See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238788806
The importance of sampling-site data when
communicating the results of monitoring
schemes: the case of www.sioc.cat
ARTICLE · JANUARY 2009
CITATIONS
READS
3
19
2 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Sergi Herrando
Catalan Ornithological Institute
70 PUBLICATIONS 908 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Available from: Sergi Herrando
Retrieved on: 04 February 2016
Bird
Census
News
Journal of the European Bird Census Council
www.ebcc.info
2009
Volume 22 n°1
Bird Census News
2009, volume 22 n°1
ISSN 1381-5261
Download pdf from www.ebcc.info
Bird Census News is the Journal of the European Bird Census Council or
EBCC. The EBCC exists to promote the organisation and development of
atlas, census work and population studies in all European countries; it
promotes communication and arranges contacts between organisations and
individuals interested in census and atlas work, primarily (but not
exclusively) in Europe.
Bird Census News reports developments in census and atlas work in
Europe, from the local to the continental scale, and provides a forum for
discussion on methodological issues.
EDITOR:
Anny Anselin
Research Institute for Nature and Forest, INBO
Kliniekstraat 25, B-1070 Brussels, Belgium.
home: E. Poetoustraat 13, B-9030 Mariakerke, Belgium
email: anny.anselin@inbo.be
ILLUSTRATIONS: Toni Llobet
SUBSCRIPTION: 2 issues/year: May-June and November-December
Standard rate: 1 year- 2 issues: + individuals: 10 Euro
+ organisations: 15 Euro
Special offer: 3 years- 6 issues: + individuals: 25 Euro
+ organisations: 40 Euro
BANK TRANSFER into IBAN n° NL14 PSTB 0004 2356 70 Postbank Leeuwarden, The Netherlands,
BIC code PSTBNL21 of EBCC Treasurer for ‘Bird Census News’. Please indicate for which
volume (s) you contribute.
Bird Census News is financially supported by the:
Research Institute for Nature and Forest, INBO
Kliniekstraat 25, B-1070 Brussels, Belgium.
The INBO is a scientific institution of the Flemish Community
Bird Census News 22/1: 1
Bird Census News
Volume 22 n°1, June 2009
Preface
With the first hot summer days you find this first issue of 2009 in your
mailbox.
We start with good news from the Pan European Common Bird Monitoring
Scheme. The PECBMS-team has just published the 2009 report. The
brochure presents the population trends of 135 common bird species as well
as multi-species indices (indicators), based on data collected from 21
European countries, covering the period 1980-2006. With more countries
contributing their data, and improvements in data quality control, the
results are now more representative and more precise than before. Further
in this BCN you can read the report of last PECBMS workshop in Prague.
At the end of this issue you find the first announcement for the next EBCC
Conference 2010 that will be held on 23-26 March in Cáceres, Extremadura,
Spain and is organised by SEO, the Spanish Ornithological Society/BirdLife
Spain, together with EBCC. Do not forget to registrate and to submit your
abstract in time!
This time Sergi Herrando and Gabriel Gargallo tell us more about website
based communication of monitoring results in Catalunia, Andre Raine gives
a summary of the findings in the Malta breeding bird atlas, and Vadim
Yanenko & colleagues present the status of the Quail in Ukraine.
Enjoy BCN!
Anny Anselin
BCN Editor
anny.anselin@inbo.be
1
Bird Census News 22/1: 2 - 7
The importance of sampling-site data when
communicating the results of monitoring schemes:
the case of www.sioc.cat
Sergi Herrando & Gabriel Gargallo
Catalan Ornithological Institute, Museu de Ciències Naturals de la
Ciutadella, Passeig Picasso s/n, E-08003 Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain.
Introduction
The communication of results is an essential part of any monitoring scheme
and should be carried out in an appropriate way for all the many potential
stake-holders (Vorisek & Gregory 2008) – national governments, members of
the scientific community, participants in fieldwork, territorial managers and
the general public. The number of possible communication tools is myriad
and ranges from printed reports to websites, from talks on TV to press
releases (see Vorisek & Gregory 2008 for a longer list of potential target
groups and tools).
Release of results
Whatever the methods used or the group of people targeted, released results
usually deal with general trends in species and indicators in a given country
or region, which are precisely the main aims of most monitoring schemes.
However, the release of results at sampling-site level (species’ abundance
and trends, site location, observer information, etc.) entails certain benefits
and a number of drawbacks. The following are some of the positive aspects:
-
Publishing results indicates transparency and reveals the availability of
the data: the information is public and everyone can thus see that
sharing data is part of any collective project.
Publishing results gives a sense of cohesion to the network of volunteers
that conduct field censuses independently of each other (all participants
can see the results from other sampling sites, species lists, etc.).
Results are generally well received by participants who thus see that the
2
Bird Census News 22/1: 2 - 7
-
-
-
fruits of their labours are not only part of a large-scale project and
analyses (the most important result), but also important at the level of
their own site.
Although monitoring projects usually have their own team of experts to
filter data, publishing site-level data enables previously undetected errors
to be detected by anyone consulting the data.
The coordination of fieldworkers can be facilitated by the communication
of site-level results. For instance, new participants have easy access to
expected species lists and abundances; furthermore, detailed maps can
help new observers to localise the exact location of surveying sites. This
may lead to considerable savings in terms of coordination costs.
When access to general results is easy, local results enable rough
comparisons of trends and abundances to be made between specific sites
and those of the whole country/region.
Site-level results may be very useful for territorial managers and planners
working at local scale. Results can often not be directly used in planning
and management; however, they can easily see that there is data
available for their purposes.
Scientists are provided with a very interesting source of data for a
number of local studies. For example, local data from monitoring projects
may provide excellent control data for experimental work.
The following are some of the drawbacks to publishing site-level results or
aspects that need to be carefully taken into account before releasing such
results:
*The publication of these results implies that we should decide what to do
with data that have been considered an error and hence have not been
included in the general trend analyses. We could either decide to publish all
data, including these invalidated field observations, or reject them and show
only the filtered data. The latter option is surely the most suitable in terms of
data quality; however, potential problems may then arise with the observers
who provided the data that was invalidated (if they have not been informed
already).
*Potential problems arising from the misuse of information. This is not a
problem that only concerns site-level information. However, given its
generally low reliability compared with general results, it is worth
mentioning here. It is important to explain how the data was obtained and –
if necessary – how it was analysed. Furthermore, legal warnings regarding
data-use should be made clear to all users.
*One of the most important aspects to be taken into account when releasing
this kind of information is the sheer amount of data involved: the number of
figures or tables to be published can be calculated roughly by multiplying
the number of general national trends for common birds by the number of
sites in which each species has occurred. Consequently, internet is probably
3
Bird Census News 22/1: 2 - 7
the only available means of publishing such a large quantity of data.
*Maintenance costs. As mentioned in the previous point, the site x species
matrix generates a huge number of figures. Although the automatisms
included in software packages are extremely useful, the yearly costs of
updating information must be taken into account. This could be especially
relevant when volunteers are asked to provide supplementary information
such as photos of sampling sites.
A specific website
In 2007 the Catalan Ornithological Institute launched a website specifically
designed to communicate the results of its monitoring projects in Catalonia
(Northeast Spain), both globally and at site level www.sioc.cat (Figure 1). The
data from the Catalan Common Bird Survey provided in this website at local
level are as follows: 1) participants’ names; 2) a zoom to the line-transect
location; 3) a photograph of the area; 4) the mean number of birds for both
breeding and wintering seasons; and 5) species trends at the site, which
correspond to the F1 values given by TRIM analyses (Pannekoek & van
Strien 2001). It is worth commenting that the use of F1-imputed counts to
estimate missing data on the basis of other points in the same time series
and data from other sampling sites greatly contributes to the idea that sitelevel results are part of a process that goes beyond one particular observer
recording at one particular site.
In conclusion, our experiences suggest that the provision of results of
monitoring schemes at site level is a new and interesting communicative tool
and if properly designed and financed the advantages of providing such
information outweigh the disadvantages.
4
Bird Census News 22/1: 2 - 7
5
Bird Census News 22/1: 2 - 7
Fig. 1: The web www.sioc.cat is an internet tool that communicates the
results of the monitoring schemes promoted by the Catalan
Ornithological Institute. Site-level results can be seen by clicking on
‘informació per localitat’, at which a Google Map window opens
providing access to data for several monitoring schemes (those
corresponding to the Catalan Common Bird Survey are labelled
‘SOCC’). Users can then zoom in and out with the Google Map
window and select a given site to see its results (upper). One of the
most interesting possibilities is the generation of graphics showing
trends at a given site for both breeding and wintering populations.
This example shows the population change in breeding (‘nidificació’)
and wintering (’hivern’) Dartford warbler Sylvia undata populations
at a particular sampling site located in the coastal mountains
(lower).
Acknowledgements
The Catalan Common Bird Survey and the website www.sioc.cat have the
support of the Department of Environmental and Housing of the Catalan
Government. Finally, we would like to express our warmest thank to the
6
Bird Census News 22/1: 2 - 7
more than 300 field ornithologists who have collaborated in the Catalan
Common Bird Survey.
References
PANNEKOEK, J. & VAN STRIEN, A.J. (2001). TRIM 3 Manual. Trends and Indices for
Monitoring Data. Research paper no. 0102, Statistics Netherlands,
Voorburg.
VORISEK, P. & GREGORY, R.D. (2008). Using the results for nature conservation,
research and communication. In: Vorisek P., Klvanova A., Wotton S.,
Gregory RD. (ed.). A best practice guide for wild bird monitoring schemes.
CSO/RSPB, Trebon, Czech Republic.
7
Bird Census News 22/1: 8 - 22
Results of the first Breeding Bird Atlas for Malta
Andre F Raine
BirdLife Malta, 57/28 Marina Court, Triq Abate Rigord, Ta’ Xbiex XBX1120,
Malta. andre.raine@birdlifemalta.org
Introduction
The Maltese archipelago consists of a small group of low-lying islands,
situated in the central part of the Mediterranean Sea. They lie approximately
95 km south of Sicily and 290 km north of the Libyan coast. There are three
main inhabited islands, Malta, Gozo (Ghawdex) and Comino (Kemmuna),
and a number of uninhabited islets, the most important being Cominotto
(Kemmunett), Filfla, St. Paul’s Islands and Fungus Rock.
Due to Malta’s importance as a resting and refuelling stop-over for migratory
birds on the central European-African migratory flyway, ornithology has
been studied on the island for centuries. Early figures in the study of birds
include Antonio Schembri (1813-1872), Charles A. Wright (1834-1907) and
Giuseppe Despott (1878-1936). More recently, in 1962 the Malta
Ornithological Society (MOS) was formed, and was subsequently renamed as
BirdLife Malta in 1992. BirdLife Malta continued the tradition of
ornithological studies and brought a more scientific and concentrated
approach to the study of the island’s avifauna.
While much work has been undertaken on the island’s avifauna over the
centuries, a breeding bird atlas remained lacking. Breeding bird atlases are
critical to the understanding and conservation of a country’s breeding
species, as they can then be used to chart population and distribution
changes over time. In 2008 it was decided to rectify this gap in Maltese
ornithology, and the Malta Breeding Bird Atlas project was initiated. The
project was undertaken by BirdLife Malta in collaboration with the British
Trust for Ornithology, and with funding from the Ministry of Resources and
Rural Affairs.
Methods
After almost five decades of atlas work there have now been over 400
ornithological atlases published worldwide (Gibbons et al. 2007). The
majority of atlases have divided their territory into grid cells, usually
8
Bird Census News 22/1: 8 - 22
squares. With a total land area of 316 km², a basic grid cell size of 1-km
squares was chosen for the 2008 Maltese Breeding Bird Atlas. Squares of
this size are sufficiently large to contain a range of habitats and species but
not so large that they cannot be effectively surveyed by volunteers. The
choice of 1km grid cells offered an additional benefit as field methods for
measuring bird abundance and population trends at the 1 km square scale
are well-developed (e.g. Risely et al. 2008) and could be applied with
relatively little modification in Malta.
The Maltese islands were therefore divided into 394 grid squares, based on
the squares of the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) grid (Figure 1). Of
these, 300 were in Malta, 85 in Gozo, 8 in Comino and one in Filfla. These
grids were then sampled based on a combination of three methodologies; (i)
Basic Squares, (ii) Key Squares and (iii) Top-up records. Basic Squares were
visited for one hour between dawn and 10:00, during which the observer
visited all the major habitats within the square. All birds were recorded
during the survey and given a Breeding Status Code as set out by the
European Bird Census Council (EBCC). Key Squares were visited in more
detail, with two 1 km transects being walked in each square and all
individual birds counted and recorded in distance bands from the transect
itself. Data collected in Key Square surveys was used to create population
estimates wherever possible. Lastly, Top-up records were accepted from the
ornithologists taking part in the study throughout the breeding season (up
until 1st August), which helped to provide a more accurate picture of the
distribution of rare breeding species. The methodologies used in this Atlas
were standardised methods common to other European Atlases, and thus
the results of this atlas can be directly comparable to the results of other
European Breeding Bird Atlases.
Fieldwork was carried out between March 15th and August 1st 2008 and was
undertaken by 30 ornithologists, who were trained in the methodologies
before the field season commenced.
Seabirds
Seabirds were treated separately in this atlas, using a combination of
species-specific methods, as they are predominantly nocturnal at colonies
and would thus not be accurately surveyed by the standard Atlas
methodologies. Seabird distribution was thus mapped using data obtained
from a variety of other techniques, including direct observations of birds
arriving at colonies during the night, the use of play-back recordings,
counting calling birds in suitable but inaccessible areas, counting flying and
rafting birds in front of colonies after the egg-laying period and long-term
ringing and monitoring studies. All coastal areas were visited by seabird
researchers in 2008 using a combination of these methods, and the
distribution maps and population estimates are a function of this research.
9
Bird Census News 22/1: 8 - 22
Figure 1: Map of the Maltese islands showing 1-km grid cells, 3 km × 2 km
blocks and Key Squares (black squares). The shaded areas are
Special Protection Areas and Special Areas of Conservation.
10
Bird Census News 22/1: 8 - 22
Population estimates
For many of the species recorded breeding in 2008, population estimates
were relatively easy as so few pairs were recorded. In these cases, a
minimum population estimate was based on the actual known number of
pairs confirmed breeding, while the maximum was based on the number of
pairs that were listed as ‘Possible’ or ‘Probable’ breeders in the squares
where they were recorded. For example, the Barn Swallow was recorded as
breeding in 6 squares, of which two were listed as ‘Confirmed breeding’.
The breeding population was therefore estimated as 2 to 6 pairs. For rare
species where breeding was not confirmed, such as the Linnet, then the
minimum estimate was set at 0, while the maximum was the number of
pairs that were listed as ‘Possible’ or ‘Probable’ breeders in the squares
where they were recorded.
For species where sufficient data was available (over 60 observations during
Key Square surveys), population estimates were created using the
DISTANCE 5.0 (Release 2) program (Thomas et al. 2006). All records of
juveniles (only adults are used for population estimates) and flying birds
which were not necessarily breeding in the square were first removed from
the data collected during the Key Squares surveys and then the remaining
data entered into DISTANCE. Count data were fitted with a half-normal
detection function in cases, as recommended for binomial data of this kind
(Buckland et al. 2001). The analysis engine was set to MCDS (Multiple
covariates distance sampling) to incorporate sex as a covariate (where
possible, with the model with the lowest AIC value being chosen if sex was
found to affect the model) and the analysis was run twice, once with no
stratification, and then stratified by island. This allowed us to produce
population estimates for the Maltese islands as a whole, and island-specific
estimates (Malta and Gozo only).
11
Bird Census News 22/1: 8 - 22
As stated previously, seabird population estimates were calculated
separately, using a combination of methods.
Mapping
Two maps were produced for species recorded in the Atlas – Distribution
Maps (Figure 2, produced for all species) and Abundance Maps (Figure 3,
produced for species where sufficient data was available). For distribution
maps, data from Basic Squares, Key Squares, Top-up Records and Seabird
Surveys were pooled to produce the most comprehensive and up to date
picture of bird distributions in Malta in 2008. Multiple records of the same
species in the same square were summarised by taking the maximum
category from the following sequence (lowest to highest): Migrant, Nonbreeder, Possible breeder, Probable breeding or Confirmed breeding. A
distribution map was produced for any species with at least one record at
the ‘Possible’ status or higher.
Abundance maps were produced using data from the Basic Square surveys
(rather than Key Squares) because their geographic coverage (82 % of the
area) meant little interpolation was necessary (it was not possible to pool
Basic and Key Squares for these maps, as their methodologies were
different). The maximum count of a species across the two visits to a square
was taken; only adult birds were included so that late season congregations
of juveniles did not influence the maps. Each count was georeferenced to the
centre of its grid cell and then the ordinary kriging algorithm in the Spatial
Analyst extension in ESRI ArcMap (version 9.2) was used to produce a
smoothed interpolated surface of estimated counts across the whole of the
Maltese islands. The colour ramps for the maps were derived by dividing the
range from lowest to highest value into 10 equal width bands and colouring
them accordingly. These interpolated maps were only produced for species
where significant spatial autocorrelation was detected (as measured by
Moran’s I) and where there were at least 10 squares occupied with some level
of breeding evidence on which to base the analysis.
Results
A total of 37 species were recorded during the 2008 fieldwork period. Of
these, 29 species (3 of which were introduced species) were listed as
‘Confirmed breeding’ under EBCC criteria, with another 8 species recorded
as ‘Possibly’ or ‘Probably’ breeding. In terms of abundance categories, 3
species were classified as Abundant, 1 Common, 7 Frequent, 3 Scarce, 2
Localised and 21 Rare.
12
Bird Census News 22/1: 8 - 22
Figure 2: An example of a species distribution map (in this case Cetti’s Warbler
Cettia cetti). For all distribution maps, breeding categories are
presented as follows; ‘Confirmed Breeding’ is shown as a large dark
blue circle, ‘Probable Breeding’ as a medium-sized blue circle and
‘Possible Breeder’ as a small, pale blue circle. Birds recorded as ‘Non
breeding’ are presented as a pale grey square and Migrants are
excluded.
Species distribution varied considerably (Table 1). Some species, such as
Spanish Sparrow Passer hispaniolensis, Zitting Cisticola Cisticola juncidis
and Sardinian Warbler Sylvia melanocephala were widespread and recorded
in most squares. However the majority of species, particularly those targeted
by illegal hunting or trapping, were highly localised and restricted to only a
few key areas. The top 10 most common species (in terms of number of
13
Bird Census News 22/1: 8 - 22
breeding pairs), along with their population estimates are presented in
Table 2.
A further 15 species that have been confirmed as breeding in Malta
historically (only considering records from the 1950s onwards) were not
recorded in 2008. Three species that have become extinct in recent years
due to illegal hunting, the Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus (extinct since
1982 (Sultana & Gauci 1981-1983), Barn Owl Tyto alba (extinct since 1988
(Fenech & Balzan 1988) and Eurasian Jackdaw Corvus monedula, extinct
since 1956 (Sultana & Gauci 1982), were also not recorded breeding in
2008.
Discussion
The Malta Breeding Bird Atlas 2008 has filled an important gap in Maltese
ornithology and has set the standard for all future Maltese Breeding Bird
Atlases. In this way, future population trends (both in range and numbers)
can be accurately assessed and measures put in place to safeguard Malta’s
breeding bird species in the future.
The results of the Atlas have highlighted the contrasting fates of Malta’s
breeding birds. Species such as the Spanish Sparrow were found to be
widespread, and were recorded in 97.2 % of all of the grid squares. The same
was true for the Zitting Cisticola, a species which only colonised Malta in
1973 (Sultana & Gauchi 1982). This species was recorded in 83.5 % of all
grid squares, although it remains conspicuously absent on the island of
Comino. The Atlas also highlighted the continued importance of Malta at an
international level for seabirds, namely the Yelkouan Shearwater Puffinus
yelkouan, Cory’s Shearwater Calonectris diomedea and European Stormpetrel Hydrobates pelagicus. Although the shearwater populations in
particular have declined in recent years due to a combination of factors
(including accidental by-catch in fisheries (Dimech et al 2008), illegal
hunting at sea (Raine & Temuge 2009), the effects of light pollution (Raine et
al. 2007) and rat predation of chicks (Sultana & Gauci 1982; Raine et al.
2009), the Atlas has shown that Malta still retains important populations.
Indeed, Malta has approximately 10 % of the world’s breeding population of
Yelkouan Shearwater (which is currently the focus of an EU LIFE project)
and 5 % of the Mediterranean population of Cory’s Shearwater.
The Atlas also demonstrated the conservation benefits inherent from a ban
on spring hunting. Hunting of birds in spring, when they are on their prenuptial migrations, is banned in Europe under the Birds Directive. Malta is
currently at the European Court of Justice due to the continuation of spring
hunting after Accession to the European Union in 2004. Due to interim
measures imposed by the European Court of Justice, 2008 therefore marked
the first year that spring hunting was banned in Malta, meaning that the
Atlas fieldwork coincided with the first ever ban on spring hunting. The
14
Bird Census News 22/1: 8 - 22
Figure 3: An example of a species abundance map (in this case Short-toed Lark
Calandrella brachydactyla). For all abundance maps, the darker the
colour the more abundant the species is in that area.
15
Bird Census News 22/1: 8 - 22
conservation benefits were immediately apparent when comparing Atlas
results with historical ornithological data (a database of bird sightings and
breeding records have been collected by BirdLife Malta since the 1960s). The
Collared Dove Streptopelia decaocto dramatically increased its breeding range
in 2008, spreading outwards from its stronghold in the north of Malta (where
it had previously been restricted), and was recorded in 19 squares in both
Malta and Gozo. This species is often shot illegally during spring, along with
very large numbers of Turtle Dove Streptopelia turtur. Another species which
benefited from the ban on spring hunting was the Common Swift Apus apus,
a species often shot illegally as target practice in spring (Sultana & Gauci
1982). It was recorded in 7 squares during the 2008 Atlas, representing the
largest number of prospecting swifts ever recorded in Malta.
However, the majority of birds recorded in the 2008 Atlas remained highly
localised and restricted to key areas. While some species, such as the Reed
Warbler Acrocephalus scirpaceus and Little Ringed Plover Charadrius dubius,
were restricted by availability of habitat (particularly wetland habitat which
in the Maltese islands is mainly restricted to key areas such as the Ghadira
and Simar Nature Reserves), the distribution of many other species was
restricted due to human activity. The Corn Bunting, for example, is now in
danger of extinction in Malta, due to a combination of human disturbance
and urbanisation. It was only recorded in 19 squares in the 2008 Atlas with
a population estimate of 39-55 pairs, despite being described as a ‘common
breeding resident’ as recently as the 1980s, when ‘during the summer
months congregate in large flocks of up to 500 birds’ (Sultana & Gauci
1982).
However, the species that were found to be most significantly reduced in
2008 were those that are (i) regularly targeted in large numbers in spring,
such as the Turtle Dove, (ii) regularly targeted by poachers, such as birds of
prey, or (iii) caught in significant numbers by trappers, such as finches.
Only one pair of Common Kestrel was recorded in 2008, and this was listed
as a ‘Probable Breeding’. This is despite the fact that the Common Kestrel
historically bred annually in Malta (Sultana & Gauchi 1982) and is an
adaptable species that breeds readily in rural areas (51 % of the Maltese
islands are cultivated as agricultural land (MEPA 2008). This species is one
of the most commonly shot protected birds of prey in Malta (Raine & Temuge
2009). Furthermore, in 2008, no Peregrine Falcons or Barn Owls were
recorded breeding in Malta, despite these species breeding historically and in
numbers on the islands (Sultana & Gauchi 1982). The last pairs of both of
these species were shot illegally in the 1980s by poachers (Sultana & Gauci
1981-1983; Fenech & Balzan 1988).
While illegal hunting has excluded viable breeding populations of raptors,
widespread trapping has resulted in the near extinction of Malta’s breeding
16
Bird Census News 22/1: 8 - 22
finches. Indeed, tens of thousands of finches are caught every year during
migration periods and over the winter. A study by MEPA (2004) estimated
the catches of the target finch species to amount to a total of 103,000 birds
per annum, and included 34,538 Linnets Carduelis cannabina and 37,924
Greenfinch Carduelis chloris. Despite Malta’s small size, there is sufficient
breeding habitat, food and water sources in Malta to easily sustain viable
breeding populations of several finch species – particularly Linnet, Serin
Serinus serinus, Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs, Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis
and Greenfinch, all of which are targeted by trappers. Indeed all five species
have been recorded breeding in Malta historically (Sultana & Gauci 1982).
Furthermore, this can be ably demonstrated by examining the status of
these species in nearby islands of similar size and habitat in the
Mediterranean (such as Lampedusa and Pantelleria), which hold viable
breeding populations of many of these finch species (Valvo et al. 1994).
Despite this, the 2008 Atlas results show that breeding finches are highly
restricted, with Common Chaffinch only recorded in 5 squares, and
European Serin, Greenfinch and Linnet each restricted to a single square.
17
Bird Census News 22/1: 8 - 22
Goldfinch was not recorded at all during the surveys. Under Accession
Treaty negotiations, Malta agreed to end the practice of bird trapping by the
end of 2008, a milestone that has now passed. As long as Malta abides by
these binding Agreements, and actively controls illegal trapping (which is
still a serious problem in spring), then finch populations should slowly begin
to increase in the Maltese islands in the future.
The Malta Breeding Bird Atlas 2008 has set the standard for all future
Breeding Bird Atlases. In this way, future population trends (both in range
and numbers) can be accurately assessed and measures put in place to
safeguard Malta’s breeding bird species in the future. The Atlas has also
highlighted the current perilous state of many breeding species in Malta.
Due to serious conservation issues such as intensive and illegal hunting and
widespread trapping, many species that should have viable breeding
populations in Malta (such as birds of prey and finches) are currently rare
and highly localised, or even locally extinct. The results of this 2008 Atlas
therefore stress the need for the government to take these conservation
issues seriously, if breeding populations of these species are to ever recover.
Table 1. All species recorded during the 2008 Malta Breeding Bird Atlas fieldwork, and
the number of grid squares that each species was recorded in.
Species
Total
Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis
Cory's Shearwater Calonectris diomedea
Yelkouan Shearwater Puffinus yelkouan
European Storm-petrel Hydrobates pelagicus
Mallard Anas platyrhinchos
Common Kestrel Falco tinnunculus
Chukar Alectoris chukar
Common Pheasant Phasianus colchicus
Golden Pheasant Chrysolophus pictus
Water Rail Rallus aquaticus
Moorhen Gallinula chloropus
Common Coot Fulica atra
Little Ringed Plover Charadrius dubius
Black-winged Stilt Himantopus himantopus
Yellow-legged Gull Larus michahellis
Turtle Dove Streptopelia turtur
Collared Dove Streptopelia decaocto
Feral Pigeon Columba livia
Common Swift Apus apus
Short-toed Lark Calandrella brachydactyla
18
1
48
43
3
na
1
5
1
1
1
7
1
2
1
14
14
19
89
7
153
Island
Malta
1
28
26
1
na
0
0
0
0
1
7
1
2
1
8
12
14
77
6
75
Gozo Comino Filfla
0
18
13
1
na
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
2
5
6
1
73
0
1
4
0
0
0
5
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
5
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Bird Census News 22/1: 8 - 22
Species
Total
6
121
110
329
3
360
93
10
3
5
383
44
5
1
1
1
19
Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica
Blue Rock Thrush Monticola solitarius
Cetti's Warbler Cettia cetti
Zitting Cisticola Cisticola juncidis
Reed Warbler Acrocephalus scirpaceus
Sardinian Warbler Sylvia melanocephala
Spectacled Warbler Sylvia conspicillata
Spotted Flycatcher Muscicapa striata
Woodchat Shrike Lanius senator
Common Starling Sturnus vulgaris
Spanish Sparrow Passer hispaniolensis
Tree Sparrow Passer montanus
Common Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs
Serin Serinus serinus
Greenfinch Carduelis chloris
Linnet Carduelis cannabina
Corn Bunting Emberiza calandra
Island
Malta
5
75
93
258
3
274
53
10
2
2
291
42
5
1
1
0
14
Gozo Comino Filfla
1
39
17
71
0
79
35
0
1
0
84
2
0
0
0
1
5
0
7
0
0
0
7
5
0
0
3
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Table 2. The top 10 most common species recorded during the 2008 Malta Breeding
Bird Atlas fieldwork, in order of breeding pairs
Population Estimates (bpr)
Minimum
Maximum
Species
Spanish Sparrow Passer hispaniolensis
Zitting Cisticola Cisticola juncidis
Sardinian Warbler Sylvia melanocephala
European Storm-petrel Hydrobates pelagicus
Cory's Shearwater Calonectris diomedea
Short-toed Lark Calandrella brachydactyla
Yelkouan Shearwater Puffinus yelkouan
Cetti's Warbler Cettia cetti
Spectacled Warbler Sylvia conspicillata
Blue Rock Thrush Monticola solitarius
19
110.910
13.702
12.736
5.025
4.340
2.039
1.680
978
691
595
306.170
19.544
16.998
8.035
4.860
5.728
1.990
2.281
1.823
1.305
Bird Census News 22/1: 8 - 22
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank first and foremost the other authors of the Malta
Breeding Bird Atlas 2008, Joe Sultana and Simon Gillings, as well as the
graphic designer, Victor Falzon. The Atlas was a joint project, and could not
have been undertaken without everyone’s participation. The Atlas was based
on data collected by 30 ornithologists during the field season of 2008, for
which they should be duly acknowledged; Jason Aloisio, Edward Bonavia,
John J Borg, Matthew Borg-Cardonna, Nigel Butcher, Denis Cachia, Richard
Cachia-Zammit, Chris Cachia-Zammit, Charles Coleiro, Paul Fisher, Jean
Paul Fiott, Ray Galea, Nicholas Galea, Mario Gauci, John Grech, Gilbert
Haber, Sowena Nelson, Manuel Mallia, Caldon Mercieca, John Middleton,
André Raine, Helen Raine, Ian Robinson, Michael Sammut, Arnold
Scieberras, Oliver Slessor, Joe Sultana, Aron Tanti, Helen Taylor, Ray Vella
and Andrew Waters. Special thanks should also be given to John J Borg who
provided additional information regarding seabird distribution and
population estimates based on his long-term monitoring projects of these
species. Charles Gauci and Charles Coleiro provided additional data on the
breeding bird populations within Ghadira and Simar Nature Reserve
20
Bird Census News 22/1: 8 - 22
respectively. I would also like to thank Dr Stuart Newson (BTO), for his help
with the DISTANCE program and creation of population estimates, and
Helen Raine and Tolga Temuge for their assistance during the editing of the
Atlas.
References
BUCKLAND, S.T., ANDERSON, D.R., BURNHAM, K.P., LAAKE, J.L., BORCHERS, D.L. &
THOMAS, L. (2001). Introduction to Distance Sampling: Estimating
Abundance of Biological Populations. Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
DIMECH, M., DARMANIN, M., CARUANA, R. & RAINE, H. (2008). Preliminary data on
seabird by-catch in Maltese waters (central Mediterranean).
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas
(ICCAT) http://www.iccat.int/meetingscurrent.htm.
FENECH, N. & BALZAN, S. (1988). Last known pair of Barn Owls Tyto alba shot.
Il-Merill 25: 13-14.
GIBBONS, D.W., DONALD, P.F., BAUER, H.-G., FORNASARI, L. & DAWSON, I.K. (2007).
Mapping avian distributions: the evolution of bird atlases. Bird
Study 54: 324-334.
MALTA ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING AUTHORITY. (2004). Finches 2004: Number of
trappers, number trapped, number bred, survival and mortality.
MEPA, Malta.
MALTA ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING AUTHORITY. (2008). State of the Environment
Indicators 2007. Downloaded from
http://www.mepa.org.mt/Environment on 23/11/2008.
RAINE, H., BORG, J.J., RAINE, A., BAIRNER, S. & BORG CARDONA, M. (2007). Light
pollution and it’s effect on Yelkouan Shearwaters in Malta; causes
and solutions. BirdLife Malta, Malta.
RAINE, A., RAINE, H. & BORG, J.J. (2009). EU LIFE Yelkouan Shearwater
Project : Second year fieldwork report. BirdLife Malta, Malta.
RAINE, A & T TEMUGE. (2009). Illegal hunting and trapping report 2008.
BirdLife Malta, Malta.
SULTANA, J.& GAUCI, C. (1982). A New Guide to the Birds of Malta. The
Ornithological Society, Malta.
SULTANA, J. AND GAUCI, C. (1981-1983). Some notes on breeding species for
1982. Il-Merill 22: 21.
THOMAS, L., LAAKE, J.L., STRINDBERG, S., MARQUES, F.F.C., BUCKLAND, S.T.,
BORCHERS, D.L., ANDERSON, D.R., BURNHAM, K.P., HEDLEY, S.L., POLLARD,
J.H., BISHOP, J.R.B. & MARQUES, T.A. (2006). Distance 5.0. Release 2.
[software]. Research Unit for Wildlife Population Assessment,
21
Bird Census News 22/1: 8 - 22
University of St. Andrews, UK. http://www.ruwpa.stand.ac.uk/distance/
VALVO, M.L., MASSA, B. & SARA, M. (1994). Uccelli e paesaggio in Sicilia alle
soglie del terzo millennio. Il Naturalista Siciliano. Vol XVII, Suppl
(1993): 3-237.
22
Bird Census News 22/1: 23 - 26
The population status of the Quail Coturnix coturnix
in Ukraine: an update
Vadim Yanenko, Valentin Serebryakov & Sergey Loparev
Biological Department, Shevchenko National University in Kiev,
Volodymyrska Str., 64, KIEV 01601, Ukraine. bcssu@univ.kiev.ua
Introduction
The Quail is a common breeding species in Ukraine except in the Carpathian
mountain region (NW) and the woodlands of Polissya (N & NW). In the
western part of the country the species is present as breeding bird in the
plains. Through river valleys it has spread into some mountainous areas up
to 700-800 meters (Tatarinov 1973). Wintering birds have been recorded in
the southern part of the country, in the Crimea (Figure 1).
However, during the last 30-40 years, the number of birds has drastically
declined. The main reasons of this negative trend are intensification of
agriculture with increased use of chemicals, mortality during migration,
increased hunting pressure and high mortality during harvesting of the
fields. In this article we try to give a review of known data from the different
regions in the country. Although numbers are not always easy to compare
due to the use of various methods and different scales of census and time
periods, it should at least be clear that the species has shown a marked
decline in the last decades.
Fig. 1: Quail’s area in Ukraine
23
Bird Census News 22/1: 23 - 26
Status of the Quail in Ukraine
For region numbers mentioned in the text we refer tot Figure 1. In the Lviv
region (1) and the Zhytomyr region (2) the species showed a decrease of resp.
30 % during the last 20 years (Bashta 1996) and of 40 % during the last
decades (Melnitchuk 1982). In the Kiev region (3) it has become rare.
Hunting during migration and at wintering sites could be the major reason
for the decline, as the habitat has not undergone important changes
(Kistyakovski 1982). In the Cherkasy region (4) the Quail was clearly more
numerous 30-40 years ago. Here, a high mortalitiy has been recorded during
the harvesting of fields and pastures (Yevtushevski 1987; Goroshko 1989). In
the Ternopil region (5) the species was common and more numerous in the
Lanovets and the Shumski districts, as well as in the north part of the
Kremenets district (Marisova 1960). No recent data exist. In the IvanoFrankivsk region (6) Quail density along the Dniestr river is on average 1.6
singing male per 10 km river bank (Bokotey 1999). In the Transcarpathian
region (7) the species showed also a clear decline. A comparison of census
results three decades ago and more recently in Chornyi Mochar (7) (fields on
drained wetlands) shows that densities have decreased by 5 times, from 1,6
to 0.3 pairs per 1 km2 (Hrabar, 1997). In the “Striletski Steppe” Reserve of
the Lugansk region (8), the breeding density of Quail reached 5 pairs/km2 in
mowed hayfield areas. However, the species is almost extinct now in this
region and has become scarce mainly due to heavy hunting pressure
(Kochegur 1989). In the Crimea (9) breeding and migrating numbers have
drastically decreased (Kostin 1983). At the end of the 19th century numbers
were certainly much higher than nowadays. There is a record from 1876 that
three hunters killed a total of 720 birds during one day (Bakanovskiy 1890)
The Quail in the Vinnitsa region
A special Quail inventory was conducted in the Vinnitsa region in the period
1996-1997 and in 2002 . Four different study areas were selected:
I) Stryzhavka – 6 km2, II) Mykulyntsi – 12 km2, III) Vinnitski Khutory – 11
km2 and IV) Airport Ring Road zone – 13 km2. The results of the census are
presented in Table 1 (number of pairs) and Figure 2 (densities).
year/area
I
II
III
IV
1996
7
23
7
22
1997
9
18
3
12
2002
4
14
4
11
Table 1: Numbers of breeding pairs of Quail, Coturnix coturnix in four study areas in
the Vinnitsa region
24
Bird Census News 22/1: 23 - 26
Fig. 2: Quail densities (birds/km2) in different areas of the Vinnitsa region:
(1) Stryzhavka, (2) Mykulyntsi, (3) Vinnitski Khutory, (4) Airport Ring
Road, in 1996, 1997 and 2002.
Quail populations in Europe have often shown great fluctuations
(Hagemeijer & Blair 1997) but it is clear that there is an overall decline in
the whole continent. To estimate the present population in Ukraine is a
difficult task and we should certainly need more information. The population
could be near to 60 thousands breeding pairs, but this figure should be
treated as preliminary.
References
BAKANOVSKIY F. (1890). Migrating Wildfowl in Crimea. Nature and hunting №
10: 121-122. (in Ukrainian)
BASHTA A. (1996). The avifauna of the Lvov area and its change during the
XXth century. Report Ornithological Society: 19-29. (in Ukrainian)
BOKOTEY A., KOGUT I., SOKOLOV N. (1999). The fauna and breeding bird
population of the upper Dnestr plains. Ornithological Part by
Tarasa Shevchenko, Ornithological Society. Ecological collection.
part 3: 213-227. (in Ukrainian)
GOROSHKO O. (1989). Flora and fauna of the nature reserves of USSR.
Vertebrates from the Kanevs Reserve: 42. (in Russian)
Grabar A. (1997). Avifauna Carpathorossica. Golden eagle, part 6, № 1-2:
91-102. (in Ukrainian).
HAGEMEIJER W.& BLAIR M. (ed) (1997). The EBCC Atlas of European Breeding
Birds: Their Distribution and Abundance, Poyser, London.
KISTYAKOVSKIY O. (1982). Fauna of Ukraine. Birds. Part 4: 432. (in Ukrainian).
Kostin Y. (1983). Birds of Crimea. Science: 239. (in Ukrainian).
KOCHEGURA V.(1989). Qualitative and quantitative assessment of the fauna of
“Strelcivskyj Steppe “ and its protected zone: 121-123. (in Russian).
25
Bird Census News 22/1: 23 - 26
MARISOVA I. (1960). Wildfowl Hunting in the northern part of the Ternopilskiy
area. Part 5: 213-227. (in Ukrainian).
MELNICHUK V. ( 2001). The Ornithological status of the Dnepr reservoir. Bird
Study & Conservation of in Eastern Europe and North Asia: 417 –
419. (in Russian).
TATARINOV K. (1973). Fauna of the Vertebrata of West Ukraine. Lvov University:
27-40. (in Ukrainian).
26
Bird Census News 22/1: 27 - 30
Report on the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring
Scheme workshop 2009
Jana Škorpilová1, Petr Voříšek1 & Richard Gregory2
1. Czech Society for Ornithology, Na bělidle 34, CZ-150 00 Prague 5, Czech
Republic, EuroMonitoring@birdlife.cz
2. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, The Lodge, Sandy,
Bedfordshire, SG19 2DL United Kingdom, richard.gregory@rspb.org.uk .
Introduction
The third workshop of the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme
(PECBMS) was held on 25th – 29th January 2009 at the Czech University of
Life Sciences in Prague, Czech Republic. In four days, 66 participants,
mostly national scheme coordinators and other monitoring experts, coming
from 27 European countries discussed the future directions and further
improvements of the PECBMS. Several other, sometimes quite technical
issues were discussed too.
The aims of the workshop were:
*To report on development of the project since the last workshop in 2005
*To get feedback from national coordinators and other stakeholders in order
to improve the scheme
*To discuss (and find and accept solutions if possible) to several technical
issues of the PECBMS
*To help setting scheme priorities for a next 5-year period
The agenda of the workshop and all presentations and outputs from
discussions are freely available on a CD-ROM (please contact: Jana
Škorpilová on skorpilova@birdlife.cz).
Brief selected conclusions that came out of the discussions are as follows:
Indicators and policy
The session brought a discussion on various difficulties that can arise in
advocating the use of common bird indicators in policies and decision
making in Europe. For example, the existence of different versions of
national wild bird indicators that differ in species classification or
computation procedure usually cause problems in their interpretation and
27
Bird Census News 22/1: 27 - 30
use that can lead to misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the
indicators. For that reason, the specific purpose of single indicators and
their proper labelling always has to be clearly stated. However, these
differences in various versions of national indicators deserve more
exploration to clarify their credibility and interlinkage. Regular communication, explanation and promotion of the indicators is needed. The convincing
fact that voluntary field work is unique, cheap, reliable and effective should
be also emphasized in relevant biodiversity reporting processes.
Developing indicators for other habitat types and improving
quality of the existing one for forests
The PECBMS currently produce indicators for 3 habitat types: farmland,
forest and all common species (http://www.ebcc.info/index.php?ID=368).
The PECBMS farmland bird indicator has been already adopted by the
European Union as a Structural Indicator, a Sustainable Development
Indicator, and a baseline indicator for monitoring the implementation of the
Rural Development Regulation under the Common Agricultural Policy. The
common forest bird indicator has been a subject of discussions and needs to
be developed further. The main problems with the common forest bird
indicator are different and sometimes unclear driving forces in different
European regions, diversity of forest habitats across Europe and
misunderstanding of a role of various biodiversity indicators. Creating more
specific forest bird indicators for different European regions or single forest
types needs to be considered as well as careful selection of species typical of
these habitats to acquire an indicator ideally representing trends not only of
groups of bird species, but also other taxa and responding to driving forces.
A challenge for the future development of the project is obtaining a habitatspecific data that would simplify development of other indicators too.
There is also an increasing demand for indicators of other habitat types. The
discussion identified the indicators for inland wetlands, Mediterranean
forest, shrubland and rocky habitats, and urban habitats as the most
feasible to create. The one for inland wetlands being potentially the easiest to
develop and create as the PECBMS already produces indices for some inland
wetland species. Concerning Mediterranean habitats, poor data coverage
could reduce the quality and significance of the indicator at the moment, as
only four south European countries (France, Italy, Spain and Portugal)
provide the indices to the PECBMS. The fact that we have no data from
many others (Balkans, Turkey) means a big gap in geographical coverage for
this important habitat. The south-western aspect of the current data
coverage could therefore bring unwanted bias. For the urban habitats, an
indicator based on ’urban’ species can sometimes be hard to interpret as
there are so few species characteristic of urban habitats only. On the other
28
Bird Census News 22/1: 27 - 30
hand, having habitat-specific data for urban habitats (that could be more
likely available in the future) could allow the more valuable comparison of
species trends in and outside of the urban sites. At last, indicators for
another habitat type calls for more discussion on their purpose, resolving
deficiencies and identifying relevant European policies for such indicators.
SEED BI project and what next?
The project ´Support Eastern Europeans to Develop Bird Indicators´
(http://www.ebcc.info/seedbirdindicators.html) was designed to support
NGOs in eastern and south-eastern Europe in starting to produce wild bird
indicators. The project finished at the end of 2008, but had provided great
assistance to monitoring schemes that had recently started and to brand
new ones in eastern Europe. The countries involved in the project
experienced considerable progress, but the question is what will happen with
their new schemes now the project has ended. The possible answer could be
in matching these less experienced schemes with some more developed ones
to create more sustainable cooperation. For that reason, workshop
participants representing less-experienced schemes specified their needs for
running and developing their schemes and participants representing the
more advanced schemes presented the kind of assistance they might offer.
Matching the schemes in accordance with the defined ´demands´ and ´offers´
(´twinning approach´) might allow an effective partnership between countries
that need help and those that can provide appropriate assistance. However,
this is just a beginning and more effort needs to be invested in building
existing partnerships and links and in creating new ones.
Spatial modelling
The session on spatial modelling was dedicated to introducing and
explaining the types of data and computation methods required to produce
Pan-European distribution and trend maps. In the discussion, the issues
that have to be resolved before creating such maps were listed (e.g. spatial
coverage, heterogeneity of observations, data access constraints, availability
of environmental data, statistics etc.). The session clarified the questions
comprehensively, attracted the attention of all workshop participants and
showed their interest in participating in the initiative. All participants agreed
that having abundance maps for species would allow deeper insight into bird
distributions in Europe and give background for further exploration of
potential driving forces that stand behind the changes in the occurrence and
abundance of species. They might also provide valuable knowledge for
nature conservation policies (e.g. in identifying new SPA’s etc.). In
conclusion, there were suggestions to organise a special training workshop
29
Bird Census News 22/1: 27 - 30
as well as to finalise the procedures for data collection, processing and
coordination.
Further development of PECBMS
After eight years of existence, the PECBMS project is at a stage where it is
able to produce its main outputs on regular basis. The twenty-two European
countries contributing to the project now represent excellent coverage of
species trends among widespread and common birds in Europe. Species
indices and indicators are produced on a routine basis with careful control
of data quality. However, proposals and ideas for further technical and
strategic development of the project generated at the workshop have to be
taken into consideration. Ideas for the project development include e.g.
exploring possibilities for collecting species-specific and habitat-specific
data, application of distance sampling and taking detectability into account
etc. Constant effort has to be also devoted to helping countries in
establishing their new national breeding bird monitoring surveys, or in
assisting existing schemes in cooperation with policy makers. Wider use of
the PECBMS data in scientific research is also desirable, either through
increasing the capacity of PECBMS team, or through cooperation with
external experts, including many in the scheme’s own network. There are
still many options available to explore the use of the PECBMS outputs and
thus build a deeper understanding of the driving forces influencing species´
populations in Europe. Recent studies have focused on emerging factors,
such as climatic change, and this area of work is likely to grow.
Acknowledgements
Organisers: Czech Society for Ornithology, Czech University of Life Sciences
- Faculty of Environmental Science, Ornithological Station of Comenius
Museum, Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection of
the Czech Republic, European Bird Census Council, and BirdLife
International.
Local organizing team: Petr Voříšek, Jana Škorpilová, Zdeněk Vermouzek,
Martina Koubová, Petr Zasadil, Zuzana Strachoňová, Jana Doležalová,
Alena Hýlová, Milič Solský, Petr Suvorov, Martin Besta, Alena Rulfová.
Many thanks to European Commission and Royal Society for the Protection
of Birds for supporting the project
Thanks to Richard Gregory, Ian Burfield, Arco Van Strien, David Noble and
Zoltan Waliczky and Karel Šťastný for valuable suggestions and help
during the preparation of the workshop.
Special thanks to all participants, speakers and chairs for comments,
discussions and interest
30
Bird Census News 22/1: 31 - 36
Books, reports & journals
Vermeersch G. & A. Anselin 2009.
Breeding birds in Flanders 2006-2007. Recent status and trends of scarce,
colonial and feral species and species of the Red List and Annex I of the
European Birds' Directive. INBO.M.2009.3, Research Institute for Nature and
Forest, Brussels, 99 pages. (in Dutch: Broedvogels in Vlaanderen 2006-2007.
Recente status en trends van Bijzondere Broedvogels en soorten van de Vlaamse
Rode Lijst en/of Bijlage I van de Europese Vogelrichtlijn, with English summary and
English captions for figures and tables).ISBN 978-90-403-0296-1.
Download for free pdf file or order (10 € ) at:
http://www.inbo.be/ygen/bibliotheekref.asp?show=html&refid=181084&pid=PUB_
ASP_Start
This report summarizes the monitoring results in
Flanders in 2006-2007 of rare, colonial and feral
breeding bird species. These data are supplemented
with the first results of our common bird monitoring
scheme that was started in 2007. A total of 108
species is discussed of which 90 in more detail.
Integrated breeding bird monitoring and research in
Flanders is co-ordinated by the Research Institute for
Nature and Forest (INBO) in close collaboration with
the BirdLife Partner Natuurpunt vzw. INBO
guarantees the scientific foundations of the
monitoring schemes and data processing and reports
to regional, national and international levels whereas
Natuurpunt is responsible for the network of
volunteers. In future reports more attention will be
paid to explanatory projects such as the Constant
Effort Sites project (CES) and we will focus more on
developments within and outside the Natura 2000 network. In this report special
attention is given to species of the Flemish Red List and/or species of the Annex I
of the European Birds Directive. In a nutshell, we found that most Annex I species
are doing better than (other) Red List species, almost all of which have been
continuously decreasing in Flanders since the turn of the century.
Typical species of (old) forest predominantly show increasing trends whereas
farmland and heathland specialists are mostly declining. The on average positive
trend of marshland bird species is biased by the increasing numbers of scarce and
critical species like Bittern and Little Bittern. These species are still recovering from
severe earlier losses and have not yet re-established a sustainable population.
It has been a long time (1996/1997) since we had a severe winter in Flanders. This
has positively affected certain species that are sensitive to sharp frost such as Gey
Heron, Kingfisher and Grey Wagtail. Also species that are expanding their range
northwards such as Bee-eater, Little Egret, Cetti's Warbler and Fan-tailed Warbler
reached peak numbers in 2007.
We do not have detailed counts of feral breeding birds. This is partly due to the fact
that some of these species (i.e. Egyptian and Canada Goose) have become too
31
Bird Census News 22/1: 31 - 36
numerous to be counted on a yearly basis. On the other hand, volunteers
traditionally do not tend to pay much attention to feral birds. Nevertheless, in some
cases it was possible to obtain a general idea of the trends for species like Ringnecked Parakeet (clearly increasing) and Ruddy Duck (first breeding attempt for
Flanders in 2006).
Traditionally some surprises were noted. In 2006 a pair of Whiskered terns bred
successfully and the first breeding attempt of Great Egret was discovered. In 2007
a couple of Hen Harriers raised three young in a small forest patch in the middle of
a large agricultural area. A colourful species like Bee-eater continues to do well and
bred for the sixth successive year in 2007. Unfortunately quite a few species have
become increasingly rare and are now on the verge of extinction. Whinchat,
Wheatear, Crested Lark and Corn Bunting are all Red List species that are very
rapidly declining. We doubt that the current and very localised efforts to save the
last Corn Buntings will be effective in the long run as long as there is no major
turn in agricultural politcy. After a peak in the early 1990's, the Penduline Tit is
now becoming an increasinly rare breeding bird again. The very low numbers of
Serins in 2006-2007 could be part of large population fluctuations, typical for this
species.
The first results of the common bird monitoring scheme show a continuous and
severe decline of species like Golden Oriole, Spotted Flycatcher, Nightingale, Turtle
Dove and Willow Tit. Other species typical of hedgerows and small, young forest
patches are also declining: Linnet, Willow Warbler, Whitethroat, Icterine Warbler
and Tree Sparrow. On the other side of the picture the increase of forest species is
confirmed by the positive trends for Nuthatch, Lesser Spotted Woodpecker and
Marsh Tit. In heathlands, the only typical species that is doing very well is the
Stonechat. Another satisfying development is the increase of Goldfinch in rural and
urban landscapes.
van Dijk, A., A. Boele, F. Hustings, K. Koffijberg & C. Plate 2009.
Breeding birds in the Netherlands in 2007. SOVON-monitoring report 2009/01.
SOVON, Vogelonderzoek Nederland, Beek-Ubbergen, 160 pages.(In Dutch:
Broedvogels in Nederland 2007, with English summary and English captions for
figures and tables). ISSN 1874-169X.
Download for free pdf file at www.sovon.nl/default.asp?id=135 or order (15 € ) at:
SOVON, Rijkstraatweg 178, NL-DG Beek-Ubbergen.
This report presents the results of monitoring of breeding
birds in the Netherlands in 2007. The main part consists
of species accounts in which details on numbers, trends
and distribution are given. Besides, chapter 4 gives a
general overview of the results and allows quick access to
the data, also with respect to e.g. Red List species and
trends in Natura 2000 species. Chapter 5 deals with a
number of specific monitoring schemes, i.e. the Wadden
Sea, national freshwater bodies, farmland birds, Nest
Record Scheme and Constant Effort Sites. These chapters
can be read on their own, highlight some results and
reveal some of the backgrounds for the trends observed.
National population figures and estimates for all rare and
32
Bird Census News 22/1: 31 - 36
colonial breeding birds are listed. All national indices are available at
www.sovon.nl.
The breeding season of 2007 followed an extremely mild winter and early spring
and completed a series of 10 mild winters in a row. Spring was characterised by a
prolonged dry period, lasting from 22 March to 7 May. During this period, many
regions did not report any rainfall. Compared to the previous five seasons, 2007
was dominated by slightly more negative trends in breeding bird numbers. All
species combined, a 2 % decline was found. Among the thriving species in 2007 are
those that have been subject to recent increases, like Peregrine Falcon (41 breeding
pairs) and Middle Spotted Woodpecker (120-140 bp). Common Kingfisher (700-800
bp), Grey Wagtail (425-500 bp), Cetti’s Warbler (70-80 bp) and Zitting Cisticola (80100 bp) still benefit from the long series of mild winters, and meanwhile have
expanded their breeding range within The Netherlands. Also long term upward
trends in Eurasian Spoonbill (1910 bp) and Barn Owl (3300 bp) continued in 2007.
Some coastal breeding birds were thriving as well (notably Mediterranean Gull,
Common Tern, Little Tern). After three years with low numbers, Corncrakes were
reported in high numbers again (320-360 singing males). For the first time,
breeding in Whitewinged Tern (4 bp, following an influx in May) was observed.
Paddyfield Warbler (Island of Vlieland) and Red-breasted Flycatcher (Island of
Schiermonnikoog) were trapped during the breeding season and showed strong
evidence of local breeding (females with breeding patch and recently hatched
juveniles). Other recent new breeding birds like Whooper Swan (1 bp), White-tailed
Eagle (1 bp) and Common Crane (3 bp) were able to breed again in 2007.
Many species that have been subject to declines in previous years did not recover
in 2007: Hen Harrier, Kentish Plover, Ruff, Short-eared Owl, Eurasian Wryneck,
Crested Lark and Corn Bunting. When the current trends continue, some of these
species might well go extinct in near future. The status of Northern Wheatear,
Whinchat and Great Reed Warbler is worrying as well. Formerly expanding species
like Fieldfare, Penduline Tit and Common Rosefinch have contracted their breeding
range in the past decade, along with a considerable decline in numbers. The
prolonged drought in spring probably affected (low) numbers of Black-necked
Grebe, Great Bittern and Spotted Crake. Recent declines in Common Raven are
thought to be linked to food shortage, whereas Rook suffers from disturbance at
urban breeding sites. Local conditions in Oostvaardersplassen for the first time
halted the ongoing increase in Great Egret (46-55 bp).
Generally speaking, resident breeding birds are doing better than migratory
breeding birds, despite declines reported in residents like Long-tailed Tit, Willow
Tit, Coal Tit and Crested Tit. Especially among long-distance migrants wintering in
Africa, many species show declines (e.g. Eurasian Hobby, European Turtle Dove,
Icterine Warbler, Wood Warbler). When comparing trends in different habitats,
most obvious declines are going on in farmland birds (though high numbers/
increases were observed in Gadwall, Tufted Duck,Meadow Pipit and Yellow Wagtail)
and heathland birds (extinction of Tawny Pipit and Great Grey Shrike, decline in
Northern Wheatear). In half-open agricultural landscapes, trends in Yellowhammer
and Stonechat are going up. Woodland birds and species breeding in marshy
habitats are generally increasing as well. Exceptions to this rule are Great Crested
Grebe, Great Bittern, Pochard and Spotted Crake.
33
Bird Census News 22/1: 31 - 36
PECBMS, 2009.
The State of Europe´s Common Birds 2008. CSO/RSPB, Prague, Czech Republic.
Electronic version of the brochure is available for free download from the EBCC
website: www.ebcc.info/index.php?ID=375&Preview=1, hard copies (free) on
request at the project coordinator Petr Voříšek (EuroMonitoring at birdlife.cz).
This new PECBMS report was published in June 2009.
The brochure presents the population trends of 135
common bird species, as well as multi-species indices
(indicators), based on data collected from 21 European
countries, covering the period 1980-2006. With more
countries contributing their data, and improvements in
data quality control, the results are now more
representative and more precise than before.
Of the 135 species covered, 36 have increased
moderately and one strongly, 53 have declined
moderately and two steeply, while 29 have remained
stable. In only 14 cases do species trends remain
uncertain.
The latest set of wild bird indicators shows that common birds as a whole are still
in moderate decline in Europe. Average population levels have fallen by 10 % over
the last 26 years. The numbers of common farmland birds have on average fallen
by 48 %. Although the decline appears to have levelled off in recent years, Europe
has still lost half of its farmland birds in the last quarter of a century. The numbers
of common forest birds have declined on average by 9 %, but there are regional
differences.
Over the last few years, the indicators produced by PECBMS have been used
increasingly widely for policy purposes, both at European and national levels,
illustrating the relevance of the indicators. For example, the Farmland Bird
Indicator (FBI) has been adopted by the EU as a Structural Indicator, a Sustainable
Development Indicator, and a baseline indicator for monitoring the implementation
of the Rural Development Regulation under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).
Furthermore, SEBI2010 (Streamlining European 2010 Biodiversity Indicators), a
pan-European initiative led by the European Environment Agency, has also
incorporated the wild bird indicators in a set of 26 indicators to assess progress
towards the European target of halting biodiversity loss by 2010.
Individual species trends and full set of PECBMS indicators can be also found on
the EBCC web site. Follow the links for indices and indicators.
34
Bird Census News 22/1: 31 - 36
Sikora A., Z. Rohde, M. Gromadzki, G. Neubauer & P. Chylarecki 2007.
The atlas of breeding birds in Poland 1985-2004. Bogucki Wydawnictwo
Naukowe, Poznán, 639 pages. (In Polish: Atlas rozmieszczenia ptátow lęgowych
Polski 1985-2004, with an extensive English summary and shortened species
accounts -over 65 pages in total- including generalized maps). ISBN 978-83-6132001-2.
Orders: http://www.bogucki.istore.pl/sklep,933,,,03,,en-eur,688704,0.html. Price:
38,44 €
The Atlas of Breeding Birds in Poland was a nationwide
project involving over 1200 volunteers. The overall project
was coordinated by the Ornithological Station of the
Institute of Ecology, Polish Academy of Sciences (now the
Ornithological Station, Museum and Institute of Zoology).
The fieldwork was coordinated by over 20 professionals in
several regions, so as to ensure the most comprehensive
within-region surveys. To explore areas with the poorest
coverage, special expeditions were organised. Breeding
criteria used followed those in EBCC. Data were collected
in 2993 of the 3105 Polish 10×10 km grid squares, a
remarkable performance!
The data used in the book cover two periods. During the
first (1985-1993) all breeding species were recorded.
However, since that time, the distribution of 51 species were found to have
significantly changed. Therefore, additional information from recent literature and
unpublished observations from the period 1994-2004 was added to the database.
The most intensive fieldwork took place between 1987 and 1991.
A total of 224 species have been recorded. The number of species recorded within
one grid square ranged from 1 to 178 and is a reflection of true variation in species
richness and of observer effort. As in all field studies, there was a positive
relationship between the number of species recorded and the fieldwork effort,
which highlights the objective variation in the probability of species detection. At ca
100 records per square and c. 70-80 species detected, there is a distinct point of
inflection. Therefore it was agreed to consider squares with 80 or fewer species to
have been inadequately surveyed. If all the grid squares surveyed are used (2993,
604164 records) the estimated average species richness is 90.32. This value
increases to 105.69 when the inadequately surveyed grid squares are omitted and
data of 2057 sq, 525732 records are used. Owing to the uneven fieldwork effort,
particular regions differed with respect to coverage. In the whole of Poland, 53.3 %
of squares were adequately surveyed.
The main part of the book is taken by the species accounts. The 244 species
presented are divided into three categories: (i) species recorded in a wild state,
breeding confirmed (234 species, with text and map), (ii) species recorded in a wild
state, but breeding probable (7 species, text only) and (iii) introduced species which
have established self-sustaining populations (3 species, text only). Each species
account starts with information on its status in Poland: descriptive information on
the area of occupancy (estimated, using the grid squared adequately surveyed) and
size of population. This is followed by the most typical range of habitats used by
35
Bird Census News 22/1: 31 - 36
the species, a description of its breeding area and vertical range and example
densities (including within-habitat and landscape densities). If data on long-term
population trends or short term (e.g. between-year variations) are available, they
are mentioned at the end of the account. Short accounts of species belonging to
categories (ii) and (iii) follow those of category (i) species. Each account has a bird
drawing of the species.
For the first time, preliminary estimates of population sizes of many widespread
and common bird species (until recently with "total population unknown") have
been produced and could be included to the species texts. These estimates are
based on the Polish Common Bird Census (MPPL) in which standardised bird
surveys are performed each year on more than 350 1×1 study plots, selected
according to survey planning methodology. They should however be treated as
preliminary. Progress in modelling techniques using survey sampling data will
enable the estimates presented in the book to be verified or defined more precisely
in the near future.
Special chapters are dedicated to the comparison of Polish breeding avifauna with
the European avifauna. Poland has a number of key species, defined as species
whose populations in the country comprise 5 % or more of its European
population. 11 species make up at least 10 % of their European populations: White
Stork, Grey Partridge, Aquatic Warbler, Crane, Yellowhammer, Black Stork, Lesser
Spotted Eagle, Marsh Warbler, Grasshopper Warbler, Great Bittern and Tawny Owl.
In addition, Poland supports significant proportions (5-10 %) of the European
populations of a further 26 species. Regarding the habitat, the populations of 29 %
of farmland species exceed 5 % of their European populations, while 22 % of
species of aquatic habitats make up at least 5 %.
Of the 195 bird species listed on the Annex I of the EU Bird Directive, 69 bred in
Poland between 1990 and 2004. Among these, Red-backed Shrike, Ortolan Bunting
and Wood Lark were the most numerous. Others were White Stork, Aquatic
Warbler, Black Stork, Crane, Lesser Spotted Eagle, Great Bittern, White-tailed
Eagle, Middle Spotted Woodpecker and Marsh Harrier. Compared to the whole
continent, Poland has a lower number of globally threatened breeding bird species
(SPEC1-defined by BirdLife International) and a lower number of SPEC3 species.
During the 1990s, population trends in 231 species in Poland and Europe were far
more optimistic in the former: 22 % of declining species (36 % in Europe). At that
time, land changes were particularly favourable to farmland birds. The last few
years however, have witnessed a dramatic turnaround. The increasing
intensification of agriculture across the country has reversed this trend. The
Common Bird Census scheme has shown the Farmland Bird Index to have
decreased by an average of 10 % between 2000 and 2004, in particular in regions
of previously low-intensity agriculture (western and northern Poland). More recent
results suggest even a decrease of as much as 20 %. This situation is especially
alarming since Poland holds substantial populations of many farmland birds.
At the end of the atlas, an extensive English summary -over 65 pages- describes
geography, climate and land use, material and methods, and the most important
results. Generalized maps of 30×30 km grid squares together with shortened
species accounts make this very important book easily available to the non-Polish
reader.
36
Bird Census News 22/1: 37 - 40
Bird Numbers 2010
18th Conference of the European Bird Census Council
Spain 2010
22-26 March 2010, Cáceres (Extremadura), Spain
"Monitoring, indicators and targets"
BIRD NUMBERS 2010
FIRST ANNOUNCEMENT
Website: www.seo.org/ebcc2010
Mail: ebcc2010@seo.org
Abstract submission deadline: 15 September 2009
Online registration deadline: 1 December 2009
37
Bird Census News 22/1: 37 - 40
The European Bird Census Council (EBCC) and the Spanish Ornithological Society
(SEO/BirdLife) are pleased to invite you to attend the 18th International Conference of the
EBCC, which will be held in the historic city of Cáceres (Extremadura), western Spain, from
22 to 26 March 2010.
The official language of the Conference will be English.
SCIENTIFIC PROGRAM
The schedule of sessions, symposia and guest speakers is currently under discussion. The
conference programme will be finalised in the autumn once all submissions have been
received. Therefore, we kindly request that the titles and summaries of all proposed
presentations be sent to the conference organizing committee (ebcc2010@seo.org) as soon
as possible, under any of the following main topics:
Session/Symposium
Birds as indicators
Monitoring influencing policy, 2010 targets
Citizen science
Monitoring: Censuses, Atlases and Demography
Steppe habitats monitoring
Climate Change
Models, distribution and abundance
Migration monitoring
New methods in bird monitoring
Introduced/Alien and invasive species
Monitoring of rare and endangered species
Site-based monitoring and assessment
Round Tables/Workshops
Internet/web-based monitoring platforms
European network of migration stations
New European Atlas
PECBM and CBM in new countries and improvement of the existing schemes
Poster session
Posters will be displayed during the whole Conference.
We are open to suggestions on new sessions, symposia, workshops and round tables.
ABSTRACT BOOK AND PROCEEDINGS
Abstract submission deadline is 15 September 2009. The abstracts should have a maximum
of 2,500 characters (one page, A4 standard). It is possible to include one figure or one table,
reducing the number of characters to fit the page.
The final programme and the abstract book will be provided to participants at the conference
and will also be available on the EBCC website before the conference date.
The proceedings of the conference will be published as a special issue of Ardeola (the
Scientific Journal of SEO/BirdLife, the Spanish Ornithological Society) and in EBCC’s
Journal Bird Census News. To be considered for possible inclusion we ask that short papers
(10.000-25.000 characters, including figures and tables) are submitted at the conference, at
the latest.
CONFERENCE DAILY PROGRAMME
The conference will include sessions, symposium, poster sessions, workshops and round
tables.
This program is a draft. It is likely to be modified, and changes will be communicated as
soon as possible on the Conference website (www.seo.org/ebcc2010).
38
Bird Census News 22/1: 37 - 40
Day Day Timetable Conference Centre
Monday 22/03/2010
AM/PM Arrival and registration at Conference Centre
Monday Late afternoon: Presentation (Local authority, SEO/BL president, Chairman EBCC)
Monday Early evening: Welcome reception
Tuesday 23/03/2010
09:00 - 11:00 Session, symposium,
11:00 - 11:30 Coffee break
11:30 - 13:00 Session, symposium,
13:00 - 14:30 Lunch
14:30 - 16:30 Session, symposium,
16:30 - 17:00 Coffee break
17:00 - 19:00 Session, symposium,
round tables and workshop
round tables and workshop
round tables and workshop
round tables and workshop
Wednesday 24/03/2010
09:00 - 11:00 Session, symposium, round tables and workshop
11:00 - 11:30 Coffee break
11:30 - 13:00 Session, symposium, round tables and workshop
13:00 - 14:30 Lunch
14:30 - 16:30 Session, symposium, round tables and workshop
16:30 - 17:00 Coffee break
17:00 - 19:00 EBCC Annual General Meeting
Thursday 25/03/2010
07:30 - 19:30 EXCURSION
20:30 Conference banquet
Friday 26/03/2010
09:00 - 11:00 Session, symposium, round tables and workshop
11:00 - 11:30 Coffee break
11:30 - 13:00 Session, symposium, round tables and workshop
13:00 - 14:30 Lunch
14:30 - 16:30 Session, symposium, round tables and workshop
16:30 - 17:00 Coffee break
17:00 - 19:00 Closing remarks, thanks and farewell reception
SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE
EBCC: Dr. Richard D. Gregory, Dr. Hans-Günther Bauer, Dr. Anny Anselin, Dr. Ruud
Foppen, Dr. Åke Lindström, Dr. Frederic Jiguet, Dr. Alexander Mishenko, Dr. Svetoslav
Spasov, Dr. Ian Burfield, Dr. David Noble and Dr. Petr Voříšek.
SEO/BirdLife: Dr. Alejandro Sánchez, Dr. David Serrano, Dr. Javier Seoane, Dr. Lluís
Brotons, Dr. Alejandro Onrubia, Dr. David Palomino, Dr. Ana Bermejo and Juan Carlos
del Moral.
LOCAL ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Fernando Barrio, Blas Molina, Javier de la Puente, Virginia Escandell, Ana Bermejo, David
Palomino, Arancha Leal, Carmen Fernández, Josefina Maestre, Marcelino Cardalliaguet and
Juan Carlos del Moral.
REGISTRATION FEES
The registration fee (approximately € 250,00, but to be confirmed in the next announcement)
will cover: the costs associated with the conference itself, all coffee breaks (AM/PM), the
lunches during the three full conference days, conference services, the proceedings and
some conference material, the welcome party, one day excursion, and the conference
39
Bird Census News 22/1: 37 - 40
banquet. The fee will not cover the accommodation costs, breakfasts or dinners during
conference days. Accompanying person fee is € 130,00.
LOW INCOME COUNTRIES PARTICIPANTS
We are trying to do our best to help as many participants as possible from low income
countries. People interested in financial aid may ask for a partial (reduced fee: € 100,00) or
full support. People needing financial aid are required to send their curriculum vitae,
contribution abstract and status (EBCC delegate, monitoring organizer, etc.) to the
Conference Secretariat.
An appropriate form will be available on the conference website in the near future (please
check status).
Participants from high-income countries are encouraged to contribute to supporting
participants from low income countries by volunteering to increase their conference fee by a
small amount (about € 25,00; more details later).
EXCURSION
The Conference will include a series of exciting bird watching excursions on Thursday 25
March. We will visit a number of Important Bird Areas (IBA's), including mediterranean
forest like “Monfragüe National Park”and “Sierra de San Pedro” and steppe areas like “Llanos
de Brozas”and “Llanos de Cáceres”. Some of the key species in the areas visited will include:
Black Stork, Black-shouldered Kite, Egyptian, Griffon and Monk Vulture, Spanish Imperial
and Bonelli’s Eagle, Lesser Kestrel, Purple Swamp-Hen, Great and Little Bustard, Blackbellied and Pin-tailed Sandgrouse, Great Spotted Cuckoo, European Bee-eaters, Calandra,
Thekla and Short-toed Lark, Subalpine, Sardinian and Orphean Warbler and Spanish
Sparrow.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
All details about:
Conference location
Accommodation
Registration fees
How to arrive
Banks
Protected areas in the vicinity
Low income countries participants
Etc,
will be included in www.seo.org/ebcc2010
Postal Address For Correspondence:
Bird Numbers 2010 – Conference Secretariat
C/ Melquíades Biencinto, 34
E-28053 Madrid, Spain
Phone: +0034914340910
Fax: +0034914340911
e-mail: ebcc2010@seo.org
40
Your text in the next issue?
Bird Census is meant as a forum for everybody involved in bird census, monitoring
and atlas studies. Therefore we invite you to use it for publishing news on your
own activities within this field:
- you have (preliminary) results of your regional or national atlas,
- you have information on a monitoring campaign,
- you have made a species-specific inventory,
- you are a delegate and have some news on activities in your country,
- you are planning an inventory and want people to know this,
- you read a good (new) atlas or an article or report on census and you want to
review it,
Do not hesitate to let us know this!
Send text (in MSword or Open Office), figures and tables (and illustrations!) by
preference in digital format. Figures and tables in colour will be shown in colour in
the PDF version on our EBCC website: www.ebcc.info
∗ By email to:
anny.anselin@inbo.be
∗ or by mail on CD to:
Anny Anselin
Research Institute for Nature and Forest, Kliniekstraat 25,
B-1070 Brussel, Belgium
You receive your article in pdf-format to use for reprints
Bird Census News
2009 Volume 22 number 1
Contents
Preface
Anny Anselin
1
The importance of sampling-site data when communicating the results of
monitoring schemes: the case of www.sioc.cat
Sergi Herrando & Gabriel Gargallo
2-7
Results of the first Breeding Atlas for Malta
Andre F. Raine
8-22
The population status of the Quail, Coturnix coturnix in Ukraine: an update
Vadim Yanenko, Valentin Serebryakov & Sergey Loparev
23-26
Report on the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme Workshop
2009
Jana Škorpilová, Petr Voříšek & Richard Gregory
27-30
Books & Journals
31-36
Bird Numbers 2010, Cáceres, Spain
37-40
ISSN 1381-5261