Habitat preferences for Long-eared Owls Asio otus and Little Owls Athene noctua in semi-arid environments at three spatial scales

Capsule There is a relationship between owl numbers and the availability of the agri-forest patchwork.

Aims To model habitat preferences at three different scales of two predators largely neglected within the framework of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) studies.

Methods We studied habitat preferences of Long-eared Owls and Little Owls by comparing habitat composition around 28 and 78 occupied territories respectively with 55 non-occupied territories in Alicante (eastern Spain). Generalized linear models were used to examine patterns of habitat preference at three different spatial scales: nest-site, home range and landscape.

Results At the nest-site scale, Long-eared Owls preferred wooded areas with few paved roads while Little Owls preferred arid plantations. Furthermore, the probability of finding an occupied territory increased with the proximity of another occupied territory in the surroundings. The home range scale models mirror the feeding requirements of the owls. Thus, Long-eared Owls occupied areas with high percentages of forest, arid plantations, edges between these two land uses, short distances between nests, with presence of conspecifics and little human disturbance. Little Owls occupied arid plantations with high availability of linear structures and the proximity of villages. At the landscape scale, Long-eared Owls eluded extensive forests, and Little Owls preferred arid plantations.

Conclusions We suggest a hierarchical process of habitat selection for both owls regarding fitting trophic resources at the broadest scales and adequate sites for breeding and roosting at the smallest scale. EIA studies must consider that protecting small areas around single nests may not be an efficient conservation option compared with preserving clusters of territories for both species.     

Bird numbers in relation to grazing on a grouse moor from 1957–61 to 1988–98

Birds were counted before and after heavy grazing on a Scottish grouse moor. Oystercatchers Haematopus ostralegus, Lapwings Vanellus vanellus and Curlews Numenius arquata increased where high sheep stocks and grass seeding converted much ling Calluna vulgaris to smooth grass, but not where heath remained. A heathy part that held many gamebirds in 1957–61 but later became short grass had no Red Grouse Lagopus lagopus scoticus, Black Grouse Tetrao tetrix or Grey Partridge Perdix perdix in 1989–98. The study area held many Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria in 1957–61 but none in 1988–98.     

Nest-site selection of the Long-eared Owl Asio otus in northwestern Switzerland

Capsules Sites are selected as part of an antipredator strategy.

Aims To assess if site choice depends on habitat variables at nest sites and if habitat quality influences reproduction.

Methods Breeding density was explored in northwestern Switzerland from 1992 to 1996. Habitat variables were examined at 38 breeding sites and were compared with data collected from random sites. Habitat quality was estimated using the discriminant function scores of the nesting sites.

Results Breeding density was found to vary between years; more pairs bred and raised more young in 1993, a year of high vole abundance. Long-eared Owls tended to avoid the vicinity of buildings; they occupied sites with denser forest edges, greater canopy cover, and with more conifers than random sites. I found no statistical evidence that they used less optimal sites when the population was high. The number of fledglings increased with habitat quality, but did not vary with any of the habitat variables taken separately.

Conclusion Long-eared Owl selects nesting habitat as part of an anti-predator strategy, but the measures of territory quality did not seem to be a limiting factor for the population.     

Population increase of the Long-eared Owl,Asio otus (Linnaeus, 1758), in Iran (Aves: Strigidae)

The Long-eared Owl, Asio otus (Linnaeus, 1758), was known as a scarce wintering bird in Iran until 2010. There were altogether 25 records until the 1970s, but no data are available for the period between the 1970s and 1997. Between 1997 and 2014 there were at least 32 non-breeding and 17 breeding records available based on data of the Iran Bird Records Committee. Breeding was first confirmed in Nahavand (Hamedan Province) and has in the meantime been confirmed at 11 localities mainly in the western half of the country. The recent increase in records (from 25 records during 12 decades compared with 49 records during two decades) indicates that there has been a real increase in the numbers of Long-eared Owls occurring in Iran.     

The relationship between intra–guild diet overlap and breeding in owls in Israel

Even though intra-guild predators frequently prey on the same species, it is unclear whether diet overlap between two predators is a source of interspecific competition or whether predators simply use the same abundant prey resource. We measured the extent to which the diets of barn owls (Tyto alba) and long-eared owls (Asio otus) in Israel overlap and examined whether yearly differences in diet overlap correlate with barn owl breeding success. Pianka’s index of niche overlap was positively related to barn owl population size but not to its breeding success. The number of breeding barn owls was higher when long-eared owls consumed more rodents, suggesting that diet overlap most likely increased when rodents became more abundant. Therefore, in Israel, when these two owl species prey more often on rodents, their diets are more similar and interspecific competition is reduced. Unlike sympatric populations in Europe, in years when rodents are less abundant in Israel long-eared owls switch to hunting alternative prey (e.g., birds), perhaps to avoid competition with barn owls.     

Diet of the Long-eared Owl,Asio otus,in Central Anatolia (Aves: Strigidae)

In a one-year study on the diet of the Long-eared Owl, Asio otus, in the area of Karap?nar in Central Anatolia, 5324 prey items were recovered from 3314 pellets collected at monthly intervals. At least 7 species of mammals belonging to Insectivora (Crocidura suaveolens) and Rodentia (Allactaga williamsi, Cricetulus migratorius, Meriones tristrami, Mescocricetus brandti, Microtus guentheri, M. sp., Mus macedonicus) were identified. Rodentia were dominant and contributed 93.8% of the number of prey items of the Long-eared Owl. Microtus guentheri accounted for 83.9% of the rodent remains. The diet pattern was more diverse in summer, when some 24% of the diet consisted of non-mammal prey items (birds, insects).     

北京市区越冬长耳的食性分析

2004年11月至2005年4月,采用食团分析法对北京市区内天坛生物制药厂和国子监公园内栖息越冬的长耳鸮(Asiootus)的食物组成进行了分析。发现天坛生物制药厂长耳鸮的食物中啮齿类占41.0%,翼手类占29.5%,鸟类占29.3%,食虫类占0.2%;国子监长耳鸮的食物组成中翼手类占53.8%,啮齿类占21.5%,鸟类占24.7%。翼手目主要种类有山蝠(Nyctalus noctula)和普通伏翼(Pipistrellus abramus)等。长耳鸮三类主要食物所占比例的逐月变化显示,翼手类所占百分比不断上升,啮齿类所占比例先上升而到翌年1、2月开始下降,鸟类所占百分比一直在下降。蝙蝠大量出现于温带冬季鸮类的食物中属首次发现。     

Are ecological compensation areas attractive hunting sites for common kestrels (Falco tinnunculus) and long-eared owls (Asio otus)?

Common kestrels (Falco tinnunculus) and long-eared owls (Asio otus) in intensively farmed areas in Switzerland decreased markedly as a result of declining vole (Microtus spp.) populations. In order to counteract the loss of biodiversity in intensively farmed areas, the Swiss agri-environment scheme stipulates several types of ecological compensation areas, which together should take up 7% of the farmland. Among them are wild flower and herbaceous strips, which are not mown every year and which in summer support up to 8 times more small mammals than ordinary fields and grassland. This study investigates whether kestrels and long-eared owls preferentially hunt on ecological compensation areas and whether preferred hunting areas are related to the density of small mammals or to the density and height of the vegetation. Both kestrels and long-eared owls mainly hunted on freshly mown low-intensity meadows and artificial grassland, despite low densities of small mammals. Therefore, vegetation structure was more important for the selection of hunting sites than prey abundance. However, both predators preferred to hunt on freshly mown grassland and meadows bordering a wild flower or herbaceous strip. Voles from these strips probably invaded the adjacent freshly mown grassland and became an easy prey for kestrels and owls. In intensively farmed regions, ecological compensation areas, particularly those not mown each year, are an important refuge for small mammals, although in summer the small mammals are not directly accessible to hunting birds. Hence, a mosaic of different habitat types with grassland mown at different times of the year together with undisturbed strips is best suited to provide a year-round supply of accessible food for vole hunters.