reserves Ecology(ConservationManagement Department)BirdsImproving suitability of fields for snipe at West Sedgemoor
Chough habitat use at South Stack (CCW)
Provision of arable on reserves to benefit farmland birds
Site condition assessment for breeding waders at RSPB wetgrassland reserves
Repeat survey of woodland birds at Nagshead (EN, York)
Habitat use by breeding wood sandpipers
Fish and waterImproving elver runs at reedbed reserves
Monitoring fish at RSPB’s reserves managed for bitterns
Hydrological and topographical surveys of RSPB reserves(Cranfield, G Spoor Assoc)
Nutrient levels at the Ouse Washes
VegetationRepeat Ouse Washes vegetation survey (EN)
Monitoring the conversion of arable fields to wet grassland atthe Ouse Washes
Monitoring vegetation establishment at Otmoor
NVC surveys of Marshside, Forsinard, Blar nam Faoileag andLoch of Strathbeg
Vegetation monitoring at Meadow Marsh (Minsmere), InshMarshes and Cliffe Pools
Monitoring of vegetation in cattle-grazed areas of fen atSurlingham
Vegetation monitoring at red-necked phalarope mires, Fetlar
Re-survey of vegetation following ditch blocking, Forsinard
Site condition monitoring, Forsinard
Monitoring of permanent quadrats and mapping forest fieldlayer at Abernethy
Survey of stand structure, Craigmore Wood
Mondhuie wet woods survey
NVC survey of wet heath and mire at Arne
Monitoring heather restoration at Vyrnwy and heathlandestablishment at Tudeley
Survey of corncrake early cover on management agreementareas
EstuarineMonitoring effects of managed realignment at Havergate
Study of saltmarsh erosion, Morecambe Bay (Lancaster)
InvertebratesMonitoring of soil and sward invertebrates and vegetation,Otmoor and Lakenheath
Organic content and invertebrates in artificial saline lagoons,Minsmere
Invertebrates of newly created wetlands, Lakenheath and HamWall
Availability of soil invertebrates after arable to wet grasslandconversion, Ouse Washes
GrazingMonitoring deer and browsing at Wolves Wood
Deer distribution and densities, Abernethy and Wood of Cree
Monitoring of browsing on tree regeneration, Inversnaid
The effects of grazing by Konik horses at reedbed margins,Minsmere
Effects of grazing on floodplain vegetation, Insh Marshes
Effects of grazing on breeding curlew at Rendall Moss
Effects of cattle grazing on wet heath, Grange and Avon Heath
THE
RSPB
’S S
CIEN
TIFI
C PR
OJEC
TS IN
200
1
47
Habitat management techniquesEstablishment of acid grassland (Liverpool) and grass heath(Liverpool, CEH)
Producing ridge and furrows at wet grassland creation sites
Assessing the suitability of degraded peat sites for wet grasslandrestoration
Development of multi-row reed seedling planter (Cranfield)
Forest edge burning and tree regeneration, Abernethy
Arable reversion to heathland, Minsmere (Liverpool)
Sub-soiling to improve soil structure, Otmoor and Berney
Woodland management and heathland restoration, Tudeley
Biodiversity Unit (Sites andSpecies ConservationDepartment)Surveys of:
Northern colletes in Western Isles (ACG, SNH)
Dark-bordered beauty moth (Butterfly Conservation)
Andreaea frigida in Scotland and northern England
Alectoria ochroleuca potential sites in Scotland
Cladonia botrytes potential sites in Scotland
The mason bee, Osmia uncinata (ACG, SNH)
Action for Invertebrates surveys (EN) of:
The ground beetle Amara famelica in England (Entotax)
The ground beetle Anisodactylus poeciloides (Alex Williams,Peter Hammond)
The click beetle Anostirus castaneus (NHM, ECOSA)
The click beetle Melanotus punctolineatus (NHM)
The diving beetle Agabus brunneus (David Bilton, Jonty Denton)
The spangled water beetle (Jonty Denton)
The stonefly Brachyptera putata in Scotland (Michael Hammett)
Distribution and ecology of the bryozoan Lophopus crystallinus(Aaron O’Dea)
Survey and management of Hammerschmidtia ferruginea(Malloch Society, SNH)
Re-establishment of stinking hawksbeard (EN, RoyalHolloway College)
Experimental management for Blera fallax (Malloch Society, SNH)
Conservation DataManagement UnitEnhancements to Merlin, RSPB’s conservation datamanagement system
Training in Merlin and MapInfo
Processing of national and local survey data(eg capercaillie, ring ouzel)
National Biodiversity Network access andaccreditation project
Collection and dissemination of bird data via the Internet
GIS applications: bald ibis in Morocco, IBAs and transportnetworks in E Europe
THE
RSPB
’S S
CIEN
TIFI
C PR
OJEC
TS IN
200
1
48
Chris Gomersall (RSPB Im
ages)
Rowena Langsten sampling invertebrates.
I N T E R N A T I O N A LBirdLife
21-1475-01-02 RSPB regd charity no 207076 Cover photograph by Geoff Dore (RSPB Images)
The RSPB works for an environment rich in birdsand wildlife. It depends on the support andgenerosity of others to make a difference. We workwith bird and habitat conservation organisations ina global partnership called BirdLife International.
RSPB UK Headquarters
The LodgeSandy
Bedfordshire SG19 2DLTel: 01767 680551
RSPB Scotland Headquarters
Dunedin House25 Ravelston Terrace
Edinburgh EH4 3TPTel: 0131 311 6500
RSPB Northern Ireland Headquarters
Belvoir Park Forest Belfast BT8 7QT
Tel: 028 9049 1547
RSPB South Wales Office
Sutherland House Castlebridge
Cowbridge Road East Cardiff CF11 9AB
Tel: 029 2035 3000