Diet composition, guild structure and trophic relationships of wintering birds of prey in an estuarine wetland The Evros Delta National Park ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Ecologica Montenegrina 39: 15-29 (2021)
This journal is available online at: www.biotaxa.org/em
http://dx.doi.org/10.37828/em.2021.39.3
Diet composition, guild structure and trophic relationships of
wintering birds of prey in an estuarine wetland (The Evros Delta
National Park, Greece)
HARALAMBOS ALIVIZATOS1* & VASSILIS GOUTNER2
1
4 Zaliki str., 115 24 Athens, Greece
2
Department of Zoology, School of Biology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 541 24 Thessaloniki, Greece.
E-mail: vgoutner@bio.auth.gr
* Corresponding author. E-mail: xaraaliv@otenet.gr
Received 21 November 2020 │ Accepted by V. Pešić: 11 January 2021 │ Published online 14 January 2021.
Abstract
Seven species of birds of prey studied in the Evros Delta National Park belong to a common assemblage of a trophic
guild. However, their diet study revealed different groups of feeding niches. A cluster analysis provided three groups
with very similar diets: The eastern imperial eagle (Aquila heliaca) and greater spotted eagle (Clanga clanga)
constituted a group feeding mainly on birds with their diets including 96% (13 bird species) and 98% (16 bird species),
by number respectively, most bird prey being water birds. A second group, characterized by a considerable variety of
prey types dominated by small mammals and birds, included the western marsh harrier (Circus aeruginosus) (67%
mammals, 27% birds -at least 12 species ), black kite (Milvus migrans) (46% mammals, 39% birds -at least 11 species)
and common buzzard (Buteo buteo) (birds 36% -at least 7 species, mammals 22%). In all three species, birds
dominated by biomass, whereas other prey such as arthropods (mainly insects), amphibians and reptiles had a low
contribution by mass where they occurred. A third group included the common barn owl (Tyto alba), feeding mainly on
small mammals (97%, at least 12 species) and little owl (Athene noctua). The little owl’s diet consisted of mammals
(29%, -at least 6 species), birds (5% -at least 7 species) and, though insects preponderated by number (64%), mammals
were dominant by biomass in both owls. Diversity indices estimated on class level were low, ranked as B. buteo > M.
migrans > A. noctua > C. aeruginosus > A. heliaca = T. alba > A. clanga. Dietary similarities may be partly due to
common habitat preferences and the role of other potential factors to niche partitioning is discussed.
Key words: pellets, Aquila, Clanga, Circus, Milvus, Buteo, Tyto, Athene, feeding habits, trophic guild.
Introduction
In the natural world, a species ecological "role" within habitat, microhabitat, or range of suitable
environmental conditions is considered as a “niche” (Ricklefs 2010), where closely related species likely to
compete for ecological resources (Wiens et al. 2005). Species similar tolerances of environmental conditions
might lead to closer association when viewed at broader environmental scales (Cavender-Bares et al. 2009;
Ricklefs 2010). Thus, species can be grouped according to the manner in which they exploit a common
Ecologica Montenegrina, 39, 2021, 15-29WINTERING BIRDS OF PREY IN THE EVROS DELTA NATIONAL PARK
resource, providing a manageable, functional unit forming the “guild” for studying patterns of adaptation and
the organization of natural communities (Root 2001). When a guild includes species of the same taxonomic
assemblages, it is usually considered as an “assemblage guild” (Jaksić 1981). The identification and analysis
of ecological guilds have been fundamental to understand the processes that determine the structure and
organization of communities.
The feeding habits of seven species of wintering birds of prey forming a trophic guild were
investigated within the framework of a conservation project in the Evros Delta, in northeastern Greece. The
aims were a) to provide information on the diet of these conservation-needing species as, at least some of
which have been little studied in the eastern Mediterranean, and b) to clarify the trophic relationships of the
raptors’ within their trophic guild in the area.
Study area and methods
ₒ ₒ
The Evros Delta (40 84’ N, 26 07’ E), is the easternmost Greek wetland designated under the Ramsar
convention and also as a National Park. Additionally it is an Important Bird Area and a Special Protection
Area in the EU Natura 2000 network (HOS 2009). The study area includes a great variety of habitats, such as
extensive saltmarshes and salt flats, sand dunes and sandy islets, mudflats, lagoons, reedbeds, tamarisk and
riparian forest, permanent and temporary freshwater marshes and extensive cultivations (Babalonas 1979).
The area is famous for its wintering raptors, as well as for the large populations of water birds (Handrinos et
al. 2015).
This study was based on pellet analysis collected opportunistically from roosting sites of seven
species in the winter months (September to February) from 2001 to 2005. Pellet collection locations of
eastern imperial eagles (Aquila heliaca) and greater spotted eagles (Clanga clanga) were a pinewood
communal roost, of black kites (Milvus migrans) and marsh harriers (Circus aeruginosus), a riparian forest
communal roost and a reed bed respectively, of common buzzards (Buteo buteo) individual tree roosts and of
barn owl (Tyto alba) and little owl (Athene noctua) abandoned buildings. Pellets were collected at relatively
random dates for most species. At the eagle roosts, at least 40 greater spotted eagle and 4 imperial eagles
were counted. The roosts of the black kites and marsh harriers were used by up to 60 and 70 birds,
respectively. Pellet analysis may not reflect the actual number of prey items taken, but are a good estimate
of the relative frequencies of prey types for comparative purposes (Steenhof & Kochert 1988).
The pellets were analyzed using reference books (Mammals, Lawrence & Brown 1973; Chaline
1974. Birds, Brown et al. 1987. Reptiles, Arnold & Burton 1980. Insects, Chinery 1981). Mean weight of
each prey taxon was taken from the literature, (Mammals, Macdonald & Barrett 1993. Birds, Perrins 1987.
Reptiles, Helmer & Scholte 1985). Statistical analyses were performed with Statistica 12. The trophic
diversity of prey was estimated on a class level by using the antilog of the Shannon-Weiner index (Shannon
& Weaver 1963), while an evenness index was calculated (according to Simpson 1949) in order to
standardize the trophic diversity for comparisons among species. Also, a Pianka’s index was calculated, in
order to study the diet overlap of the species (Pianka 1974). A manner of determining the trophic guilds and
assign species to them is to perform a cluster analysis to classify species according to their similarities in
feeding patterns (González -Salazar et al. 2014).Thus, to compare the prey differentiation among species,
cluster analysis based on the biomass proportions of all prey classes was performed. For these analyses, the
Primer 5.1.2 software was used with Bray-Curtis similarity as distance measure and group mean as linkage
measure.
Results
The eastern imperial eagles were feeding mainly on birds (c. 96% by numbers and c. 100% by biomass,
including at least 13 bird species), the rest being small mammals (4% and < 1% respectively) (Table 1). The
main prey species (hereafter those accounting for ≥ 10% by biomass) were mallard (Anas platyrhynchos)
(27%), white-fronted goose (Anser albifrons) (21%), widgeon (Mareca penelope) (19%), and swan (Cygnus
sp.) (13%).
The greater spotted eagle also overwhelmingly took birds (c. 98% by numbers and nearly 100% by
biomass involving at least 16 bird species), the rest being small mammals (2%) (Table 1). The main prey
species were widgeon (37%), white-fronted goose (12%) and mallard (10%).
16ALIVIZATOS & GOUTNER
Table 1. Winter diet of the eagles in the Evros Delta (ranked taxonomically).
Aquila heliaca Clanga clanga
Prey Nr % Nr % biomass Nr % Nr % biomass
AVES 54 96.4 99.7 236 97.9 99.7
Egretta alba 1 1.8 2.1 1 0.4 0.3
Cygnus sp. 1 1.8 12.5 − − −
Anser albifrons 6 10.7 21.4 9 3.8 12.3
Tadorna tadorna 3 5.4 6.4 9 3.8 7.4
Anas
platyrhynchos 15 26.8 26.7 14 5.9 9.6
Anas acuta 2 3.6 3.2 7 2.9 4.3
Anas crecca 2 3.6 1.1 40 16.7 8.2
Mareca penelope 13 23.2 18.5 67 28 36.6
Spatula
querquedula − − − 3 1.3 0.7
Spatula clypeata 1 1.8 1.1 7 2.9 2.9
Anatidae indet. 3 5.4 2.7 21 8.8 7.2
Gallinula
chloropus 2 3.6 1.1 9 3.8 1.8
Fulica atra 2 3.6 2.5 12 5 5.7
Vanellus vanellus − − − 3 1.3 0.4
Larus michahellis − − − 1 0.4 0.8
Larus spp. − − − 2 0.8 0.4
Sturnus vulgaris 2 3.6 0.2 7 2.9 0.3
Turdus merula − − − 2 0.8 0.2
Pica pica 1 1.8 0.4 − − −
Corvus corone − − − 1 0.4 0.3
Aves indet. − − − 9 2.1 0.3
MAMMALIA 2 3.6 0.3 6 2.1 0.3
Arvicola
amphibius 1 1.8 0.2 − − −
Microtus levis 1 1.8 < 0.1 2 0.4 < 0.1
Rodentia indet. − − − 3 1.3 < 0.1
Mammalia indet. − − − 1 0.4 0.2
Total 56 − − 242 − −
There was a significant difference between the two eagles in their main prey types (grouped as, large
waterfowl Anserinae, small waterfowl Anatinae, other water birds and others) (χ2 = 8.224, P < 0.05), with the
eastern imperial eagle taking relatively more large waterfowl than the greater spotted eagle.
Western marsh harrier data were taken from Alivizatos et al. (2011) for comparison, based on 141
prey items (Table 2). In brief, by numbers its diet was 67% mammals, 27% birds and 6% insects. However,
in terms of biomass, the birds (involving at least 12 species) made up 63% of the prey, with the main species
being teal (Anas crecca) (18%), moorhen (Gallinula chloropus) and black-headed gull (Chroicocephalus
ridibundus) (both 12%). Small mammals made up 37% of the prey biomass, mainly sibling voles (Microtus
levis, 31%).
Ecologica Montenegrina, 39, 2021, 15-29 17WINTERING BIRDS OF PREY IN THE EVROS DELTA NATIONAL PARK
Table 2. Winter diet of the medium-sized raptors in the Evros Delta.
Circus aeruginosus Milvus migrans Buteo buteo
% %
Prey Nr % Nr % biomass Nr Nr % biomass Nr % Nr biomass
CHILOPODA ̶ − − − − − 1 0.8 < 0.1
INSECTA 8 5.7 0.2 23 13.4 0.4 45 35.7 1.3
AMPHIBIA − − − − − − 1 0.8 0.6
REPTILIA − − − 4 2.3 2.6 6 4.8 5.2
AVES 39 26.9 62.6 66 38.8 61.9 45 35.7 80.4
Anas crecca 3 2.1 17.7 1 0.6 2.9 − − −
Gallus gallus (pull.) − − − 5 2.9 9.6 − − −
Phoenicopterus
roseus (carrion) − − − − − − 1 0.8 4.2
Rallus aquaticus 1 0.7 2 1 0.6 1 1 0.8 2.1
Gallinula chloropus 2 1.4 11.8 6 3.5 14.4 1 0.8 5.2
Charadriiformes
indet. − − − 1 0.6 1 − − −
Chroicocephalus
ridibundus 2 1.4 11.8 − − − − − −
Streptopelia decaocto − − − 1 0.6 1.7 − − −
Alcedo athis 1 0.7 0.8 − − − − − −
Galerida cristata 6 4.3 4.7 2 1.2 0.8 1 0.8 0.8
Erithacus rubecula 3 2.1 0.9 1 0.6 0.1 − − −
Turdus merula − − − 1 0.6 0.8 13 10.3 21.6
Sturnus vulgaris 3 2.1 4.1 28 16.5 18.9 8 6.3 11.7
Pica pica − − − − − − 3 2.4 11.2
Passer spp. 3 2.1 1.3 1 0.6 0.2 1 0.8 0.5
Fringilla coelebs 1 0.7 0.4 1 0.6 0.2 − − −
Emberiza schoeniclus 6 4.3 3 9 5.3 2.6 − − −
Passeriformes indet. 7 5 4.1 8 4.7 7.7 7 5.6 4.4
Aves indet. − − − 1 0.6 0.1 9 7.1 18.7
MAMMALIA 94 66.7 36.6 77 45.5 36.6 28 22.2 13
Neomys anomalus − − − 4 2.4 0.2 − − −
Crocidura suaveolens 1 0.7 0.1 − − − − − −
Suncus etruscus 1 0.7ALIVIZATOS & GOUTNER
Table 3. Winter diet of two owl species in the Evros Delta.
Tyto alba Athene noctua
Prey Nr % Nr % biomass Nr % Nr % biomass
ARACHNIDA − − − 2 0.2 < 0.1
DIPLOPODA − − − 2 0.2 < 0.1
CHILOPODA − − − 1 0.1 < 0.1
INSECTA 6 0.5 < 0.1 690 64.4 5.6
AMPHIBIA 1 0.1 0.2 − − −
REPTILIA − − − 15 1.4 1
AVES 32 2.5 8.6 56 5.2 21.6
Rallus aquaticus 1 0.1 0.6 − − −
Gallinago gallinago 1 0.1 0.4 − − −
Scolopacidae indet. 1 0.1 0.4 − − −
Alauda arvensis 1 0.1 0.2 − − −
Galerida cristata 2 0.2 0.4 2 0.2 1.3
Hirundo rustica 1 0.1 0.1 − − −
Erithacus rubecula 1 0.1 0.1 2 0.2 0.5
Turdus merula 2 0.2 0.9 − − −
Phylloscopus spp. 2 0.2 0.1 1 0.1 0.1
Sturnus vulgaris 9 0.7 3.5 3 0.3 3.4
Passer spp. − − − 5 0.5 1.2
Fringilla coelebs 1 0.1 0.1 − − −
Emberiza spp. − − − 2 0.2 0.8
Passeriformes indet. 10 0.8 1.7 39 3.6 12.7
Aves indet. − − − 2 0.2 1.6
MAMMALIA 1242 97.0 91.2 311 29.0 71.7
Neomys anomalus 32 2.5 1.8 − − −
Crocidura leucodon 35 2.7 2 1 0.1 0.2
Crocidura suaveolens 309 24.1 10.4 56 5.2 5.5
Suncus etruscus 4 0.3 < 0.1 − − −
Pipistrellus sp. 1 0.1 < 0.1 2 0.2 0.2
Arvicola amphibius 9 0.7 3 − − −
Microtus levis 287 22.4 32.2 117 10.9 38
Microtus guentheri 2 0.2 0.3 − − −
Apodemus spp. 64 5.0 7.2 6 0.6 1.9
Rattus rattus 2 0.2 0.7 − − −
Mus musculus 7 0.5 0.5 − − −
Mus macedonicus 490 38.3 33 − − −
Mus spp. − − − 114 10.6 22.2
Rodentia indet. − − − 15 1.4 3.7
Total 1281 − − 1072 − −
The black kite diet was diverse (Table 2), consisting by number of c. 46% mammals, 39% birds,
13% insects and 2% reptiles. However, by biomass birds were the most important prey group (62% of at
least 11 species) with the most important species being the common starling (Sturnus vulgaris) (19%),
moorhen (14%) and domestic chicken (Gallus gallus) (10%, probably carrion). Small mammals contributed
37% to the biomass, with most important species the northern water vole (Arvicola amphibius) (19%);
carrion of domestic pigs (Sus domesticus) and European badger (Meles meles) were also found. Reptiles and
insects were minor constituents of this species diet.
Ecologica Montenegrina, 39, 2021, 15-29 19WINTERING BIRDS OF PREY IN THE EVROS DELTA NATIONAL PARK
Figure 1. Diet compiled for the most important prey taxa of the seven species of birds of prey studied in the Evros
Delta, a) by biomass (upper graph) and b) by numbers (lower graph) (Shannon index/Evenness are shown below each
species name).
For the common buzzard, the dominant prey groups by numbers were insects and birds (both c.
36%), followed by mammals (22%), reptiles (5%), chilopods and amphibians (both 1%) (Table 2).
Nevertheless, by biomass, birds were the dominant prey (80%, including at least 7 species), composed by
blackbird (Turdus merula) (22%), undetermined birds (19%), common starling (12%) and magpie (Pica
pica) (11%). Greater flamingo (Phoenicopterus roseus) was most probably taken as carrion. Mammals made
up 13% of the biomass, with most important the sibling vole (10%) whereas reptiles (5%) were water snakes
(Natrix spp.). The other prey groups were unimportant as prey (< 1%).
The main prey of the common barn owl were mammals (97% by number and c. 91% by biomass,
with at least 12 species), while birds formed 3% and 9% of the diet respectively (including at least 10
species, Table 3). Other prey types (insects and amphibians) were insignificant. The main mammalian prey
by biomass was Macedonian mouse (Mus macedonicus) (33%), sibling vole (32%) and the lesser white-
toothed shrew (Crocidura suaveolens) (10%). The most important bird species was the common starling
(4%).
20ALIVIZATOS & GOUTNER
Table 4. Matrix of Pianka's indices indicating feeding overlap of the seven species of birds of prey in the Evros Delta.
Aquila heliaca Clanga clanga Circus aeruginosus Milvus migrans Buteo buteo Tyto alba Athene noctua
Aquila heliaca 0.999 0.289 0.660 0.646 0.063 0.089
Clanga clanga 0.999 0.393 0.648 0.640 0.047 0.082
Circus aeruginosus 0.289 0.393 0.939 0.648 0.934 0.478
Milvus migrans 0.660 0.648 0.939 0.831 0.466 0.969
Buteo buteo 0.646 0.640 0.648 0.831 0.412 0.808
Tyto alba 0.063 0.047 0.934 0.466 0.412 0.416
Athene noctua 0.089 0.082 0.478 0.969 0.808 0.416
Ecologica Montenegrina, 39, 2021, 15-29 21WINTERING BIRDS OF PREY IN THE EVROS DELTA NATIONAL PARK
Little owl took a variety of prey, including by numbers c. 64% insects, 29% mammals, 5% birds with
at least 7 species involved, 1% reptiles and < 1% each chilopods, diplopods and arachnids (Table 3). In terms
of biomass, mammals were the dominant prey (72%, including at least 6 species), with main species being
the sibling vole (38%) and small mice (Mus spp.) (22%). Birds made up 22% of the biomass of which 13%
were undetermined passerines. Insects, mainly beetles (Coleoptera) accounted for only 6% of the total
biomass, while other prey was insignificant.
The relative proportions of the main prey groups in terms of both numbers and biomass and the
respective diversity indices for the species studied are summarized in Fig. 1. Diversity indices ranked as B.
buteo > M. migrans > A. noctua > C. aeruginosus > A. heliaca = T. alba > A. clanga. In general, the
common buzzard and black kite had the most diverse diets at the class level with the highest evenness
distribution among prey groups, whereas the two eagles and the barn owl had the lowest. (Fig 1).
Cluster analysis revealed three main branches, one (lower in Fig. 2) contained the two owl species,
reflecting their main diet on small mammals; a second (middle) involved three species with the most diverse
diets; and a third (upper) included the two eagle species with similar diets based on water birds. The cluster
indicates a greater similarity between the first two groups which diverge from the third one. Pianka’s indexes
(Table 4) indicated a virtually complete diet overlap in the diet of the two eagles, with significant overlaps
also in the medium-sized raptors. The owls hardly overlapped with the eagles, but they did overlap with the
other raptors due to the estimation of the index on prey class levels, whereas differences occurred on specific
levels.
Figure 2. Cluster analysis (dendrogram) based on the biomass proportions of the diets of the seven species of birds of
prey studied in Evros Delta.
Discussion
Birds were the most important food of the eastern imperial eagle in the Evros Delta in similarity to wintering
birds to Jordan (Appendix). In contrast, mammals were most important during breeding season in the species
eastern European range, where all other studies were carried out (Appendix). Numerous bird and mammal
species were usually involved in each area. In contrast to these studies, no carrion was found in the species
diet in our area probably due to a high availability of overwintering waterfowl (hunted in saltmarshes).
Imperial eagles are flexible in utilizing the most abundant prey sources, and it is believed to facilitate
conservation efforts (Hovárth et al. 2010).
In the study area the diet of greater spotted eagle was based on the abundant waterfowl hunted over
saltmarshes and coastal areas. As in our area, water birds preponderate in the eagle’s diet in other wintering
22ALIVIZATOS & GOUTNER
areas (Amvrakikos, Spain), where, on the other hand, mammals were most important during the breeding
season. In all these other areas there was higher prey diversity (Appendix).
In our area, western marsh harriers preyed mainly upon mammals, whereas in other European
countries the main food was birds (Appendix), probably due to reduced availability in winter from the effects
of weather of some small mammal populations (Solonen & Ahola 2010); mammals were also main prey in
France (Ingenbleek et al 2004). In all areas numerous species participate in the harrier’s diet though some
such as insects seem unimportant as mass. This prey diversity in our area (Alivizatos et al. 2011) is reflected
by diverse habitat preferences such as reedbeds, freshwater marshes and saltpans (Bobola et al. 2018).
Regarding black kite, a comparison of our findings to those of other areas, shows a great similarity in
the preponderance of mammal prey in relation to birds either in winter or in other period (Appendix). In
Spain, the relative abundance of prey differs based on dry or wet winter periods (Garcìa et al. 1998). In most
diet studies in winter in Spain, mammals were the dominant prey the black kite (summarized in Garcìa et al.
1998). The main bulk of diet in all periods in Europe is composed by mammal and/or fish carrion. Other prey
(reptiles, insects) where present, constitutes a small amount as mass. The use of carrion and rubbish dumps
has been reported in a variety of studies (Viñuela & Veiga 1992, De Giacomo & Guerrieri 2008, Mazumdar
et al. 2016). Refuse tips and dumps for dead livestock and their management during the winter are
considered important for the conservation of the species (Garcìa et al. 1998). In our study it is likely that the
importance of carrion in the kite’s diet has been underestimated, particularly if these birds used dumps out of
the study area. In contrast, in the Evros Delta, black kites showed a strong selection for rivers, canals,
freshwater marshes and reedbeds (Bobola et al. 2018), constituting a diverse habitat use that explains the
diversity in prey taken.
In contrast to our results, in studies in Europe carried out both in the nesting period and in winter,
common buzzards preyed mainly upon small mammals (Appendix). In addition the results of most of the
nine diet studies in central Europe (one in winter) again indicate a mostly mammal-dominated diet (Voříšek
et al. 1997). The buzzard in Ireland has adapted to the lack of vole species by adopting a wide dietary niche
(Rooney & Montgomery 2013). Buzzards are able to shift their diet (Reif et al. 2001), hence the variety in
prey items observed in all studies, though mammals and birds remain the most important. Amphibians and
reptiles in our samples may suggest that a part prey was taken early in the study period. Common buzzards
preferred a wide variety of habitat types in the Evros Delta, freshwater marshes, followed by rivers, canals,
grassland and reedbeds (Bobola et al. 2018). This bird, being a typical perch-hunting predator used perches
highly available at the edges of such habitats. A high proportion of non-waterbird avian prey might be
explained by the absence of perches at cultivations, so that common buzzards resorted to flight-hunting over
cultivations in pursuit of flocks of small land birds where they congregate to exploit seeds left behind after
the harvest (Bobola et al. 2018).
In the study area and in Europe, the common barn owl overwhelmingly feeds on small mammals in
all seasons, whereas other prey types are negligible (Appendix). Previous studies in other parts of Greece,
including wetlands, revealed that both in winter and summer the most important prey was small mammals
and the same picture held true in studies from around Mediterranean (see reviews in Bontzorlos et al. 1995,
Goutner & Alivizatos 2003; Obuch & Benda 2009). Birds follow far behind in importance while other prey
is unimportant.
Insects numerically dominate the little owl’s diet in our study area as in other areas being higher
mostly around the Mediterranean and in summer diet (Appendix), probably due to increased insect
availability. Nevertheless, all studies report that mammals are the most important prey, birds of secondary
importance, whereas other prey types form only a minor part of the diet.
In some areas diurnal and nocturnal birds of prey co-exist in various trophic guilds and their diets
have been found roughly similar on major prey groups though differentiate on prey species levels (Jaksić
1983; Marti & Cochert 1995). In our area, owls and the other diurnal birds of prey (particularly, black kite,
western marsh harrier and common buzzard) commonly shared small mammal and birds in their diet. This
may be due to that both falconiforms and strigiforms extend their hunting activities to crepuscular hours, thus
sharing prey of that activity period; also to that reputedly diurnal and nocturnal prey becomes vulnerable to
predators of asynchronous hunting time by extending their activities in the field (Jaksić 1982). Nocturnality
in owls may be more attributable to avoidance of interference interactions with hawks than to avoidance of
exploitation competition for food (Carothers & Jaksić 1984). Anyway, more other factors are involved in the
extent of overlap between diets of predators with differential activity: the size of predators and prey active at
day or night, foraging mode of the predator, diversity of prey, and relative length of day and night (Marti et
Ecologica Montenegrina, 39, 2021, 15-29 23WINTERING BIRDS OF PREY IN THE EVROS DELTA NATIONAL PARK
al. 1993). The dietary similarities among black kite, western marsh harrier and common buzzard found in
this study may also be partly attributable to that coexisting predators with similar diet composition tend to be
more alike in body size (Marti et al. 1993). Common preferences of these species in hunting habitats (Bobola
et al. 2018) also explain diet similarities.
Data on the abundance of prey species are available only in the case of the waterfowl (main prey of
the two eagles), from the Midwinter Waterfowl Counts (Handrinos et al. 2015). These data are difficult to
compare statistically with those from our pellet analysis, but it appears that the greater spotted eagle takes the
main waterfowl species in proportion to their abundance as hunted over their main gathering areas, while the
eastern imperial eagle shows some preference for the larger species (geese, shelducks and mallards).
A variety of studies have indicated that the trophic guilds of predators beyond falconiforms and
strigiforms involve other taxa such as carnivores and snakes (Jędrzejewski et al. 1989; Marti et al. 1993;
Jaksić et al. 1996; among others). In our study area, common carnivores such as foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and
European wild cats (Felis sylvestris) may be winter counterparts of the raptors’ trophic guild, a situation that
necessitates further study.
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to OIKOS Ltd, and in particular to I. Rigas for the support throughout the LIFE 00
NAT/Gr/7198 project. Also thanks to the members of the Evros Delta Management Board, and particularly
to A. Athanasiadis and E. Makrygianni for their support during the field studies, as well as the reviewers of
the paper. During the project V. Goutner was supported by a grant (No 20784AUTH Research Committee –
Bird monitoring in the area of the Life-Nature project).
References
Abuladze, A. (1996) Ecology of the imperial eagle Aquila heliaca in Georgia In: Meyburg, B-U. &
Chancellor, R.D. (Eds.), Eagle Studies. World Working Group on Birds of Prey. Berlin, London,
Paris, pp. 447–457.
Alivizatos, H., Papandropoulos, D. & Zogaris, S. (2004) Winter diet of the greater spotted eagle (Aquila
clanga) in the Amvrakikos wetlands, Greece. Journal of Raptor Research, 38 (4), 371–374.
Babalonas, D., (1980) Vegctationseinheiten und Vegetationskartierung in dem Miindungsgebiet des Flusses
Ewros. Feddes Repertorium, 91(9-10), 615–627.
Bontzorlos, V.A., Peris, S.J., Vlachos, C.G. & Bakaloudis, D.E. (2009) Barn owl Tyto alba prey in Thessaly,
and evaluation of barn owl diets throughout Greece. Ardea, 97(4), 625–630.
Bosé, M. & Guidali, F. (2001) Seasonal and geographic differences in the diet of the barn owl in an agro-
ecosystem in northern Italy. Journal of Raptor Research, 35(3), 240–246.
Alivizatos, H., Kazantzidis, S. & Birtsas, P. (2011) Winter diet of the marsh harrier Circus aeruginosus
(Aves, Accipitriformes) in the Evros Delta, Greece. Scientific Annals of the Danube Delta Institute,
17, 11–14.
Angelici, F.M., Latella, L. Luiselli, L. & Riga, F. (1997) The summer diet of the little owl (Athene noctua)
on the island of Astipalaia (Dodecanese, Greece), Journal of Raptor Research, 31(3), 280–282.
Arnold, E.N. & Burton, J.A. (1980) A Field Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians of Britain and Europe.
Collins, London.
Blanco, J.C., González, J.L. & Hiraldo, F. (1990a) On the trophic and spatial relationships between wintering
red kites (Milvus milvus) and marsh harriers (Circus aeruginosus) in the Guadalquivir Marshes.
Miscellania Zoologica, 14, 161–166.
Blanco, J.C., Hiraldo, F. & Heredia, B. (1990b) Variations in the diet and foraging behaviour of a wintering
red kite (Milvus milvus) population in response to changes in food availability. Ardeola, 37(2),
267–278.
Bobola, E., Goutner, V. & Liordos, V. (2018) Foraging habitat selection and differentiation among
coexisting raptors in an estuarine landscape (Evros Delta, northern Greece). Estuarine, Coastal and
Shelf Science, 213, 108–114.
Brown, R., Ferguson, J., Lawrence, M. & Lees, D. (1987) Tracks and signs of the birds of Britain and
Europe. Helm, London.
24ALIVIZATOS & GOUTNER
Carothers, J.H. & Jaksić, F.M. (1984) Time as a niche difference: the role of interference competition. Oikos,
42(3), 403–406.
Chaline, J. (1974) Les prois des rapaces. Doin, Paris.
Cavender-Bares, J., Kozak, K., Fine, P. & Kembel, S. (2009) The merging of community ecology and
phylogenetic biology. Ecology Letters, 12(7), 693–715.
Charter, M., Leshem, Y., Izhaki, I., Guershon, M. & Kint, Y. (2006) The diet of the little owl, Athene noctua,
in Israel. Zoology in the Middle East, 39(1), 31–40.
Chinery, M. (1991) Collins Guide to the Insects of Britain and Western Europe. Collins, London.
Clarke, R., Burgonje, A. & Castelijns, H. (1993) Food niches of sympatric marsh harriers Circus
aeruginosus and hen harries Circus cyaneus on the Dutch coast in winter. Ibis, 135(4), 424–431.
De Giacomo, U., Martucci, O. & Tinelli, A. (1993) L'alimentazione del nibbio bruno (Milvus migrans) nella
Tenuta di Castelporziano (Roma). Avocetta, 17(1), 73–78.
De Giacomo, U. & Guerrieri, G. (2008) The feeding behavior of the black kite (Milvus migrans) in the
rubbish dump of Rome. Journal of Raptor Research, 42(2), 110–118.
González-Salazar, C., Martínez-Meyer, E. & López-Santiago, G. (2014) A hierarchical classification of
trophic guilds for north American birds and mammals. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad, 85(3),
931–941.
Dombrovski, V. (2010) The diet of the greater spotted eagle (Aquila clanga) in Belarusian Polesie. Slovak
Raptor Journal, 4, 23–36.
Francksen, R.M, Whittingham, M.J., Ludwig, S.C. & Baines, D. (2016) Winter diet of common buzzards
Buteo buteo on a Scottish grouse moor. Bird Study, 63(4), 525–532.
Gotta, A. & Pigozzi, G. (1997). Trophic niche of the barn owl and little owl in a rice field habitat in northern
Italy. Italian Journal of Zoology, 64(1), 55–59.
Goutner, V. & Alivizatos, H. (2003) Diet of the barn owl (Tyto alba) and little owl (Athene noctua) in
wetlands of northeastern Greece. Belgian Journal of Zoology, 113 (1), 15–22.
Al Hasani, I.K.A., Azar, J. F., Nashimura, K., Amr, Z.S. & Katzner, T.E. (2012) Distribution, diet and winter
ecology of the imperial eagle Aquila heliaca in Jordan. Vertebrate Zoology, 62 (2), 273–280.
Handrinos, G., Kazantzidis, S., Alivizatos, H., Akriotis, T. and Portolou, D. (2015). International Waterbird
Census in Greece 1968-2006. Analysis of the populations of wildfowl (Anseriformes) and the coot
(Fulica atra). Hellenic Ornithological Society, Hellenic Bird Ringing Centre (in Greek).
Haraszthy, L., Bagyura, J, Szitta, T., Petrovics, Z. & Viszló, L. (1996) Biology, status and conservation of
the imperial eagle Aquila heliaca in Hungary. In: Meyburg. B-U. & Chancellor, R.D. (Eds.), Eagle
Studies. World Working Group on Birds of Prey Berlin, London, Paris, pp. 425– 428.
Hellenic Ornithological Society (HOS) (2009) The Important Bird Areas of Greece. Priority areas for the
conservation of Biodiversity. HOS, Athens (in Greek).
Helmer, W. & Scholte, P. (1985) Herpetological research in Evros, Greece, proposals for a biogenetic
reserve. Research Institute for Nature Management. Arnhem & Department of Animal Ecology,
Nijmegen.
Horváth, M., Szitta, T., Firmánszky, G., Solti, B., Kovács, A. & Moskát, C. ( 2010) Spatial variation in prey
composition and its possible effect on reproductive success in an expanding eastern imperial eagle
(Aquila heliaca) population. Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 56(2), 187–200.
Ingenbleek, A., Cuisin, J., Libois, R., Bavoux, C. & Burneleau, G. (2004) Regime alimentaire hivernal du
busard des roseaux Circus aeruginosus dans Le Marais de Brouage (Charente-Maritime). Annales
de la Société des Sciences Naturelles de la Charente-Maritime, 9(4), 389–398.
Jaksić, F.M. (1981) Abuse and misuse of the term “guild” in ecological studies. Oikos, 37, 397–400.
Jaksić, F.M. (1982) Inadequacy of activity time as a niche difference: the case of diurnal and nocturnal
raptors. Oecologia, 52(2), 171–175.
Jaksić, F.M. (1983) The trophic structure of sympatric assemblages of diurnal and nocturnal birds of prey.
The American Midland Naturalist, 109(1), 152–162.
Jaksić, F.M, Feinsinger, P. & Jimenez, J. (1996) Ecological redundancy and long-term dynamics of
vertebrate predators in semiarid Chile. Conservation Biology, 10(1), 252 –262.
Jędrzejewski, W., Jędrzejewska, B. & Szymura, A. (1989) Food niche overlaps in a winter community of
predators in the Białowieża Primeval Forest, Poland. Acta Theriologica, 34, 487–496.
Kayahan, A. & Tabur, M.A. (2016) Diet composition of little owl (Athene noctua Scopoli, 1769) in Turkey.
Pakistan Journal of Zoology, 48(4), 943–94.
Ecologica Montenegrina, 39, 2021, 15-29 25WINTERING BIRDS OF PREY IN THE EVROS DELTA NATIONAL PARK
Kitowski, I. (2013) Winter diet of the barn owl (Tyto alba) and the long-eared owl (Asio otus) in Eastern
Poland. North-western Journal of Zoology, 9(1), 16–22.
Lawrence, M.J. & Brown, R.W. (1973) Brown mammals of Britain. Their tracks, trails and signs. Blandford
Press, Dorset.
Macdonald, D. & Barret, P. (1993) Mammals of Britain and Europe. Harper Collins, London.
Mañosa, S. & Cordero, P.J. (1992) Seasonal and sexual variation in the diet of the common buzzard in
northeastern Spain. Journal of Raptor Research, 26(4), 235–238.
Marti, C.D., Steenhof, K., Kochert, M.N. & Marks, J.S. (1993) Community trophic structure: the roles of
diet, body size, and activity time in vertebrate predators. Oikos, 67(1), 6–18.
Marti, C.D. & N. Kochert, M.N. (1995) Are red-tailed hawks and great horned owls diurnal-nocturnal
dietary counterparts? The Wilson Bulletin, 107(4), 615–628.
Marin, S.A., Ivanov, I.I., Georgiev D.G., & Boev Z.N. (2004) On the food of the imperial eagle Aquila
heliaca on Sakar Mountain and Dervent Heights, Bulgaria. In: Chancellor, R.D. & Meyburg B.-U.
(Eds), Raptors Worldwide. World Working Group on Birds of Prey /MME pp. 589–592.
Mazumdar, S., Ghose, D. & Kumar Saha, G. (2016) Foraging strategies of black kites (Milvus migrans
govinda) in urban garbage dumps. Journal of Ethology, 34(3), 243–247.
Obuch, J. & Krištín, A. (2004) Prey composition of the little owl Athene noctua in an arid zone (Egypt,
Syria, Iran). Folia Zoologica, 53(1), 65–79.
Obuch, J. & Benda, P. (2009) Food of the barn owl (Tyto alba) in the eastern Mediterranean. Slovak Raptor
Journal, 3, 41–50.
Obuch, J., Danko, S. & Noga, M. (2016) Recent and sub recent diet of the barn owl (Tyto alba) in Slovakia.
Slovak Raptor Journal, 10, 1–50.
Pérez-García, J.M., Marco-Tresserras, J., & Orihuela-Torres, A. (2020) Winter diet and lead poisoning risk
of greater spotted eagles Clanga clanga in southeast Spain, Bird Study, 67, 224–231.
Perrins, C. (1987) Collins New Generation Guide, Birds of Britain and Europe. Collins, London.
Pianka, E.R. (1974) Niche overlap and diffuse competition. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences USA, 71, 2141–2145.
Reif, V., Tornberg, R., Jungell, S. & Korpimäki, E. 2001. Diet variation of common buzzards in Finland
supports the alternative prey hypothesis. Ecography, 24(3), 267–274.
Root, R.B. (2001) Guilds. In: Levin, S.A. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of biodiversity. Academic Press, San Diego,
pp. 295–302.
Romanowski, J., Altenburg, D. & Żmihorsk, M. (2013) Seasonal variation in the diet of the little owl, Athene
noctua in agricultural landscape of central Poland. North-western Journal of Zoology, 9(2), 310–
318.
Sergio, F. & Boto, A. (1999) Nest dispersion, diet, and breeding success of black kites (Milvus migrans) in
the Italian pre-Alps. Journal of Raptor Research, 33(3), 207–217.
Sergio, F., Boto, A., Scandolail, C. & Bogliani, G. (2002) Density, nest sites, diet, and productivity of
common buzzards (Buteo buteo) in the Italian pre-Alps. Journal of Raptor Research, 36(1), 24–32.
Shannon, C.E. & Weaver, W. (1963). The mathematical theory of communications. University of Illinois
Press, Urbana.
Simpson, E.H. (1949) Measurement of diversity. Nature, 163, 688.
Solonen, T. & Ahola, P. (2010) Intrinsic and extrinsic factors in the dynamics of local small-mammal
populations. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 88(2), 178–185.
Steenhof, K. & Kochert, M.N. (1988). Dietary responses of three raptor species to changing prey densities in
a natural environment. Journal of Animal Ecology, 57, 37–48.
Szép, D., Horváth, G.F., Krčmar, S. & Purger, J.J. (2018) Connection between prey composition and the
landscape structure in the hunting area of barn owls (Tyto alba) in Baranja (Croatia). Periodicum
Biologorum, 120(2–3), 125–133.
Torre, I., Tella, J.L. & Ballesteros, T. (1997) Tendencias tróficas de la lechuza común (Tyto alba) en la
depresión media del Ebro. Historia Animalium, 3, 35–44.
Underhill-Day, J.C. (1985) The food of breeding marsh harriers Circus aeruginosus in East Anglia. Bird
Study, 32(3), 199–206.
Viñuela, J. & Veiga, J.P. (1992) Importance of rabbits in the diet and reproductive success of black kites in
southwestern Spain. Ornis Scandinavica, 23, 132–138.
26ALIVIZATOS & GOUTNER
Voříšek, P., Krištín A., Obuch J. & Votýpka, J. (1997) Diet of common buzzard in the Czech Republic and
its importance for gamekeeping. Buteo 9, 57–68.
Wiens J.J., Graham C.H. (2005) Niche conservatism, integrating evolution, ecology, and conservation
biology. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 36, 519–539.
Ecologica Montenegrina, 39, 2021, 15-29 27WINTERING BIRDS OF PREY IN THE EVROS DELTA NATIONAL PARK
Appendix
Prey composition of the seven raptor species studied in a variety of European and Mediterranean countries. NST: during nesting. WIN: in winter. Values are percentages of
prey types by number.
Area Birds Mammals Reptiles Other and/or Carrion Material/period Reference
Aquila heliaca
Jordan 26.0 19.7 0.6 53.7 pellets/WIN Al Hasani et al. 2012
Centr. Tancaucasia 14.2 56.3 29.6 − prey remains/NST Abuladze 1996
Hungary 22.3 77.7 − parts of mammals observations/NST Haraszthy et al. 1996
Turkey 32.4 46.5 20.3 not estimated prey remains/NST Demerdziev et al. 2014
Slovakia 39.7 60.3 − included, estimated obs., remains/NST Chavko et al. 2007
Hungary 42.0 68.0 < 0.1 parts of mammals Prey remains/NST Horváth et al. 2010
Bulgaria 41.0 40.0 4.0 15.0 prey remains/NST Marin et al. 2004
This study 96.4 3.6 − − pellets/WIN
Clanga clanga Other
Belarus 36.0 40.4 5.7 2.2 prey remains/NST Dombrovski 2010
pellets, prey remains,
Spain 66.2 14.8 − 19.3 (mainly fish) observ./WIN Pérez-García et al. 2020
Amvrakikos, Greece 84.2 4.2 3.2 8.5 pellets/WIN Alivizatos et al. 2004
This study 97.9 2.1 − − pellets/roosts, WIN
C. aeruginosus
Finland 73.0 25.8 0.2 1.0 pellets, prey remains/NST Tornberg & Haapala 2013
France 33.8 62.6 − 3.6 pellets/roost, WIN Ingelbleek et al. 2004
Netherlands 81.0 18.6 − 0.4 pellets/roost, WIN Clarke et al. 1993
Spain 35.6 26.4 1.4 20.2 (insects) pellets/roost, WIN Blanco et al. 1990a
East Anglia 68.6 21.3 − 10.1 pellets/NST Underhill-Day 1985
This study 26.9 66.7 − 5.7 (insects) pellets/roost, WIN Alivizatos et. al. 2011
Milvus migrans
Spain (dry period) 37.5 48.4 0.4 27.3 (insects) pellets/roost, WIN Blanco et al. 1990b
wet period 21.7 26.3 1.4 21.3 (insects) pellets/roost, WIN Blanco et al. 1990b
Italy, pre-Alps 27.7 7.8 1.5 62.9 (maily fish) prey remains/NST Sergio & Boto 1999
Italy, Roma 5.8 20.8 5.4 54.8 (insects, fish) prey remains/NST De Giacomo et al. 1993
Poland 39.3 13.2 − 47.5 (fish, carrion) prey remains/NST Zawadzka 1999
This study 33.8 45.5 2.3 13.4 (insects) pellets/roost, WIN
28ALIVIZATOS & GOUTNER
Buteo buteo
Italy 46.0 29.0 21.0 4 prey remains/NST Sergio et al. 2002
Czech Republic 16.5 56.6 9.3 17.6 (most insects) prey remains, pellets/NST Voříšek et al. 1997
Ireland 41.2 41.0 7.1 17.8 prey remains, pellets/NST Rooney & Montgomery 2013
Finland 36.1 54.7 5.8 3.5 prey remains, pellets/NST Reif et al. 2001
Scotland 7.1 73.3 − 19.6 (insects,worms) pellets/WIN Francksen et al. 2016
Spain 1.3 18.7 3.3 76.7 (most insects) stomach contents/WIN Mañosa & Cordero 1992
This study 35.7 22.2 5.6 (+Amph.) 36.5 (most insects) pellets,roosts/WIN
Tyto alba
Slovakia (recent) 4.1 95.5 0.2(+Amph.) 0.2 pellets/territories Obuch et al. 2016
N. Italy 3.4 83.6 0.7(+Amph.) 12.3 (most insects) pellets/ Oct. to April Gotta and Pigozzi 1997
N. Poland 0.4 99.6 − − pellets, roosts/WIN Kitowski 2013
prey remains, pellets/NST,
Central S. Bulgaria 1.5 98.2 0.3 (+Amph.) 0.05 (insects) roosts Milchev 2015
N. Italy 7.3 92.7 − − pellets/buildings,WIN Bose and Guidally 2001
Croatia 0.4 99.8 0.04 (Anura) 0.04 (insects) pellets/NST, roosts Szép et al. 2018
Ebro, Spain 2.5 95.9 0.2 (+Amph.) 1.8 (insects) pellets/ ? season Torre et al. 1997
This study 2.5 97.0 0.1 (Amph.) < 0.1 pellets/WIN
Athene noctua Birds Mammals Reptiles Insects (+other) Prey type /period
Israel (2 areas) 1.8 and 2.2 21.0 and 12.8 0.7 and 0.3 67.2 and 77.7 pellets/all seasons Charter et al. 2006
Turkey 0.6 5.3 − 92 (+2.01) pellets/all seasons Kayahan & Tabur 2016
Egypt 1.5 10.0 2.7 (+Amph.) 85.7 roosts unspec., 2002 Obuch & Krištín 2004
Syria 2.3 6.3 4.0 (+Amph.) 87.4 Roosts unspec.1998, 2001 Obuch & Krištín 2005
Central Poland 0.7 22.0 0.2 (Amph.) 77.1 all seasons/pellets Romanowski et al. 2013
N. Italy 2.0 38.4 4.3 (+Amph.) 55.4 pellets/ Oct. to April Gotta & Pigozzi 1997
Asypalea, Greece 0.1 0.2 0.3 74.3 pellets/summer Angelici et al. 1997
This study 5.2 29.0 1.4 64.4 pellets/WIN
Ecologica Montenegrina, 39, 2021, 15-29 29You can also read
