WETLANDS - BREEDING WOODCOCK | 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 0 1 2 Index of relative fox abundance
Additionally, very large woods are likely to be commercially managed, and it could be that active management benefits woodcock. The likelihood of encountering woodcock varied according to woodland type. The
highest levels of site occupancy in 2013 were associated with wet woodlands (52%), Sitka spruce (44%) and other conifers (45%). The association with wet woodland appears to be due to an association with birch, young stands of which provide dense cover in which woodcock can roost and feed. The association with Sitka spruce and other conifers may relate to the apparent preference for well-connected and managed woods as these tree species are common in areas where large forestry plantations exist. By comparison, only 16% of beech woods supported breeding woodcock, probably owing to their sparser ground vegetation, making them less suitable for nesting and their low availability of earthworms. We used the GWCT’s National Gamebag Census to assess how the abundance of three common deer species (roe, fallow and muntjac) and fox, as measured by the number culled, relate to local woodcock abundance. Deer are known to alter the structure and species composition of woodland vegetation through browsing, but our study found no obvious negative effect on woodcock. Woodcock abundance showed a negative relationship with fox abundance (see Figure 1) and, although we do not expect this to be the sole cause of declines, increasing fox numbers may have exacer- bated declines in areas where woodcock productivity is low.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are grateful to Greg Conway, Iain Downie and Rob Fuller of the BTO for their involvement in the Breeding Woodcock Survey. We thank the many volunteers who participated in the survey, particu- larly the BTO regional organisers who co-ordinated survey coverage. The analysis of survey results was made possible by datasets provided by the Forestry Commission, the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology and the Met Office.
3 Figure 1
Change in mean number of woodcock registrations between 2003 and 2013 in relation to relative fox abundance in 2013. Relative fox abundance is derived from records of numbers culled and displayed as an index where 1 = national average. Woodcock change = ln (mean registration in 2013/mean registrations 2003)
Woodcock were less abundant in areas where foxes were more common. © Dave Kjaer
www.gwct.org.uk GAME & WILDLIFE REVIEW 2016 | 29
Change in number of woodcock registrations
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
