WETLANDS - WADERS FOR REAL | 1


0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1


0 Failed Fledged


field edges, because the edges are often used by mammal predators when hunting. Patches of rushy cover near scrapes create a more complex habitat, providing escape areas for chicks from avian predators close to damp, open areas for foraging. We recorded an increase in lapwing pairs from 62 in 2015 to 81 in 2016 and an increase in redshank pairs from 19 in 2015 to 28 in 2016. This is likely to have been the result of increased recruitment following a good breeding season in 2014 and wetter field conditions in spring 2016 (soil penetrability 6.9 ± 0.2 in 2015, 5.1 ± 0.2 in 2016). Samples of 58 and 64 lapwing nests were located in 2015 and 2016 respectively, with nest survival increased above the average from years preceding the project (50% in 2015 and 45% in 2016 compared with an average of 35% for 2008-2014). To provide reliable estimates of lapwing chick survival, information on chick


movements and the use of new scrapes and shallow ditches, we radio-tagged one chick in each of 25 lapwing broods in 2015 and 27 broods in 2016. The average age at the time of tagging was nine days. Survival up to 35 days (age of fledging) was estimated at 17% in 2015 and 46% in 2016. We believe that chick survival was higher in 2016 (see Figure 1) because field conditions were wetter and broods typically ranged over smaller areas from where they hatched to find food and cover. Chick survival in both years was inversely related to range size, meaning that the further the distance travelled the more likely to be predated, hence justifying the creation of new in-field wet features in fields favoured for nesting (see Figure 2). Lapwings need an average productivity of 0.7 chick per pair per year to maintain


stable numbers. In 2015, total productivity was 0.29 chick/pair, with the low value attributable to high levels of chick predation. 2015 was a particularly dry year and many wet features had dried out by the time nests had hatched, so chicks had to move further to find suitable foraging conditions. Productivity on four core sites was only slightly higher at 0.30 chick/pair. In 2016, total productivity reached 0.63 chick/ pair and in the core sites productivity reached 0.78 chick/pair. Nest survival was very similar for the two years, but chick survival in 2016 was dramatically higher leading to the increased productivity. A large amount of habitat work was undertaken at one core site in autumn 2015 (1.3km old fence lines removed, 1km willow scrub removed, 2.9km of ditches re-profiled and 1.6km of new ditches and seven scrapes dug) and the benefits were seen in 2016, with pairs of lapwing using the site increasing from five to 15. Further habitat work at other sites will continue in winter 2016/17 and we hope that by increasing our efforts to exclude mammalian predators though the use of nest exclusion cages and electric fences at these sites, we will have another season of high wader productivity in 2017.


www.gwct.org.uk Figure 2


Mean range size (ha ± 1 se) of lapwing chicks which failed to fledge (n=14) was significantly higher than of chicks that fledged (n=15) in both 2015 and 2016


BACKGROUND


Over the past 25 years the GWCT has documented a 70% decline in numbers of breeding lapwings and an 83% decline in breeding redshank in the Avon Valley, with evidence that the lapwing decline is driven by poor breeding success. The EU LIFE+ ‘Waders for Real’ project was launched in 2014 with the aim of halting these declines and reversing them.


Our approach is to create


strategic hotspots of optimum habitat with reduced predation pressure, where the birds are able to fledge sufficient chicks to increase recruitment to the population in subsequent years.


KEY FINDINGS


Breeding lapwing increased from 62 pairs in 2015 to 81 pairs in 2016. We recorded an increase in chick survival and overall lapwing productivity in 2016 owing to wetter field conditions. Over both 2015 and 2016 lapwing chicks that fledged had a significantly smaller range size than those who failed. Habitat work is increasing the amount of in-field wet features to create more chick foraging habitat.


Lizzie Grayshon Andrew Hoodless


GAME & WILDLIFE REVIEW 2016 | 23


Range size (hectares)


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