Diploma thesis LUKASCH\374

DIPLOMARBEIT
Titel der Diplomarbeit
Short-term effects of recent land use changes in Eastern
Austria on bird assemblages in a human-dominated
landscape
angestrebter akademischer Grad:
Diplom-Ingenieurin (Dipl.-Ing.)
durchgeführt am Department für Integrative Biologie und
Biodiversitätsforschung an der Universität für Bodenkultur Wien
in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Department für Biodiversität der Tiere an der
Universität Wien
Verfasserin:
Matrikel-Nummer:
Studienrichtung (lt. Studienblatt):
Betreuer:
Zweitbetreuer:
Wien, im August 2010
Mag. Barbara Lukasch
0102989
Masterstudium Agrarbiologie (066 459)
Univ. Prof. Mag. Dr. Thomas Frank
Dipl.-Biol. Dr. Christian H. Schulze
Short-term effects of recent land use changes in Eastern Austria
on bird assemblages in a human-dominated landscape
Mag. Barbara Lukasch
Diploma Student at the Department of Integrative Biology and Biodiversity Research,
Institute of Zoology, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna,
Gregor Mendel-Straße 33, A-1180 Vienna, Austria
Abstract: To study effects of short-term land-use changes on birds in a predominantly
agriculturally used landscape in Northeastern Austria, birds were surveyed in 22 circular
study areas with a diameter of 1 km in 2005 and 2009. Also the proportion of landscape
elements like set-aside land, cropland and woodland were measured in both years. Because of
the abolition to obligate set-aside land in 2008 and 2009, it was suspected that the amount of
set-aside land would be reduced dramatically. Consequently, a loss of biodiversity was
expected, particularly in farmland bird species. Results show that the amount of set-aside land
indeed decreased significantly between 2005 and 2009 from 15.05% to 9.69% (mean
proportion of fallows per study area). However, total numbers of recorded species were very
similar in 2005 (85 species) and 2009 (87 species) and in both years farmland birds were
represented by 20 species. The completeness of the totals species inventories was 90.36% and
96% in 2005 and 2009, respectively. Abundances of species in 2005 and 2009 were highly
correlated, independently if all bird species or only farmland birds were considered. Based on
the comparison of absolute abundances, no difference in the proportion of increasing and
decreasing species was found between farmland and other bird species. To account for a
potential observer-related bias, also relative abundances were considered. However, again no
significant difference in the proportion of increasing and decreasing species was found
between farmland and other birds. The relative abundances of 29 bird species increased
(including 9 farmland bird species), and the relative abundances of 29 bird species declined
(including 7 farmland bird species). However, only two bird species showed a significant
change between 2005 and 2009 (both farmland birds): Yellowhammer (Emberiza citrinella)
increased and Common Kestrel (Falco tinnunculus) decreased. Species richness (all birds and
farmland birds) was positively related to habitat diversity, while an increasing amount of
2
cropland had negative effects. Although a significant decline of set-aside land was recorded,
no related significant changes of the bird assamblages could be detected. However, the
amount of set-aside land in these landscapes was already high (compared to other areas in
Austria) before the amendment of the law and still relatively high after the abolition of the
measures intending to maintain a high proportion of fallow areas. Therefore, perhaps the
minor changes in the extent of set-aside land were below the threshold to find detectable
effects on bird assemblages in strongly human-modified landscapes.
Key words: agricultural area, set-aside land, farmland birds, bird communities
Zusammenfassung:
Um
Effekte
von
kurzfristigen
Landnutzungsänderungen
auf
Vogelgemeinschaften auf überwiegend landwirtschaftlich genutzten Flächen im nordöstlichen
Österreich zu untersuchen, wurden 22 kreisförmige Flächen mit einem Durchmesser von 1
km ausgewählt, in denen 2005 und 2009 Vögel erfasst wurden. Zusätzlich wurden
Landschaftsparameter wie der Anteil an Brachen, Ackerflächen und Gehölzen aufgenommen.
Aufgrund des Wegfalls der obligatorischen Flächenstilllegung in den Jahren 2008 und 2009
wurde eine dramatische Verringerung des Brachflächenanteiles sowie ein Rückgang an
Biodiversität in den Landschaften befürchtet, vor allem bei Kulturlandvögeln. Die Ergebnisse
zeigten, dass Brachflächen zwischen 2005 und 2009 tatsächlich signifikant abnahmen, von
15,05% auf 9,69% (durchschnittlicher Anteil an Brachen pro Untersuchungsfläche). Die
Gesamtzahlen der erfassten Arten von 2005 und 2009 waren sehr ähnlich (85 bzw. 87 Arten).
In beiden Jahren wurden 20 Kulturlandvogelarten beobachtet. Die Vollständigkeit der
erfassten Artenspektren war 90.36% bzw. 96% in den Jahren 2005 bzw. 2009. Die
Häufigkeiten der in 2005 und 2009 festgestellten Vogelarten korrelierten sehr eng
miteinander, unabhängig davon ob alle Arten oder nur Kulturlandvögel berücksichtigt
wurden. Basierend auf der Gegenüberstellung von Veränderungen absoluter Häufigkeiten
konnte kein Unterschied der Anteile zunehmender und abnehmender Arten zwischen
Kulturlandvögeln und anderen Vögeln gefunden werden. Um einen möglichen Einfluss auf
die Erfassung der Vögel durch in beiden Jahren jeweils verschiedene Beobachter zu
verringern, wurden zudem die Veränderungen der relativen Abundanzen von Arten betrachtet.
Allerdings konnte wiederum kein signifikanter Unterschied der Anteile zunehmender und
abnehmender Arten zwischen Kulturlandvögeln und allen anderen Vögeln gefunden werden.
3
Die relativen Abundanzen von jeweils 29 Vogelarten (darunter 9 Kulturlandvögel) erhöhten
sich bzw. nahmen bei ebenso 29 Arten (darunter 7 Kulturlandvögel) ab. Es kam bei nur zwei
Vogelarten (beides Kulturlandvögel) zu signifikanten Veränderungen zwischen 2005 und
2009: Die Zahlen der Goldammer (Emberiza citrinella) erhöhten sich, Turmfalken (Falco
tinnunculus)
nahmen
ab.
Der
Vogelartenreichtum
(gesamtes
Artenspektrum
und
Kulturlandvögel) nahm mit steigender Habitatdiversität zu, ein hoher Anteil an Ackerland
hingegen wirkte sich negativ aus. Trotz des drastischen Rückgangs der Brachflächen konnten
keine signifikanten Änderungen der Vogelgemeinschaften festgestellt werden. Der Anteil an
Brachflächen in diesen Landschaften war jedoch schon vor der Gesetzesänderung relativ hoch
(verglichen mit anderen Gebieten in Österreich) und auch noch relativ hoch nach der
Einstellung der Maßnahmen, die einen hohen Anteil an Brachflächen gefördert haben.
Möglicherweise waren die Veränderungen der Brachflächen unter dem Schwellenwert, um
messbare Effekte auf die Vogelgemeinschaften in den durch Menschen stark veränderten
Landschaften zu haben.
4
Introduction
The evaluation of past agricultural schemes showed that the following landscape characters
are relevant for biodiversity in predominantly agriculturally used areas in Eastern Austria: setaside land, small management units, arable land without or with little use of pesticides,
landscape structures such as trees and hedgerows, arable land with a specific cover of plants
in autumn and winter, high diversity of cultivated plants and extensive grassland management
(FRÜHAUF & BIERINGER 2004; KELEMEN-FINAN & FRÜHAUF 2005). Set-aside land
has the most positive influence on biodiversity in crop areas and proved to be important to
realize nature conservation targets in agricultural land. Especially undisturbed set-aside land
provides save nesting sites, refuges during harvesting and valuable food resources (special
food plants, high abundances of invertebrates, high density of small mammals) for birds, even
in winter. A large number of endangered birds benefit from that, such as Common Quail
(Coturnix coturnix), Gray Partridge (Perdix perdix), Yellowhammer (Emberiza citrinella),
and Corn Bunting (Miliaria calandra) (FRÜHAUF & TEUFELBAUER 2006), emphasizing
the importance of birds as bioindicators to monitor effects of habitat and land-use changes
(GREGORY et al. 2005).
Positive effects of set-aside land for biodiversity depend on habitat area. Impacts of set-aside
land start with an amount of 2 to 5% (BUWAL 2002; AEBISCHER et al. 2003; JENNY et al.
2003). Common Quail and Gray Partridge need about 10% set-aside land; Corn Bunting
needs noticeably more than 10% set-aside land to maintain stable populations (JENNY 2000;
JENNY et al. 2003). Conservation biologists suggest at least 10% set-aside land to maintain
and stabilize farmland bird populations. It is important to integrate all utilized land, not only
arable land but also grassland, because major biodiversity shortfalls can also be found on this
type of land (FLADE et al. 2006).
The current ‘Austrian Agri-Environmental Programme’ (ÖPUL 2007) runs until 2013. The
target of the ÖPUL program is to promote environmentally friendly and extensive agriculture
to maintain a high amount of (semi-)natural habitats. A total of 89% of the agriculturally used
area in Austria was covered by the program in 2004 (UMWELTBUNDESAMT 2009). The
biggest part of set-aside land is applied within the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to
5
prevent overproduction. Farmers who receive payments have to set aside a yearly agreed
percentage of arable land. This cyclical set-aside of agricultural land is an instrument of
market regulations, it is required for all farmers who attend ÖPUL and cultivate grain, corn,
oleiferous fruits, legumes and sorghum on more than 20 ha. In the last 10 years this
percentage fluctuated from 5 to 15%, depending on the market conditions (DISTELVEREIN
2009). On 26 September 2007 the decree (EG) Nr. 1107/2007 was issued. Because of the bad
market situation of grain, the great demand in the course of biomass production and due to
poor harvest it was decided to reduce the rate of the obligatory set-aside land to zero for the
years 2008 and 2009. Consequently, a great reduction of set-aside land is to be expected
(WKO 2009). To conserve biodiversity, ‘biodiversity areas’ could play an important role.
From 2008 to 2013 they are obligatory for all farmers who are part of the procedure
‘Environmentally sustainable use of cropland and grassland’ (almost all farmers in Austria).
Farmers are compelled to set aside at least 2% of their arable land or 5% of their grassland,
even when they have less than 2 ha arable land. But it is unlikely that these measures will
compensate for the potential negative effects for biodiversity (DISTELVEREIN 2009).
The European wild bird indicator is a meaningful biodiversity indicator based on the
population trends of representative species of ‘common’ birds, which are not globally
threatened. According to this indicator, common birds declined by 10% between 1980 and
2006, forest birds declined by 9%. The decline of farmland birds was more dramatic. Their
average breeding populations were 48% lower in 2006 than in 1980. The Skylark declined by
50% from 1980 to 2006 and therefore it is a typical example for declining farmland birds
(EBCC 2009). EBCC also developed composite indices (several species combined in one
index), including the farmland bird index (GREGORY et al. 2005). The farmland bird index
is made up of population trends of common bird species, which are predominantly living in
agricultural land. This index has been recognized and included in Structural and Sustainable
Development Indicators by EUROSTAT (2008). The European farmland bird index is not
completely conferrable on Austria. This is because some European species do not occur in
Austria, are too rare or do not predominantly breed there in cultivated land. FRÜHAUF &
TEUFELBAUER (2007) designed an Austrian farmland bird index with 24 indicator species:
Common Kestrel (Falco tinnunculus), Gray Partridge, Northern Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus),
Turtle Dove (Streptopelia turtur), Eurasian Wryneck (Jynx torquilla), Wood Lark (Lullula
6
arborea), Skylark (Alauda arvensis), Tree Pipit (Anthus trivialis), Water Pipit (Anthus
spinoletta), Whinchat (Saxicola rubetra), Stonechat (Saxicola rubicola), Northern Wheatear
(Oenanthe oenanthe), Fieldfare (Turdus pilaris), Marsh Warbler (Acrocephalus palustris),
Whitethroat (Sylvia communis), Red-backed Shrike (Lanius collurio), European Starling
(Sturnus vulgaris), Tree Sparrow (Passer montanus), European Serin (Serinus serinus), Citril
Finch (Serinus citrinella), European Goldfinch (Carduelis carduelis), Linnet (Carduelis
cannabina), Yellowhammer and Corn Bunting. These birds were chosen depending on their
connection to cultivated land, their agricultural indicator function, good possibility for
identification, frequency, distribution and biology.
There is a well known relationship between the decline of most farmland bird species and the
rapid changes in agricultural practice since the Second World War (SIRIWARDENA et al.
1998; FULLER 2000). The declines have been greatest in Western Europe, where cultural
land has been farmed most intensively (DONALD et al. 2001). The loss of food resources
(because of pesticides) resulting in insufficient food for chicks, the loss of high quality food
during summer, which is important for successful fledging, the destruction of non-crop
elements like hedgerows and annual hedge cutting are blamed for the decline of farmland
birds, such as Cirl Bunting and Corn Bunting (CAMPBELL et al. 1997; EVANS et al. 1997;
BENTON et al. 2002; BRICKLE & HARPER 2002). Massive introduction of winter cereals
and
abandonment
of
traditional
livestock
rearing
are
also
important
factors
(CHAMBERLAIN & FULLER 2000). Habitat models for European Goldfinch, Linnet and
Reed Bunting (Emberiza schoeniclus) all included variables indicative of the importance of
food supply (‘verge width’ and ‘plant species richness’, both associated with the presence of
plants supplying seeds and insects) (SPARKS et al. 1996).
7
This study in Eastern Austria particularly addressed the following questions:
(1) Did set-aside land in the studied landscapes decline between 2005 and 2009 due to
changes of governmental regulations?
(2) Are local changes of set-aside land (around the village Prellenkirchen) comparable with
changes on the federal state level (Austria)?
(3) To what extent is bird species richness related to landscape diversity?
(4) How did species richness and species composition of bird assemblages respond to landuse changes?
(5) Did Farmland Birds show a more distinct change than forest birds due to a decline of setaside land?
Methods
Study area
The study area is located in a predominantly agriculturally used area in Northeastern Austria,
in vicinity of the village Prellenkirchen (48°4′ N, 16°56′ E), which is located about 60 km
ESE Vienna. A total of 22 circular areas (hereafter called study sites) with a diameter of 1 km
were selected for bird surveys (Fig. 1). This figure was taken and adapted from another study
(DRAPELA et al. 2008). Habitat composition of these 22 study sites ranged from very
homogeneously structured areas being exclusively dominated by open cultivated land to areas
with a high structural diversity caused by a varying extent of woodland cover, settlements,
hedgerows, water bodies and set-aside land.
8
Fig. 1: Study area indicating the 22 study sites (circular areas with a diameter of 1 km), where
bird surveys were conducted (after: DRAPELA et al. 2008).
Landscape variables
For each of the 22 study sites, the area covered by water bodies, settlements, crop land,
grassland (set-aside land, tracks, meadows and grassland), woody elements (wood,
hedgerows, shelter belts, groves), vineyards and streets were digitized for both study years
2005 and 2009 and measured with the program ESRI ArcView GIS 3.3. Habitat diversity was
quantified by Shannon-Wiener index. Higher index values indicate higher habitat diversity of
study sites.
Bird survey
Bird surveys were conducted at all 22 study sites in the years 2005 (by Christian H. Schulze)
and 2009 (by Barbara Lukasch). In both years all sites were visited three times between 29
March−24 April, 1 May−21 May and 25 May−8 June, respectively. During each visit
9
individual study sites were surveyed in a zigzag-like pattern (but using existing roads and
tracks whenever possible) to cover the entire area of each circular study site. Surveys were
exclusively conducted between dawn to 4 hours after dawn for 90−120 min per study site
depending on the amount of woodland (longest survey periods at sites with highest woodland
cover). No surveys were made on days with rain and strong wind. Two study sites were
surveyed per day. The order of surveyed study sites followed a random pattern to avoid
weather or landscape structure related bias. During surveys all birds visually and acoustically
detected were recorded. Only flying birds passing the study site and not showing any
interaction with the respective habitats and all Feral Pigeons (Columba livia f. domestica)
were excluded from subsequent analyses. Abundance of species at individual study sites was
quantified as the maximum number of individuals counted during one of the three surveys.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analyses were conducted using the program Statistica version 7.1 (STATSOFT
INC. 2005). To test for differences in species richness, total bird abundance, absolute and
relative abundances of individual bird species, habitat diversity and relative area covered by
different habitat types between survey years, paired t-tests were calculated when data were
normally distributed. When normal distribution could not be achieved even after adequate
data transformation, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were calculated. Total species richness was
estimated for the total of 22 study sites with the program EstimateS Win 8.20 randomizing
samples 50 times (COLWELL 2005). Due to its overall good performance the Chao 1
estimator was used. Species accumulation curves (Mao Tau function) were calculated with
95% confidence intervals. To compare species composition of farmland birds between study
sites and survey years Bray-Curtis similarities (√x transformed abundances) were calculated
with the software PRIMER 5 (CLARKE & GORLEY 2001). Relative abundances of
individual bird species were used to reduce a potential observer-caused bias. For comparing
birds´ absolute and relative abundances between years only abundant bird species (total ≥5
observed individuals in one year) were considered, water birds were excluded because of their
independence of cultivated land (Great Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo), Common
Sandpiper (Actitis hypoleucos), Black-headed Gull (Larus ridibundus), Common Gull (Larus
canus), Yellow-legged Gull (Larus michahellis), Little Ringed Plover (Charadrius dubius),
Garganey (Anas querquedula), Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), Common Moorhen (Gallinula
10
chloropus), Grey Heron (Ardea cinerea) and Great Egret (Casmerodius albus)). The
classification of farmland bird species for Austria followed FRÜHAUF & TEUFELBAUER
(2007). Forest birds were analyzed according to the characterization of forest birds in
Continental Europe (EBCC 2009). Similarity of species composition of farmland birds
between both study years was quantified by Bray-Curtis similarities for all 22 landscapes. The
relationship between bird species numbers and landscape variables were analysed with single
regressions.
Results
Landscape variables
The proportion of set-aside land (arcsin √x transformed) per study site decreased significantly
from 2005 to 2009 (paired t test: t = 3.43, df = 21, p = 0.002; Fig. 2a). While there was a total
of 260.06 ha set-aside land at all study sites in 2005 (15.05% of the whole surface area), there
were just 167.44 ha left in 2009 (9.69% of the whole surface area). Set-aside land decreased
significantly by 35.33%, which was 5.36% of the whole surface area. In contrast, the amount
of cropland per study site increased significantly from 2005 to 2009 (paired t test: t = -3.27,
df = 21, p = 0.004, Fig. 2b). While there were 1246.56 ha cropland in 2005 (72.14% of the
whole surface area), there were 1333.75 ha in 2009 (77.19% of the whole surface area).
Cropland increased by 6.99%, which was 5.05% of the whole surface area. No significant
change could be found for woodland cover per study site (paired t test: t = 0.18, df = 21,
p = 0.855). The amount of settlements only changed at one study site, where it increased by
5.14%. The total area covered by tracks and roads did not show a significant change (paired t
test: t = -1.34, df = 21, p = 0.193). Habitat diversity declined significantly between 2005 and
2009 (paired t test: t = 2.35, df = 21, p = 0.029).
11
a
b
Fig. 2: Mean proportion of fallows ± 95% CI (a) and cropland ± 95% CI (b) per study site
(N = 22) in the years 2005 and 2009.
Bird species richness and abundance
In 2005, a total of 85 bird species were found including 20 farmland bird species. In 2009, a
similar total number of 87 bird species were found, also including 20 farmland bird species.
Appendix A provides the totals (sum of all 22 study sites) of maximum abundances of bird
species counted per study site in 2005 and 2009 and indicates which bird species were
classified as farmland birds.
The very similar species richness indicated by the total number of recorded species for the
years 2005 and 2009 is confirmed by the respective species accumulation curves (Fig. 3) and
the total species richness estimated for both years (Fig. 4). According to the Chao 1 estimates,
the completeness of the recorded species inventories was slightly lower in 2005 (90.36% of
estimated species total) than in 2009 (96.00%).
12
Fig. 3: Species accumulation curves (Mao Tau function) ± 95% CI for bird assemblages
surveyed at 22 study sites in 2005 and 2009.
Fig. 4: Estimated species richness (Chao 1 estimator) for bird assemblages surveyed at 22
study sites in 2005 and 2009. Estimated richness did not differ between both years when
considering the respective 95% CI (not shown).
13
Total abundances of bird species in 2005 and 2009 were highly correlated and no significant
difference between survey years could be detected, independent if total abundances of all
species (log x+1 transformed; r = 0.90, p < 0.001; paired t test: t = -1.94, df = 95, p = 0.056)
or only total abundances of farmland bird species were compared between both years for all
study sites (r = 0.74, p < 0.001; paired t test: t = -1.03, df = 21, p = 0.316).
When based on absolute abundances, there was no significant difference in the number of
increasing and decreasing species between farmland birds and other birds (Chi-square test:
χ2 < 0.01, df = 1, p = 0.972). In total, 38 bird species increased (including 11 farmland bird
species). However, only 6 bird species increased significantly: Blackcap, Wood Pigeon, Great
Spotted Woodpecker, Icterine Warbler and the farmland birds Yellowhammer and Skylark
(Appendix B). In total 17 bird species decreased (including 5 farmland bird species), but only
the farmland bird Common Kestrel decreased significantly (Appendix B). Also when relative
abundances were considered, no significant difference in the number of increasing and
decreasing species was found between farmland birds and other birds (Chi-square test: χ2 =
0.35, df = 1, p = 0.557; see also Fig. 5). In total, 29 birds species increased (including 9
farmland bird species) and 29 bird species decreased (including 7 farmland bird species).
Only two bird species showed a significant change in relative abundances. The farmland bird
Yellowhammer increased significantly and the farmland bird Common Kestrel decreased
significantly (Appendix B).
Fig. 5: Proportion of increasing and decreasing species of farmland bird species (N = 9
species increased, N = 7 species decreased) and other bird species (N = 20 species increased,
N = 22 species decreased) based on relative abundance changes between 2005 and 2009.
14
Species composition
Similarity of species composition of farmland birds between both study years was quantified
by Bray-Curtis similarities for all 22 landscapes. Similarity of farmland bird assemblages
between both years was not related to changes of fallow (r = 0.15, p = 0.519) and crop cover
(r = -0.11, p = 0.634).
Influence of landscape variables on bird richness
In both study years there was no significant relation between proportion of set-aside land and
species richness of farmland birds (2005: r = 0.11, p = 0.626; 2009: r = 0.34, p = 0.120) and
all bird species (2005: r = 0.22, p = 0.318; 2009: r = 0.27, p = 0.228). Species richness of all
bird species increased significantly with increasing habitat diversity (quantified by ShannonWiener index) in 2005 (Fig. 6a) and 2009 (Fig. 6b). A similar result was found for farmland
birds in 2005 (r = 0.51, p = 0.016) and 2009 (r = 0.68, p < 0.001). Furthermore, bird species
richness decreased with a high amount of cropland in 2005 (Fig. 7a) and 2009 (Fig.7b). There
was no significant relationship between farmland bird species and cropland in 2005 (r = -0.13,
p = 0.559) and 2009 (r = -0.27, p = 0.223). Forest bird species increased significantly with the
amount of woodland in 2005 (Fig. 8a) and 2009 (Fig. 8b); the same was true for all bird
species in 2005 (r = 0.52, p = 0.014) and 2009 (r = 0.46, p = 0.031). Forest bird species and
all bird species did not show a linear regression with the amount of woodland. Fig. 8 indicates
that from a certain point of woodland cover onwards, there are no additional species to be
expected.
a
b
Fig. 6: Relationship between total bird species richness and habitat diversity of study sites in
2005 (a) and 2009 (b).
15
a
b
Fig. 7: Relationship between total bird species richness and crop cover in 2005 (a) and 2009
(b).
a
b
Fig. 8: Relationship between forest bird species and woodland cover in 2005 (a) and 2009 (b).
Discussion
In our study area in Eastern Austria, habitat diversity and the area of set-aside land decreased
from 2005 to 2009, cropland increased. In both survey years a very similar total bird species
richness and an identical number of farmland bird species was found indicating that detected
landscape changes did not affect avifaunal richness. Furthermore, the number of increasing
and decreasing species did not differ between farmland birds and other birds. Also the
comparison of species composition between both survey years did not reveal a prominent
change of bird assemblages recorded at our study sites. Minor changes in farmland bird
16
assemblages between both survey years proved not to be related to changes of fallow and crop
cover. Additionally, no relation between set-aside land and species richness of farmland birds
and all bird species was found, but richness of both bird groups was positively affected by
habitat diversity. Habitat diversity is known to positively effect animal species diversity
(TEWS et al. 2004). Also the proportion of woodland contributed positively to bird
(particularly forest bird) richness, while cropland had a negative effect.
One reason that no prominent effects of set-aside land changes on farmland birds were found,
could be related to the fact that the obligation to set aside land ended at the beginning of 2008,
just one year before the second bird surveys in 2009. Maybe the elapsed time was too short to
detect significant changes because populations can show a delayed response to changes of
habitat quality. Negative effects of habitat changes can also remain undetected when
reproductive success will continue being high in other subpopulations acting as source for
landscapes becoming ecological sinks, e.g. due to an intensification of agricultural land-use or
a decrease of high quality habitats such as set-aside land. For example, a Whinchat population
in Switzerland was constant for over ten years, although breeding success was below the
threshold of a self-sustaining population with offspring. The population only remained stable
due to continuous immigration from source areas (LABHART 1988).
Another explanation could be that the decrease of set-aside land was not high enough to
negatively affect farmland birds. Experts suggest providing 10% set-aside land to conserve
biodiversity (FLADE et al. 2006). The amount of set-aside land at our study sites decreased
significantly by 35.33% (which is 5.36% of the whole surface area) between 2005 and 2009,
but still represented 9.69% of the whole surface area in 2009. The agricultural changes on the
country-wide scale are similar to the changes at our study sites. In 2008, the amount of setaside land in Austria was 47786 ha. This was 36.8% lower compared to 2007 (75565 ha).
This is a result of the abandonment of the obligation to set aside land. In 2005, the amount of
set-aside land of 95266 ha was even higher. In 2005, 6.9% of the cultivated land was set-aside
land, in 2008 the proportion was only 3.5% (STATISTIK AUSTRIA 2008).
A meta-analysis based on 127 published studies from North America and Europe reported
that set-aside land clearly enhances farmland biodiversity (VAN BUSKIRK & WILLI 2004).
17
The density of bird, spider, insect and plant populations was significantly higher on set-aside
land compared to cropland. The positive effects were 59% higher on self-greened than sowed
set-aside land. Also the age of set-aside land is important. Population densities of birds were
generally higher when set-aside land was older. Bird species richness declined significantly
with the age of the set-aside land. This emphasizes the necessity for a mosaic of coexisting
rotational and not rotational set-aside land to promote different species and, consequently, a
diverse assemblage of farmland birds. For example, Skylark and Gray Partridge favor one
year old set-aside land, while Corn Bunting prefers older set-aside land (4-5 years) (BUWAL
2002). However, not all farmland bird species are promoted by set-aside land. Set-aside land
promoted species such as Corn Bunting, Skylark and Whinchat, while species such as Yellow
Wagtail (Motacilla flava) and Ortolan Bunting (Emberiza hortulana) appeared to depend on
specific growth stages of certain annual cultures (WATSON & RAE 1997). Field boundaries
like hedgerows are also important elements in agricultural land. They are among the few
remaining semi-natural habitats and provide nesting and foraging sites, corridors and special
food resources for birds (HINSLEY et al. 1995). About 60 bird species in Britain have been
recorded breeding in hedgerows (20-30 species do so regularly). In the absence of woodland,
hedgerows may support a greater number of breeding birds than any other farmland feature
(LACK 1992).
First results of the farmland bird index for Austria show similar trends according to the
European farmland bird index. It displays a linear decline of about 20% for 20 indicator
species between 1998 and 2008. The index is based on data from the “Monitoring der
Brutvögel Österreichs”, a bird monitoring scheme run by BirdLife Austria (TEUFELBAUER
2010). Populations of eleven species showed a significantly negative trend between 1980 and
2008: Grey Partridge, Turtle Dove, Skylark, Tree Pipit, Fieldfare, Marsh Warbler, Redbacked Shrike, European Serin, Linnet, Yellowhammer and Corn Bunting. Populations of two
species developed significantly positively: Starling and Tree Sparrow. Seven bird species
showed no significant change: Kestrel, Northern Lapwing, Wryneck, Whinchat, Stonechat,
Common Whitethroat and European Goldfinch. Some limitations apply to the indicator in
1998–2008. Sufficient data could only be provided for 20 of the 24 proposed indicator species
(Wood Lark, Water Pipit, Northern Wheatear and Citril Finch had to be excluded from the
analysis). Few data are available for farmland at higher altitudes (mountain pastures and
18
alpine hay-meadows). The negative trend of farmland birds in Austria demonstrates that the
development of the rural area is still an important target to save biodiversity. Especially the
realization of the ÖPUL program to conserve nature could play an important role
(TEUFELBAUER 2010).
Conclusions
Despite the significant decline of set-aside land, no significant changes in species
composition, species richness and absolute and relative abundances of the vast majority of
birds (all birds, farmland birds and forest birds) between 2005 and 2009 were found.
However, it remains to be proved if species such as farmland birds will be capable to
compensate for the loss of high quality habitats such as set-aside land and maintain their
populations in the medium term. Therefore, a repeated survey in the near future is highly
recommended to document potentially delayed responses of bird communities to land-use
changes.
Acknowledgements
Many people have supported me in the course of my work. First I want to thank Dr. Christian
Schulze and Prof. Dr. Thomas Frank for their scientific supervision and support all the time. I
also want to thank the people from the Forschungsforum at the Institute of Zoology,
University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences for their advice. Dr. Dietmar
Moser was very supportive by helping me with the GIS analysis. Many thanks to Dipl.-Ing.
(FH) Michael Pasterk and Mag. Marike Korn for proofreading a first draft of my thesis.
Finally, I want to thank my family Dr. Peter, Theresia and Max Lukasch.
References
Aebischer, N.J., R. Bradbury, M. Eaton, I.G. Henderson, G.M. Siriwardena & J. Vickery
(2003): Predicting the response of farmland birds to agricultural change. British Trust for
Ornithology, Thetford. ISBN 1-902576-58-6, 220 pp.
19
Benton, T.G., D.M. Bryant, L. Cole & H.U.P. Crick (2002): Linking agricultural practice to
insect and bird populations: a historical study over three decades. Journal of Applied Ecology
39: 673–687.
Brickle, N.W. & D.G.C. Harper (2002): Agricultural intensification and the timing of
breeding in Corn Bunting Miliaria calandra. Bird Study 49: 219–228.
BUWAL (Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft) (2002): Rebhuhn. Schlussbericht
1991-2000. Schriftenreihe Umwelt Nr. 335, Bern.
Campbell, L.H., M.I. Avery, P.F. Donald, A.D. Evans, R.E. Green & J.D. Wilson (1997): A
review of the indirect effects of pesticides on birds. JNCC Report No. 227. Joint Nature
Conservation Committee, Peterborough.
Chamberlain, D.E. & R.J. Fuller (2000): Local extinctions and changes in species richness of
lowland farmland birds in England and Wales in relation to recent changes in agricultural
land-use. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 78: 1–17.
Clarke, K.R. & R.N. Gorley (2001): Primer v5: User Manual/Tutorial. Primer-E, Plymouth.
Colwell, R.K. (2005): EstimateS: Statistical Estimation of Species Richness and Shared
Species
from
Samples.
Version
8.20.
User’s
Guide
and
Application:
http://purl.oclc.org/estimates [last accessed: Sept. 2009]
Distelverein (2009): http://wild.distelverein.at/de/revier_massnahmen/brachen_
bewirtschaftung/index.html [last accessed: Sept. 2009]
Donald, P.F., R.E. Green & M.F. Heath (2001): Agricultural intensification and the collapse
of Europe’s farmland bird populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 268: 25–29.
Drapela, T., D. Moser, J.G. Zaller & T. Frank (2008): Spider assemblages in winter oilseed
rape affected by landscape and site factors. Ecography 31: 254–262.
EBCC (2009): http://www.ebcc.info/index.php?ID=366 [last accessed: Sept. 2009]
Eurostat (2008): Farmland Bird Index: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=
1073,46870091&dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&p_product_code=TSIEN170 [last
accessed: Sept. 2009]
Evans, A.D., K.W. Smith, D.L. Buckingham & J. Evans (1997): Seasonal variation in
breeding performance and nestling diet of Cirl Buntings Emberiza cirlus in England. Bird
Study 44: 66–79.
Flade, M., H. Plachter, R. Schmidt & A. Werner (2006): Nature Conservation in Agricultural
Ecosystems. Results of the Schorfheide-Chorin Research Project. Quelle & Meyer,
Wiebelsheim.
20
Frühauf, J. & G. Bieringer (2004): Wirkungen des ÖPUL 2000 auf die winterliche
Raumnutzung von Greifvögeln und anderen Vogelarten in der Ackerbauregion Ostösterreichs.
Studie von BirdLife Österreich im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Land- und
Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft. BirdLife Österreich, Wien.
Frühauf, J. & N. Teufelbauer (2006): Evaluierung des Einflusses von ÖPUL-Maßnahmen auf
Vögel des Kulturlandes anhand von repräsentativen Monitoring-Daten: Zustand und
Entwicklung. Studie von BirdLife Österreich für die ÖPUL-Halbzeit-Evaluierung (update) im
Auftrag des BMLFUW. Birdlife Österreich, Wien.
Frühauf, J. & N. Teufelbauer, N. (2007): Bereitstellung des Farmland Bird Index für
Österreich. Vorstudie. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und
Wasserwirtschaft Abteilung II/5, Zahl: BMLFUW-LE.1.3.7/0005-II/5/2007.
Fuller, R.J. (2000): Relationships between recent changes in lowland British agriculture and
farmland bird populations: an overview. In: N.J. Aebischer, A.D. Evans, P.V. Grice & J.A.
Vickery (Eds.), Ecology and Conservation of Lowland Farmland Birds. British
Ornithologists’ Union, Tring, pp. 5–16.
Fuller, R.J. & J.D. Wilson (Eds.) (1995): The ecology of seed-eating birds in relation to
agricultural practices: current research and future directions, BTO Research Report, No. 149.
British Trust for Ornithology, Thetford.
Gregory, R.D., A. van Strien, P. Vorisek, A.W. Gmelig Meyling, D.G. Noble, R.P.B. Foppen
& D.W. Gibbons (2005): Developing indicators for European birds. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B 360: 269–288.
Hinsley, S.A., P.E. Bellamy, I. Newton & T.H. Sparks (1995): Habitat and landscape factors
influencing the presence of individual breeding bird species in woodland fragments. Journal
of Avian Biology 26: 94–104.
Jenny, M. (2000): Die Auswirkung von Buntbrachen auf Brutvögel. In: W. Nentwig (Ed.),
Streifenförmige ökologische Ausgleichsflächen. vaö, Bern, pp. 137-151.
Jenny, M., B. Josephy & B. Lugrin (2003): Ökologische Aufwertungsmaßnahmen in
Ackerbaugebieten und ihre Auswirkungen auf ausgewählte Vogelarten. In: R. Oppermann &
H.U. Gujer (Eds.), Artenreiches Grünland bewerten und fördern – MEKA und ÖQV in der
Praxis. Ulmer, Stuttgart, pp. 151–155.
Kelemen-Finan., J. & J. Frühauf (2005): Einfluss des biologischen und konventionellen
Landbaus sowie verschiedener Raumparameter auf bodenbrütende Vögel und Niederwild in
der Ackerbaulandschaft: Problemanalyse – praktische Lösungsansätze. Im Auftrag des
Bundesministeriums für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft.
Distelverein, Deutsch-Wagram.
Labhart, A. (1988): Zum Bruterfolg des Braunkehlchens (Saxicola rubetra) in Abhängigkeit
von der Grünlandbewirtschaftung in den Westschweizer Voralpen. Beihefte zu den
Veröffentlichungen für Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege Baden-Württemberg 51: 159-178.
21
Lack, P. (1992): Birds on lowland farms. HMSO, London.
Ranner, A. (2009): Artenliste der Vögel Österreichs. Avifaunistische Kommission von
BirdLife Österreich: http://www.khil.net/AFK/Artenliste_Oesterreich_Jan2010.pdf [last
accessed: Sept. 2009]
Siriwardena, G.M., S.R. Baillie, S.T. Buckland, R.M. Fewster, J.H. Marchant & J.D. Wilson
(1998): Trends in the abundance of farmland birds: a quantitative comparison of smoothed
Common Birds Census indices. Journal of Applied Ecology 35: 24–43.
Sparks, T.H.; T. Parish & S.A. Hinsley (1996): Breeding birds in field boundaries in an
agricultural landscape. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 60: 1-8.
Statistik Austria (2008): Anbau auf dem Ackerland; Agrarmarkt Austria (AMA), Auswertung
der Mehrfachanträge-Flächen (Stand September 2008 – Lageprinzip).
Statsoft, Inc. (2005): STATISTICA (Data Analysis Software System), Version 7.1.:
www.statsoft.com. [last accessed: Sept. 2009]
Teufelbauer, N. (2010): Der Farmland Bird Index für Österreich – erste Ergebnisse zur
Bestandsentwicklung häufiger Vogelarten des Kulturlandes. Egretta 51: 35–50.
Tews, J., U. Brose, V. Grimm, K. Tielbörger, M.C. Wichmann, M. Schwager & F. Jeltsch
(2004): Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of
keystone structures. Journal of Biogeography 31: 79–92.
Umweltbundesamt (2009): http://www.umweltbundesamt.at/en/umweltschutz/landwirtschaft/
umweltprogramme/ [last accessed: Sept. 2009]
University of Cambridge (2006): Project to assess future options for set-aside. Final Report
for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Van Buskirk, J. & Y. Willi (2004): Enhancement of farmland biodiversity within set-aside
land. Conservation Biology 18: 987–994.
Watson, A. & R. Rae (1997): Some effects of set-aside on breeding birds in northeast
Scotland. Bird Study 44: 245–251.
WKO (2009): http://wko.at/ooe/landesproduktenhandel/Rundschreiben/2007/RS_Dezember
2007/RS2007_5_internet.pdf [last accessed: Sept. 2009]
22
Appendix
Appendix A: Total abundance (sum of maximum counts at all 22 study sites) of bird species
in 2005 and 2009. Farmland bird species are printed bold. Nomenclature and taxonomic order
according to RANNER (2009).
English Name
Great Cormorant
Great Egret
Grey Heron
Black Stork
White Stork
Mallard
Garganey
Honey Buzzard
Black Kite
Marsh Harrier
Hen Harrier
Montagu´s Harrier
Goshawk
Sparrowhawk
Common Buzzard
Common Kestrel
Eurasian Hobby
Grey Partridge
Common Quail
Common Pheasant
Common Moorhen
Little Plover
Northern Lapwing
Common Sandpiper
Black-headed Gull
Common Gull
Yellow-legged Gull
Stock Pigeon
Wood Pigeon
Eurasian Collared Dove
Turtle Dove
Cuckoo
European Bee-eater
Hoopoe
Eurasian Wryneck
Grey-headed Woodpecker
Green Woodpecker
Black Woodpecker
Great Spotted Woodpecker
Middle Spotted Woodpecker
Skylark
Sand Martin
Barn Swallow
Latin Name
Phalacrocorax carbo
Casmerodius albus
Ardea cinerea
Ciconia niger
Ciconia ciconia
Anas platyrhynchos
Anas querquedula
Pernis apivorus
Milvus migrans
Circus aeruginosus
Circus cyaneus
Circus pygargus
Accipiter gentilis
Accipiter nisus
Buteo buteo
Falco tinnunculus
Falco subbuteo
Perdix perdix
Coturnix coturnix
Phasianus colchicus
Gallinula chloropus
Charadrius dubius
Vanellus vanellus
Actitis hypoleucos
Larus ridibundus
Larus canus
Larus michahellis
Columba oenas
Columba palumbus
Streptopelia decaocto
Streptopelia turtur
Cuculus canorus
Merops apiaster
Upupa epops
Jynx torquilla
Picus canus
Picus viridis
Dryocopus martius
Dendrocopos major
Dendrocopos medius
Alauda arvensis
Riparia riparia
Hirundo rustica
23
Totals 2005
0
1
3
1
0
16
0
2
2
35
3
4
1
0
21
71
2
81
19
149
1
1
12
0
43
11
1
9
44
36
40
15
48
0
0
1
2
7
29
3
516
0
177
Totals 2009
2
1
4
0
2
25
3
0
2
18
2
4
0
1
22
51
2
86
23
146
0
2
17
6
91
34
0
15
87
60
42
21
69
1
1
2
3
5
44
0
605
18
88
House Martin
Tree Pipit
Meadow Pipit
White Wagtail
Wren
Dunnock
European Robin
Nightingale
Black Redstart
Common Redstart
Whinchat
Stonechat
Northern Wheatear
Common Blackbird
Fieldfare
Song Thrush
Grasshopper Warbler
Marsh Warbler
Icterine Warbler
Barred Warbler
Lesser Whitethroat
Whitethroat
Blackcap
Wood Warbler
Common Chiffchaff
Willow Warbler
Goldcrest
Spotted Flycatcher
Collared Flycatcher
Long-tailed Tit
Marsh Tit
Blue Tit
Great Tit
Eurasian Nuthatch
Golden Oriole
Red-backed Shrike
Eurasian Jay
European Magpie
Jackdaw
Rook
Carrion Crow
European Starling
House Sparrow
Eurasian Tree Sparrow
Chaffinch
European Serin
Greenfinch
Goldfinch
Linnet
Hawfinch
Yellowhammer
Reed Bunting
Delichon urbica
Anthus trivialis
Anthus pratensis
Motacilla alba
Troglodytes troglodytes
Prunella modularis
Erithacus rubecula
Luscinia megarhynchos
Phoenicurus ochruros
Phoenicurus phoenicurus
Saxicola rubetra
Saxicola torquata
Oenanthe oenanthe
Turdus merula
Turdus pilaris
Turdus philomelos
Locustella naevia
Acrocephalus palustris
Hippolais icterina
Sylvia nisoria
Sylvia curruca
Sylvia communis
Sylvia atricapilla
Phylloscopus sibilatrix
Phylloscopus collybita
Phylloscopus trochilus
Regulus regulus
Muscicapa striata
Ficedula albicollis
Aegithalos caudatus
Parus palustris
Parus caeruleus
Parus major
Sitta europaea
Oriolus oriolus
Lanius collurio
Garrulus glandarius
Pica pica
Corvus monedula
Corvus frugilegus
Corvus corone
Sturnus vulgaris
Passer domesticus
Passer montanus
Fringilla coelebs
Serinus serinus
Carduelis chloris
Carduelis carduelis
Carduelis cannabina
Coccothraustes coccothraustes
Emberiza citrinella
Emberiza schoeniclus
24
14
11
56
25
2
5
49
56
20
1
30
16
3
104
4
41
0
13
8
0
1
40
156
5
15
7
1
4
3
0
7
42
119
18
31
36
9
13
4
81
114
613
59
220
122
59
88
61
30
10
173
1
9
4
11
18
0
1
41
68
37
0
35
26
1
115
0
42
1
26
18
1
2
50
209
5
16
6
1
7
7
16
13
60
133
18
37
35
7
22
12
93
127
405
77
286
131
47
70
52
38
10
235
2
Corn Bunting
Total individuals
Miliaria calandra
39
4046
33
4321
Appendix B: Results of Wilcoxon signed-rank tests testing for differences of absolute and
relative abundances in abundant species (total ≥5 observed individuals in one year) between
the years 2005 and 2009. Abundance change: + increase, − decrease, = no change. Farmland
bird species and significant abundance changes printed in bold. Species are listed in
alphabetic order.
Species
Absolute Abundance
Relative Abundance
Acrocephalus palustris
Z = 1.25, p = 0.213; +
Z = 1.25, p = 0.213 ; +
Alauda arvensis
Z = 3.04, p = 0.002; +
Z = 0.86, p = 0.390; +
Anas platyrhynchos
Z = 1.42, p = 0.155; +
Z = 0.82, p = 0.415; -
Buteo buteo
Z = 0.21, p = 0.836; +
Z = 0.22, p = 0.823; -
Carduelis cannabina
Z = 0.98, p = 0.328; +
Z = 1.01, p = 0.311; +
Carduelis carduelis
Z = 0.59, p = 0.557; -
Z = 0.81, p = 0.420; -
Carduelis chloris
Z = 0.93, p = 0.352; -
Z = 0.31, p = 0.756; -
Circus aeruginosus
Z = 1.61, p = 0.107; -
Z = 1.65, p = 0.099; -
Coccothraustes coccothraustes
Z = 0.37, p = 0.715; =
Z = 0.37, p = 0.715; +
Columba oenas
Z = 0.51, p = 0.612; +
Z = 0.51, p = 0.612; +
Columba palumbus
Z = 2.42, p = 0.016; +
Z = 1.85, p = 0.064; +
Corvus corone
Z = 0.14, p = 0.888; +
Z = 0.05, p = 0.961; +
Corvus frugilegus
Z = 1.18, p = 0.237; +
Z = 1.18, p = 0.237; +
Coturnix coturnix
Z = 0.49, p = 0.624; +
Z = 0.23, p = 0.820; +
Cuculus canorus
Z = 1.16, p = 0.245; +
Z = 0.81, p = 0.420; +
Delichon urbica
Z = 0.73, p = 0.465; -
Z = 0.73, p = 0.465; -
Dendrocopos major
Z = 2.31, p = 0.005; +
Z = 1.80, p = 0.071; +
Dryocopus martius
Z = 0.59, p = 0.554; -
Z = 1.21, p = 0.208; -
Emberiza citrinella
Z = 2.73, p = 0.006; +
Z = 2.00, p = 0.046; +
Erithacus rubecula
Z = 1.22, p = 0.222; -
Z = 1.93, p = 0.053; -
Falco tinnunculus
Z = 2.02, p = 0.044; -
Z = 2.39, p = 0.017; -
Fringilla coelebs
Z = 1.06, p = 0.290; +
Z = 0.66, p = 0.507; -
Garrulus glandarius
Z = 0.27, p = 0.787; -
Z = 0.14, p = 0.893; -
Hippolais icterina
Z = 2.20, p = 0.028; +
Z = 1.96, p = 0.051; +
Hirundo rustica
Z = 0.46, p = 0.647; -
Z = 0.28, p = 0.778; -
Lanius collurio
Z = 0.36, p = 0.721; -
Z = 0.09, p = 0.925; -
Luscinia megarhynchos
Z = 1.29, p = 0.196; +
Z = 0.28, p = 0.776; -
25
Merops apiaster
Z = 1.07, p = 0.285; +
Z = 0.54, p = 0.593; -
Miliaria calandra
Z = 0.35, p = 0.730; -
Z = 0.51, p = 0.609; -
Motacilla alba
Z = 0.73, p = 0.463; -
Z = 1.01, p = 0.311; -
Oriolus oriolus
Z = 1.18, p = 0.237; +
Z = 0.53, p = 0.594; -
Parus caeruleus
Z = 1.22, p = 0.221; +
Z = 0.72, p = 0.470; +
Parus major
Z = 1.46, p = 0.145; +
Z = 0.68, p = 0.500; +
Parus palustris
Z = 1.35, p = 0.176; +
Z = 1.18, p = 0.237; +
Passer domesticus
Z = 0.68, p = 0.499; +
Z = 0.51, p = 0.612; +
Passer montanus
Z = 1.12, p = 0.263; +
Z = 1.16, p = 0.244; +
Perdix perdix
Z = 0.66, p = 0.507; +
Z = 0.33, p = 0.741; -
Phasianus colchicus
Z = 0.93, p = 0.926; -
Z = 0.15, p = 0.884; -
Phoenicurus ochruros
Z = 1.44, p = 0.151; +
Z = 0.98, p = 0.327; +
Phylloscopus collybita
Z = 0.68, p = 0.500; +
Z = 0.00, p = 1.000; -
Phylloscopus sibilatrix
Z = 0.11, p = 0.917; =
Z = 0.11, p = 0.916; -
Phylloscopus trochilus
Z = 0.37, p = 0.715; -
Z = 0.94, p = 0.345; -
Pica pica
Z = 0.15, p = 0.124; +
Z = 1.96, p = 0.051; +
Saxicola rubetra
Z = 0.67, p = 0.505; +
Z = 0.78, p = 0.433; +
Saxicola torquata
Z = 1.48, p = 0.139; +
Z = 1.60, p = 0.110; +
Serinus serinus
Z = 0.91, p = 0.364; -
Z = 1.55, p = 0.121; -
Sitta europaea
Z = 0.17, p = 0.866; =
Z = 0.42, p = 0.674; -
Streptopelia decaocto
Z = 1.96, p = 0.050; +
Z = 1.68, p = 0.092; +
Streptopelia turtur
Z = 0.11, p = 0.917; +
Z = 0.47, p = 0.642; -
Sturnus vulgaris
Z = 0.50, p = 0.615; -
Z = 0.99, p = 0.322; -
Sylvia atricapilla
Z = 3.11, p = 0.002; +
Z = 1.85, p = 0.064; +
Sylvia communis
Z = 1.41, p = 0.158; +
Z = 1.04, p = 0.300; +
Turdus merula
Z = 0.80, p = 0.423; +
Z = 0.24, p = 0.809; +
Turdus philomelos
Z = 0.34, p = 0.733; +
Z = 0.26, p = 0.795; -
Vanellus vanellus
Z = 0.17, p = 0.866; +
Z = 0.51, p = 0.612; +
26
Curriculum Vitae
Persönliche Daten
Name:
Anschrift:
Mag. Barbara Lukasch
Hauffgasse 19/3/39
1110 Wien
Telefon:
+43676/ 53 56 720
Email:
barbara-lukasch@gmx.at
Geboren:
07.01.1983 in Wien
Staatsangehörigkeit: Österreich
Ausbildung
1993-2001
2001-2008
2008
seit 2006
AHS im BRG 3 in Wien mit Matura
Studium der Ernährungswissenschaften in Wien, Wahlschwerpunkt Ernährung
und Umwelt, Diplomarbeit am Institut für Lebensmitteltechnologie in Wien
(Thema: „Hochdruckbehandlung von Stärke und stärkereichen Lebensmitteln“)
Erlangung des Magistertitels an der Universität Wien
Studium der Agrarbiologie an der Universität für Bodenkultur Wien
Sonstige Tätigkeiten:
August 2004: Praktikum im mikrobiologischen Labor der Fa. Römerquelle
(Keimidentifizierung, routinemäßige Untersuchung des Quellwassers, Herstellung von
Nährböden)
Juli 2005: Praktikum im Hygiene-Institut der Med. Universität Wien (Wasseruntersuchungen,
Untersuchung von Säuglingsnahrung und Erneuerung der Stammsammlung)
August und September 2007: Auslandspraktikum beim NABU im Wasservogelreservat
Wallnau (Besucherbetreuung und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit, Landwirtschaft mit Rinder-, Pferdeund Schafhaltung, Gestaltung und Pflege des Naturschutzgebietes, wissenschaftliche
Datenerhebungen, Hauswirtschaft)
August und September 2008: Auslandspraktikum auf einer Vogelberingungsstation in
Litauen (Aufstellung und Instandhaltung der Fangnetze, Bestimmung der Vogelarten,
verschiedene Messungen, Beringung der Vögel, Datenerhebungen)
Mai und Juni 2009: Wissenschaftliche Mitarbeit an einem Projekt über die Bodensamenbank
von Ambrosia artemisiifolia an der Universität für Bodenkultur Wien, Institut für Botanik
Juli und August 2009: Freiwillige Mitarbeit auf der Vogelberingungsstation vom Verein
Auring in Ringelsdorf (Niederösterreich)
September und Oktober 2009: Auslandspraktikum auf der Vogelberingungsstation Long
Point, Ontario, Kanada (neben Vogelberingung auch Monitoring und Markierung von
Monarchfaltern (Danaus plexippus))
Seit Dezember 2009: Wissenschaftliche Mitarbeit am Konrad Lorenz Institut für
vergleichende Verhaltensforschung (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften)
Zusatzqualifikationen:
Besondere Kenntnisse im Bereich der Ornithologie, breitgefächerte Grundkenntnisse in
Botanik und Zoologie, B-Führerschein, sehr gutes Englisch in Wort und Schrift, sehr gute
EDV Kenntnisse, gute Laborkenntnisse
27