244 Á. Kiss et al.


TABLE 1 Timing of breeding, clutch size and nesting success of collared pratincoles Glareola pratincola in agricultural habitats in Hungary (mean ± SE; Fig. 1). We found 315 nests over our study period, but as we were only able to establish hatching times for 212 of these nests, we show hatching times separately.


Timing of hatching (Julian day) Timing of hatching (calendar day)


Number of nests with known hatching times Clutch size


Number of hatched chicks per nest Total number of nests


Row crop 158.5 ± 0.9


9 June 94


2.66 ± 0.05 1.54 ± 0.10 152


habitat types: nests in row crops or spring cover crops hatched earlier than in fallow lands (one-way ANOVA, b.6.311, F2,210 = 39.02,Pmin = 0.009; Supplementary Fig. 1). Similarly, clutch size was related to habitat type: the largest clutch sizes were in row crops (one-way ANOVA,


b,−0.0491, F2,268 = 2.601,Pmin = 0.0254; Table 1). A total of 75%(n = 68) of nests on fallow lands hatched at least one chick, whereas the corresponding figures were 69% (n = 50) on spring cover crops and 62%(n = 94)inrow crops (Table 1). The overall nesting success was 67%(n = 315 nests). Nesting success was related to the type of habitat: nests in spring cover crops or fallow lands were more successful and produced more hatchlings than nests in row crops. In addition, nesting success was also associated with both time in the season and breeding density, as early nests and those in areas with higher breeding densities produced more chicks (Table 2). Daily nest survival increased significantly over the study


period (linear regression, b = 0.0064,n= 8,P= 0.0189; Fig. 2). Total nest survival increased from 11.2 to 83.5% (Supplementary Table 2). However, using two-way ANOVAs we found no association between habitat type and daily nest


survival (two-way ANOVA, b =−0.046,SE = 0.036,P = 0.21) or total nest survival (two-way ANOVA, b =−0.103,


Spring cover crop 164.6 ± 2.3


15 June 50


2.58 ± 0.08 1.50 ± 0.14 72


Fallow land 175.8 ± 1.9


26 June 68


2.49 ± 0.08 1.72 ± 0.12 91


Overall


165.6 ± 1.0 15 June 212


2.59 ± 0.04 1.58 ± 0.07 315


SE = 0.144,P = 0.48), using year as the unit of analysis. The highest level of total nest survival was recorded in fallow lands (Supplementary Table 2).


Causes of nest failure


Most nest failures (n = 102) were caused by predation (58%), followed by nest abandonment (23%) and flooding by heavy rainfall (17%), with 1% having an unknown fate. As a result of the nest-marking scheme, agricultural machinery destroyed only a few nests (1%; Supplementary Table 3). In total, 83%(n = 49) of all nest predation and 89%(n = 17) of all flooded nests were found in rowcrops and spring cover crops, respectively. The mostcommon predators of eggs and chicks were red foxes, European badgers, hooded crows, western marsh harriers Circus aeruginosus and Caspian gulls Larus cachinnans.


Conservation action


During the study period, we directly protected 159 nests (c. 50% of the total) with a protection zone. The number of protected nests fluctuated across years and habitats, although the largest proportion (92%) of protected nests


TABLE 2 Nesting success and the number of hatched chicks of collared pratincoles in Hungary and their relationships to agro-technology, time, space and other ecological variables. Logistic and linear regression analyses were used to explore the relationship between these variables, as appropriate. Significant relationships are indicated in bold.


Variable Intercept


Agricultural habitat Spring cover crops Fallow lands


Ecology & timing Year


Egg-laying date Field boundary


Distance fromwater body


Social behaviour Breeding density


Nesting success Estimate SE −463.12


1.03 1.35


0.23


−0.01 0.01


, 0.01 , 0.01


Number of hatched chicks


z


124.42 0.40


0.45 0.06


0.01 0.01


, 0.01 , 0.01


−3.72 2.56


3.03 3.74


−1.36 0.95


0.40 −1.39 P


,0.01 0.01


0.01


,0.01 0.18 0.34 0.69


0.16


Estimate SE −292.04


0.42 0.72


0.15


−0.01 0.01


, 0.01 , 0.01


t


63.84 0.20


0.22 0.03


0.01 0.01


, 0.01 , 0.01


−4.58 2.11


3.32 4.62


−2.29 1.01


1.56 −2.47 P


,0.01 0.04


0.01


,0.01 0.02 0.32 0.12


0.01 Oryx, 2024, 58(2), 240–249 © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605323000911


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140