A review of predation as a limiting factor for bird populations in mesopredator‐rich landscapes: a case study of the UK

The impact of increasing vertebrate predator numbers on bird populations is widely debated among the general public, game managers and conservationists across Europe. However, there are few systematic reviews of whether predation limits the population sizes of European bird species. Views on the impacts of predation are particularly polarised in the UK, probably because the UK has a globally exceptional culture of intensive, high‐yield gamebird management where predator removal is the norm. In addition, most apex predators have been exterminated or much depleted in numbers, contributing to a widely held perception that the UK has high numbers of mesopredators. This has resulted in many high‐quality studies of mesopredator impacts over several decades. Here we present results from a systematic review of predator trends and abundance, and assess whether predation limits the population sizes of 90 bird species in the UK. Our results confirm that the generalist predators Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) and Crows (Corvus corone and C. cornix) occur at high densities in the UK compared with other European countries. In addition, some avian and mammalian predators have increased numerically in the UK during recent decades. Despite these high and increasing densities of predators, we found little evidence that predation limits populations of pigeons, woodpeckers and passerines, whereas evidence suggests that ground‐nesting seabirds, waders and gamebirds can be limited by predation. Using life‐history characteristics of prey species, we found that mainly long‐lived species with high adult survival and late onset of breeding were limited by predation. Single‐brooded species were also more likely to be limited by predation than multi‐brooded species. Predators that depredate prey species during all life stages (i.e. from nest to adult stages) limited prey numbers more than predators that depredated only specific life stages (e.g. solely during the nest phase). The Red Fox and non‐native mammals (e.g. the American Mink Neovison vison) were frequently identified as numerically limiting their prey species. Our review has identified predator–prey interactions that are particularly likely to result in population declines of prey species. In the short term, traditional predator‐management techniques (e.g. lethal control or fencing to reduce predation by a small number of predator species) could be used to protect these vulnerable species. However, as these techniques are costly and time‐consuming, we advocate that future research should identify land‐use practices and landscape configurations that would reduce predator numbers and predation rates.     

Non‐native trout limit native brook trout access to space and thermal refugia in a restored large‐river system

We used direct observation via snorkeling surveys to quantify microhabitat use by native brook (Salvelinus fontinalis) and non‐native brown (Salmo trutta) and rainbow (Onchorynchus mykiss) trout occupying natural and restored pool habitats within a large, high‐elevation Appalachian river, United States. Permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) and subsequent two‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated a significant difference in microhabitat use by brook and non‐native trout within restored pools. We also detected a significant difference in microhabitat use by brook trout occupying pools in allopatry versus those occupying pools in sympatry with non‐native trout—a pattern that appears to be modulated by size. Smaller brook trout often occupied pools in the absence of non‐native species, where they used shallower and faster focal habitats. Larger brook trout occupied pools with, and utilized similar focal habitats (i.e. deeper, slower velocity) as, non‐native trout. Non‐native trout consistently occupied more thermally suitable microhabitats closer to cover as compared to brook trout, including the use of thermal refugia (i.e. ambient–focal temperature >2°C). These results suggest that non‐native trout influence brook trout use of restored habitats by: (1) displacing smaller brook trout from restored pools, and (2) displacing small and large brook trout from optimal microhabitats (cooler, deeper, and lower velocity). Consequently, benefits of habitat restoration in large rivers may only be fully realized by brook trout in the absence of non‐native species. Future research within this and other large river systems should characterize brook trout response to stream restoration following removal of non‐native species.