Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Oct 6;5(10):e13115.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013115.

Patches of bare ground as a staple commodity for declining ground-foraging insectivorous farmland birds

Affiliations

Patches of bare ground as a staple commodity for declining ground-foraging insectivorous farmland birds

Michael Schaub et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Conceived to combat widescale biodiversity erosion in farmland, agri-environment schemes have largely failed to deliver their promises despite massive financial support. While several common species have shown to react positively to existing measures, rare species have continued to decline in most European countries. Of particular concern is the status of insectivorous farmland birds that forage on the ground. We modelled the foraging habitat preferences of four declining insectivorous bird species (hoopoe, wryneck, woodlark, common redstart) inhabiting fruit tree plantations, orchards and vineyards. All species preferred foraging in habitat mosaics consisting of patches of grass and bare ground, with an optimal, species-specific bare ground coverage of 30-70% at the foraging patch scale. In the study areas, birds thrived in intensively cultivated farmland where such ground vegetation mosaics existed. Not promoted by conventional agri-environment schemes until now, patches of bare ground should be implemented throughout grassland in order to prevent further decline of insectivorous farmland birds.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Marginal selection probability of foraging locations in relation to amount of bare ground and vegetation height for four farmland bird species.
Predictions are revealed from the best models (see the supporting information) and refer to hoopoes (black dots), wrynecks (blue triangles), woodlarks (red squares) and common redstarts (green diamonds). Note that selection probabilities below 0.5 indicate avoidance, selection probabilities above 0.5 indicate preference. Points are posterior means, vertical lines show the limits of the 80% credible intervals.

References

    1. Robinson RA, Sutherland WJ. Post-war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great Britain. J Appl Ecol. 2002;39:157–176.
    1. Ehrlich PR, Pringle RM. Where does biodiversity go from here? A grim business-as-usual forecast and a hopeful portfolio of partial solutions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008;105:11579–11586. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD. Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol Evol. 2003;18:182–188.
    1. Britschgi A, Spaar R, Arlettaz R. Impact of grassland farming intensification on the breeding ecology of an indicator insectivorous passerine, the Whinchat Saxicola rubetra: Lessons for overall Alpine meadowland management. Biol Conserv. 2006;130:193–205.
    1. Vickery JA, Tallowin JR, Feber RE, Asteraki EJ, Atkinson PW, et al. The management of lowland neutral grassland in Britain: effects of agricultural practices on birds and their food resources. J Appl Ecol. 2001;38:647–664.

Publication types