Steppic habitats host an extremely high proportion of birds with unfavourable conservation status in Europe, such as larks. This research aims to both investigate habitat-lark relationships and assess the niche overlap among larks in southern Italy during the breeding season. Studied in particular were the Eurasian Skylark (Alauda arvensis), the Greater Short-toed Lark (Calandrella brachydactyla), the Calandra Lark (Melanocorypha calandra), the Crested Lark (Galerida cristata) and the Woodlark (Lullula arborea). During the 2012 breeding season, 301 point counts were carried out, and these were randomly placed in the study area according to a stratified sampling design. Resource selection probability functions were used to build two models for each species: (i) a binary logistic regression using the presence units as the dependent variable and (ii) a GLM with Poisson’s error distribution using the abundance of larks in each sampling point as the dependent variable. In the first model, the land cover in the cells of a 100-m-grid superimposed onto the study area was used as a covariate, whereas in the second model, the same covariate was measured, but in a 300-m-buffer around the sampling points. Finally, niche overlap was measured by Hurlbert’s Index with bootstrap resampling. Results showed that the Skylark, Short-toed Lark, Calandra Lark and Crested Lark are tightly associated with both non-irrigated crops and dry grasslands, with these species selecting areas in which both habitats are present in particular. Furthermore, there is a strong niche overlap at macrohabitat level among the species, with the exception of the Woodlark, which is an ecotonal species.
BurfieldIJ. The conservation status of steppic birds in Europe. In: BotaGMoralesMBMañosaS, et al. (eds). Ecology and conservation of steppe-land birds. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions and Centre Tecnològic Forestal de Catalunya, 2005, pp. 119–139.
2.
BirdLife International. Birds in Europe. Population estimates, trends and conservation status. Cambridge: BirdLife International, 2004.
3.
TuckerGMEvansMI. Habitats for birds in Europe: a conservation strategy for the wider environment. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International, 1997.
4.
OnrubiaAAndrésT. Impacts of human activities on steppe-land birds: a review in the context of the Western Palearctic. In: BotaGMoralesMBMañosaS, et al. (eds). Ecology and conservation of steppe-land birds. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions and Centre Tecnològic Forestal de Catalunya, 2005, pp. 185–209.
5.
EBCC. Final species classification for 2019 update in Europe and its biogeographical regions. Beek-Ubbergen (NL): European Bird Census Council, 2019, https://www.ebcc.info/multispecies_indicators/
6.
SantosTSuárezF. Biogeography and population trends of Iberian steppe birds. In: BotaGMoralesMBMañosaS, et al. (eds). Ecology and conservation of steppe-land birds. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions and Centre Tecnològic Forestal de Catalunya, 2005, pp. 69–102.
7.
WolffA. Influence of landscape and habitat heterogeneity on the distribution of steppe-land birds in the Crau, southern France. In: BotaGMoralesMBMañosaS, et al. (eds). Ecology and conservation of steppe-land birds. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions and Centre Tecnològic Forestal de Catalunya, 2005, pp. 141–168.
8.
PECBMS. State of common European breeding birds 2018. Prague: CSO, 2019.
9.
Rete Rurale Nazionale, and LIPU. Italia - Farmland BIrd Index, Woodland Bird Index e andamenti di popolazione delle specie 2000-2014. Parma (IT): LIPU, 2015.
10.
GustinMNardelliRBrichettiP, et al.Lista Rossa IUCN degli uccelli nidificanti in Italia 2019. Roma (IT): Comitato Italiano IUCN e Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, 2019.
11.
CrampS. Handbook of the birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. Vol V Tyrant Flycatchers to Thrushes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.
12.
BrotonsLHerrandoSMartinJ-L. Bird assemblages in forest fragments within Mediterranean mosaics created by wild fires. Landscape Ecol2005; 19: 663–675.
13.
La MantiaTBonaviriLMassaB. Ornithological communities as indicators of recent transformations on a regional scale: Sicily’s case. Avocetta2014; 38: 67–81.
14.
CampedelliTLondiGGioiaGL, et al.Steppes vs. crops: is cohabitation for biodiversity possible? Lessons from a national park in southern Italy. Agr Ecosyst Environ2015; 213: 32–38.
15.
SinclairAREFryxellJMCaughleyG, et al.Wildlife ecology, conservation, and management. 2nd ed.Malden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.
16.
MorrisonMLMathewsonHA (eds). Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions. Baltimore (US): Johns Hopkins University Press, 2015.
17.
ValoneTJTempletonJJ. Public information for the assessment of quality: a widespread social phenomenon. Phil Trans R Soc B2002; 357: 1549–1557.
18.
ValoneTJ. From eavesdropping on performance to copying the behavior of others: a review of public information use. Behav Ecol Sociobiol2007; 62: 1–14.
BibbyCJBurgessNDHillDA, et al.Bird census techniques. 2nd Edition. London, UK: Academic Press, 2000.
22.
SutherlandWJNewtonIGreenR. Bird ecology and conservation: a handbook of techniques. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
23.
ColwellRKCoddingtonJA. Estimating terrestrial biodiversity through extrapolation. Phil Trans R Soc B1994; 345: 101–118.
24.
ChamberlainDRolandoA. The effects of a settling-down period on estimates of bird species richness and occurrence from point counts in the Alps. Bird Study2014; 61: 121–124.
25.
BrennanJMBenderDJContrerasTA, et al.Focal patch landscape studies for wildlife management: optimizing sampling effort across scales. In: Integrating landscape ecology into natural resource management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002, pp. 68–91.
26.
ManlyBFJMcDonaldLLThomasDL, et al.Resource selection by animals: statistical design and analysis for field studies. 2nd ed. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002.
27.
BrambillaMRuboliniD. Intra-seasonal changes in distribution and habitat associations of a multi-brooded bird species: implications for conservation planning. Anim Conserv2009; 12: 71–77.
28.
FischerJJennyMJenniL. Suitability of patches and in-field strips for Sky Larks Alauda arvensis in a small-parcelled mixed farming area. Bird Study2009; 56: 34–42.
29.
GuerrieriGCastaldiA. Densità riproduttiva, selezione di habitat e preferenze ambientali della Cappellaccia Galerida cristata lungo le coste del Lazio. Uccelli d’Italia2010; 35: 61–71.
30.
BoyceMSMcDonaldLL. Relating populations to habitats using resource selection functions. Trends Ecol Evol1999; 14: 268–272.
31.
BoyceMSVernierPRNielsenSE, et al.Evaluating resource selection functions. Ecol Model2002; 157: 281–300.
32.
GottschalkTKAueBHitesS, et al.Influence of grain size on species-habitat models. Ecol Model2011; 222: 3403–3412.
33.
WarrenTLBettsMGDiamondAW, et al.The influence of local habitat and landscape composition on cavity-nesting birds in a forested mosaic. Forest Ecol Manag2005; 214: 331–343.
34.
WretenbergJPärtTBergÅ. Changes in local species richness of farmland birds in relation to land-use changes and landscape structure. Biol Conserv2010; 143: 375–381.
35.
DoraisACardilleJ. Strategies for incorporating high-resolution Google Earth databases to guide and validate classifications: understanding deforestation in Borneo. Remote Sens2011; 3: 1157–1176.
36.
ChiatanteGPanuccioM. Environmental factors affecting the wintering raptor community in Armenia, Southern Caucasus. Community Ecol2021; 22: 79–92. DOI: 10.1007/s42974-021-00038-7.
37.
ZhaoYGongPYuL, et al.Towards a common validation sample set for global land-cover mapping. Int J Remote Sens2014; 35: 4795–4814.
38.
KeatingKACherryS. Use and interpretation of logistic regression in habitat-selection studies. J Wildlife Manage2004; 68: 774–789.
39.
RushtonSPOrmerodSJKerbyG. New paradigms for modelling species distributions?J Appl Ecol2004; 41: 193–200.
40.
PhillipsSJDudíkMElithJ, et al.Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo-absence data. Ecol Appl2009; 19: 181–197.
41.
PhillipsSJAndersonRPSchapireRE. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol Model2006; 190: 231–259.
42.
ElithJPhillipsSJHastieT, et al.A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists: statistical explanation of MaxEnt. Divers Distrib2011; 17: 43–57.
43.
HirzelAHHausserJChesselD, et al.Ecological Niche Factor Analysis: how to compute habitat-suitability maps without absence data?Ecology2002; 83: 2027–2036.
44.
HirzelAHHelferVMetralF. Assessing habitat-suitability models with a virtual species. Ecol Model2001; 145: 111–121.
45.
ElithJGrahamHCAndersonRP, et al.Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography2006; 29: 129–151.
46.
GuisanAEdwardsTCHastieT. Generalized linear and generalized additive models in studies of species distributions: setting the scene. Ecol Model2002; 157: 89–100.
47.
GuisanAThuillerWZimmermannNE. Habitat suitability and distribution models: with applications in R. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
48.
ZuurAFIenoENSmithGM. Analysing Ecological Data. New York: Springer Science + Business Media, LLC, 2007.
49.
BurnhamKPAndersonDR. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. 2nd ed.New York: Springer, 2002.
50.
ZuurAFIenoENElphickCS. A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems: Data exploration. Methods Ecol Evol2010; 1: 3–14.
51.
PearceJFerrierS. Evaluating the predictive performance of habitat models developed using logistic regression. Ecol Model2000; 133: 225–245.
52.
BivandRPebesmaEJGómez-RubioV. Applied spatial data analysis with R. New York: Springer, 2008.
53.
ZuurAFIenoENWalkerNJ, et al.Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. New York: Springer, 2009.
54.
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Wien: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2019, https://www.R-project.org/
FoxJWeisbergS. Package car: an R Companion to Applied Regression. Wien, 2011, www.cran.r-project.org
57.
SingTSanderOBeerenwinkelN, et al.Package ROCR: Visualizing the performance of scoring classifiers. Wien, 2007, www.cran.r-project.org
58.
BivandRAltmanMAnselinL, et al.Package spdep: Spatial Dependence - weighting schemes, statistics and models. Wien, 2015, www.cran.r-project.org
59.
Steffan-DewenterITscharntkeT. Resource overlap and possible competition between honey bees and wild bees in central Europe. Oecologia2000; 122: 288–296.
60.
ChiatanteGMeriggiA. The occurrence and density of three sympatric corvids in a Mediterranean agroecosystem explained by land use. J Ornithol2019; 160: 1133–1150.
61.
ChiatanteG. Spatial distribution of an assemblage of an endemic genus of birds: an example from Madagascar. Afr J Ecol2022; 60: 13–26.
62.
TsoarAAlloucheOSteinitzO, et al.A comparative evaluation of presence-only methods for modelling species distribution. Diversity Distrib2007; 13: 397–405.
63.
McPhersonJMJetzW. Effects of species’ ecology on the accuracy of distribution models. Ecography2007; 30: 135–151.
64.
ChiatanteGBrambillaMBoglianiG. Spatially explicit conservation issues for threatened bird species in Mediterranean farmland landscapes. J Nat Conserv2014; 22: 103–112.
65.
BrambillaMCasaleFBergeroV, et al.GIS-models work well, but are not enough: Habitat preferences of Lanius collurio at multiple levels and conservation implications. Biol Conserv2009; 142: 2033–2042.
66.
LaioloP. Interspecific interactions drive cultural co-evolution and acoustic convergence in syntopic species: Interspecific interactions drive cultural co-evolution. J Anim Ecol2012; 81: 594–604.
67.
BrownJSKotlerBPMitchellWA. Competition between birds and mammals: a comparison of giving-up densities between crested larks and gerbils. Evol Ecol1997; 11: 757–771.
68.
ThuillerWBrotonsLAraújoMB, et al.Effects of restricting environmental range of data to project current and future species distributions. Ecography2004; 27: 165–172.
69.
AraújoMBGuisanA. Five (or so) challenges for species distribution modelling. J Biogeogr2006; 33: 1677–1688.
70.
SoberónJ. Grinnellian and Eltonian niches and geographic distributions of species. Ecol Lett2007; 10: 1115–1123.
71.
GregoryRDBaillieSR. Large-scale habitat use of some declining British birds. J Appl Ecol1998; 35: 785–799.
72.
MasonCFMacDonaldSM. Influence of landscape and land-use on the distribution of breeding birds in farmland in eastern England. J Zool2000; 251: 339–348.
73.
MiguetPGaucherelCBretagnolleV. Breeding habitat selection of Skylarks varies with crop heterogeneity, time and spatial scale, and reveals spatial and temporal crop complementation. Ecol Model2013; 266: 10–18.
74.
ChamberlainDEVickeryJAGoughS. Spatial and temporal distribution of breeding Skylarks Alauda arvensis in relation to crop type in periods of population increase and decrease. Ardea2000; 88: 61–73.
75.
DonaldPFGreenREHeathMF. Agricultural intensification and the collapse of Europe’s farmland bird populations. Proc R Soc London B2001; 268: 25–29.
76.
EraudCBoutinJ-M. Density and productivity of breeding Skylarks Alauda arvensis in relation to crop type on agricultural lands in western France. Bird Study2002; 49: 287–296.
77.
BoatmanNDPietravalleSParryHR, et al.Agricultural land use and Skylark Alauda arvensis: a case study linking a habitat association model to spatially explicit change scenarios. Ibis2010; 152: 63–76.
78.
DelgadoAMoreiraF. Bird assemblages of an Iberian cereal steppe. Agr Ecosyst Environ2000; 78: 65–76.
79.
DelgadoAMoreiraF. Do wheat, barley and oats provide similar habitat and food resources for birds in cereal steppes?Agr Ecosyst Environ2002; 93: 441–446.
80.
SuárezFGarzaVMoralesMB. The role of extensive cereal crops, dry pasture and shrub-steppe in determining skylark Alauda arvensis densities in the Iberian peninsula. Agr Ecosyst Environ2003; 95: 551–557.
81.
ToepferSStubbeM. Territory density of the Skylark (Alauda arvensis) in relation to field vegetation in central Germany. J Ornithol2001; 142: 184–194.
82.
SageRBCunninghamMBoatmanN. Birds in willows short-rotation coppice compared to other arable crops in central England and review of bird census data from energy crops in the UK. Ibis2006; 148: 184–197.
83.
KuiperMWOttensHJCeninL, et al.Field margins as foraging habitat for skylarks (Alauda arvensis) in the breeding season. Agr Ecosyst Environ2013; 170: 10–15.
84.
BergÅPärtT. Abundance of breeding farmland birds on arable and set-aside fields at forest edges. Ecography1994; 17: 147–152.
85.
PithonJABeaujouanVDanielH, et al.Are vineyards important habitats for birds at local or landscape scales?Basic Appl Ecol2016; 17: 240–251.
86.
LaioloPDonderoFCilientoE, et al.Consequences of pastoral abandonment for the structure and diversity of the alpine avifauna. J Appl Ecol2004; 41: 294–304.
87.
KampJSiderovaTVSalemgareevAR, et al.Niche separation of larks (Alaudidae) and agricultural change on the drylands of the former Soviet Union. Agr Ecosyst Environ2012; 155: 41–49.
88.
KmeclPDenacK. The effects of forest succession and grazing intensity on bird diversity and the conservation value of a Northern Adriatic karstic landscape. Biodivers Conserv2018; 27: 2003–2020.
89.
ForteLPerrinoEVTerziM. Le praterie a Stipa austroitalica Martinovsky ssp. austroitalica dell’Alta Murgia (Puglia) e della Murgia Materana (Basilicata). Fitosociologia2005; 42: 83–103.
90.
MoreiraFLeitãoD. A preliminary study of the breeding bird community of fallows of cereal steppes in southern Portugal. Bird Conserv Int1996; 6: 255–259.
91.
MoreiraF. Relationships between vegetation structure and breeding bird densities in fallow cereal steppes in Castro Verde, Portugal. Bird Study1999; 46: 309–318.
92.
SuárezFGarzaVMoralesMB. Habitat use of two sibling species, the Short-toed Calandrella brachydactyla and the Lesser Short-toed C. rufescens Larks, in mainland Spain. Ardeola2002; 49: 259–272.
93.
DunningJBDanielsonBJPulliamHR. Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos1992; 65: 169–175.
94.
NortonMRHannonSJSchmiegelowFKA. Fragments are not island: patch vs. landscape perspectives on songbird presence and abundance in a harvested boreal forest. Ecography2000; 23: 209–223.
95.
MorgadoRBejaPReinoL, et al.Calandra lark habitat selection: Strong fragmentation effects in a grassland specialist. Acta Oecol2010; 36: 63–73.
96.
SanzaMATrabaJMoralesMB, et al.Effects of landscape, conspecifics and heterospecifics on habitat selection by breeding farmland birds: the case of the Calandra Lark (Melanocorypha calandra) and Corn Bunting (Emberiza calandra). J Ornithol2012; 153: 525–533.
97.
Sanz‐PérezAGiraltDRobleñoI, et al.Fallow management increases habitat suitability for endangered steppe bird species through changes in vegetation structure. J Appl Ecol2019; 56: 2166–2175.
98.
RobleñoIBotaGGiraltD, et al.Fallow management for steppe bird conservation: the impact of cultural practices on vegetation structure and food resources. Biodivers Conserv2017; 26: 133–150.
99.
MoralesMBGuerreroIOñateJJ, et al.Inter-specific association and habitat use in a farmland passerine assemblage. Ecol Res2012; 27: 691–700.
100.
GuillaumetAGoninJProdonR, et al.The geographic and seasonal dimensions of habitat use in Galerida larks: implications for species coexistence and range limits. Ecography2010; 33: 961–970.
101.
LaioloP. From inter-specific behavioural interactions to species distribution patterns along gradients of habitat heterogeneity. Oecologia2013; 171: 207–215.
102.
GuillaumetALeotardG. Annoying neighbors: multi-scale distribution determinants of two sympatric sibling species of birds. Curr Zool2015; 61: 10–22.
103.
ŠímováPŠťastnýKŠálekM. Refugial role of urbanized areas and colonization potential for declining Crested Lark (Galerida cristata) populations in the Czech Republic, Central Europe. J Ornithol2015; 156: 915–921.
104.
LisieckiMDylewskiLKistowskaBE, et al.The Crested Lark Galerida cristata as an example of a bird species that benefits from agricultural management in western Poland. Bird Study2020; 67: 197–205.
105.
FonderflickJBesnardeAMartinJ-L. Species traits and the response of open-habitat species to forest edge in landscape mosaics. Oikos2013; 122: 42–51.
106.
HawkesRWSmartJBrownA, et al.Experimental evidence that ground‐disturbance benefits Woodlark Lullula arborea. Ibis2019; 161: 447–452.
107.
SittersHPFullerRJHoblynRA, et al.The Woodlark Lullula arborea in Britain: population trends, distribution and habitat occupancy. Bird Study1996; 43: 172–187.
108.
MallordJWDolmanPMBrownAF, et al.Linking recreational disturbance to population size in a ground-nesting passerine: Linking recreational disturbance to population size. J Appl Ecol2007; 44: 185–195.
109.
SiramiCBrotonsLMartinJ. Woodlarks Lullula arborea and landscape heterogeneity created by land abandonment. Bird Study2011; 58: 99–106.
110.
ZmihorskiM. The effects of anthropogenic and natural disturbances on breeding birds of managed Scots pine forests in northern Poland. Ornis Fennica2012; 89: 63–73.
111.
PonsPBasJM. Open-habitat birds in recently burned areas: the role of the fire extent and species’ habitat breadth. Ardeola2005; 52: 119–131.
112.
PonsPClaveroM. Bird responses to fire severity and time since fire in managed mountain rangelands: Bird conservation and fire management in mountain shrublands. Anim Conserv2010; 13: 294–305.
113.
Pérez-GranadosCSerrano-DaviesENogueralesV. Returning home after fire: how fire may help us manage the persistence of scrub-steppe specialist bird populations. Biodivers Conserv2018; 27: 3087–3102.
114.
HolzkämperALauschASeppeltR. Optimizing landscape configuration to enhance habitat suitability for species with contrasting habitat requirements. Ecol Model2006; 198: 277–292.
115.
SaundersMELuckGWMayfieldMM. Almond orchards with living ground cover host more wild insect pollinators. J Insect Conserv2013; 17: 1011–1025.
BuehlerRBoscoLArlettazR, et al.Nest site preferences of the Woodlark (Lullula arborea) and its association with artificial nest predation. Acta Oecol2017; 78: 41–46.
118.
BoscoLArlettazRJacotA. Ground greening in vineyards promotes the Woodlark Lullula arborea and their invertebrate prey. J Ornithol2019; 160: 799–811.
119.
SchoenerTW. Resource partitioning in ecological communities. Science1974; 185: 27–39.
120.
PadialJMAvilaESanchezJM. Feeding habits and overlap among red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and stone marten (Martes foina) in two Mediterranean mountain habitats. Mamm biol2002; 67: 137–146.
121.
TrabaJGarcía de la MorenaELMoralesMB, et al.Determining high value areas for steppe birds in Spain: hot spots, complementarity and the efficiency of protected areas. Biodivers Conserv2007; 16: 3255–3275.
122.
SerranoDAstrainC. Microhabitat use and segregation of two sibling species of Calandrella larks during the breeding season: Conservation and management strategies. Biol Conserv2005; 125: 391–397.
123.
DeliusJD. A population study of skylarks Alauda arvensis. Ibis1965; 107: 466–492.
124.
BrieferERybakFAubinT. When to be a dear enemy: flexible acoustic relationships of neighbouring skylarks, Alauda arvensis. Anim Behav2008; 76: 1319–1325.
125.
BrieferERybakFAubinT. Are unfamiliar neighbours considered to be dear-enemies?PLoS ONE2010; 5: e12428.
126.
MönkkönenMPekkaHSoppelaK. Numerical and behavioural responses of migrant passerines to experimental manipulation of resident tits (Parus spp.): heterospecific attraction in northern breeding bird communities?Oecologia1990; 85: 218–225.
127.
MönkkönenMForsmanJTHelleP. Mixed-species foraging aggregations and heterospecific attraction in boreal bird communities. Oikos1996; 77: 127–136.
128.
ChiatanteG. Heterospecific social attraction in migrant birds: habitat niche overlap between two threatened shrikes. Wildl Res2019; 46: 25.
129.
WolffJOFreebergMHDueserRD. Interspecific territoriality in two sympatric species of Peromyscus (Rodentia: Cricetidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol1983; 12: 237–242.
130.
LangenTATripetFNonacsP. The red and the black: habituation and the dear-enemy phenomenon in two desert Pheidole ants. Behav Ecol Sociobiol2000; 48: 285–292.
131.
LehtonenTKMcCraryJKMeyerA. Territorial aggression can be sensitive to the status of heterospecific intruders. Behav Process2010; 84: 598–601.
132.
PowolnyTEraudCBretagnolleV. Group size modulates time budget and foraging efficiency in captive Skylarks, Alauda arvensis. J Ornithol2012; 153: 485–490.
133.
PowolnyTEraudCMassonJ-D, et al.Vegetation structure and inter-individual distance affect intake rate and foraging efficiency in a granivorous forager, the Eurasian Skylark Alauda arvensis. J Ornithol2015; 156: 569–578.
134.
GoodaleEKotagamaSW. Vocal mimicry by a passerine bird attracts other species involved in mixed-species flocks. Anim Behav2006; 72: 471–477.
135.
GoodaleEKotagamaSW. Context-dependent vocal mimicry in a passerine bird. Proc R Soc B2006; 273: 875–880.
136.
Van HorneB. Density as a misleading indicator of habitat quality. J Wildlife Manage1983; 47: 893–901.
137.
ChamberlainDEWilsonAMBrowneSJ, et al.Effects of habitat type and management on the abundance of skylarks in the breeding season. J Appl Ecol1999; 36: 856–870.
138.
JohnsonMD. Measuring habitat quality: a review. Condor2007; 109: 489–504.
139.
BrickleNWHarperDGCAebischerNJ, et al.Effects of agricultural intensification on the breeding success of corn buntings Miliaria calandra. J Appl Ecol2000; 37: 742–755.
140.
OttensHJKuiperMWFlinksH, et al.Do field margins enrich the diet of the Eurasian Skylark Alauda arvensis on intensive farmland?Ardea2014; 102: 161–171.
141.
WilsonJDEvansJBrowneSJ, et al.Territory distribution and breeding success of skylarks Alauda arvensis on organic and intensive farmland in southern England. J Appl Ecol1997; 34: 1462–1478.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
