Brown Hare (Lepus europaeus)

Similar documents
Financing hospital innovations in Germany

State of Berlin. Investor Presentation

Sustainable development in germany

Meeting- & EventBarometer Germany 2017/18. Study of the German conference and events market

2018 ADFC-Travelbike Bicycle Travel Analysis

SEMINAR PRECRIMBET - GERMANY

TRAFFIC CRASHES involving BICYCLISTS

Long-term Population Trends on Brown Hare in Intensively Used Agricultural Landscape, Lower Saxony, Northern Germany

Success and failure of a stakeholder based approach mitigating human-wild boar conflicts in rural areas in Bavaria (South East Germany)

IMPROVING POPULATION MANAGEMENT AND HARVEST QUOTAS OF MOOSE IN RUSSIA

021 Deer Management Unit

Annual Report on Actions Taken Under Implementation Plans. EU Germany

Dispersal of wolves and lynx and their perceived effects on roe deer in the hunting grounds of Lower Saxony, Northern Germany

PTV VISUM SAFETY SMART SAFETY AND TRAFFIC CONTROL FOR SMART CITIES

Monitoring Population Trends of White-tailed Deer in Minnesota Marrett Grund, Farmland Wildlife Populations and Research Group

Nebraska Births Report: A look at births, fertility rates, and natural change

Deer Management Unit 252

LEAPS BOUNDS. Growing up hunting as a kid in New Hampshire, I didn t. by Dan Bergeron

Tree impacts still one of the most important focal points of road deaths

Life history Food Distribution Management... 98

Deer Management Unit 152

DMU 005 Antrim County Deer Management Unit

Figure 39. Yearly Trend in Death Rates for Drowning: NSW, Year

DMU 006 Arenac County Deer Management Unit

Ikutaro Shimizu National Research Institute of Fisheries Science Fisheries Research Agency of Japan

DMU 065 Ogemaw County Deer Management Unit

By: Stephanie Ray and Sarah Phipps

DEER AND ELK POPULATION STATUS AND HARVEST STRUCTURE IN WESTERN NORTH AMERICA: A SUMMARY OF STATE AND PROVINCIAL STATUS SURVEYS.

Northwest Parkland-Prairie Deer Goal Setting Block G7 Landowner and Hunter Survey Results

Questionnaire. Virtually no stray problem. Ordinance referring to EU-guideline 2010/63/EU (Animal testing)

Enclosed, please find the 2018 Spotlight Deer Survey Report and Recommendations that we have prepared for your review and records.

5/DMU 069 Otsego County Deer Management Unit

WORLD. Geographic Trend Report for GMAT Examinees

DMU 053 Mason County Deer Management Unit

CONTENTS STOCK 2016/17

Status and Distribution of the Bobcat (Lynx rufus) in Illinois

Estimates of Historic Recreational Landings of Vermilion Snapper in the South Atlantic Using the FHWAR Census Method. Ken Brennan SEDAR 55-WP04

Briefing Paper #1. An Overview of Regional Demand and Mode Share

USING STABLE ISOTOPE ANALYSES TO ASSESS THE IMPACT OF HUNTING ON THE BREEDING POPULATION OF COMMON SNIPE IN DENMARK

DMU 024 Emmet County Deer Management Unit

Keywords: 7SI/Brown bear/harvest/harvest quota/hunting/malme/management/ mortality/population size/trend/ursus arctos

SPOTLIGHT DEER SURVEY YO RANCHLANDS LANDOWNERS ASSOCIATION ±10,400 ACRES KERR COUNTY

Council CNL(16)22. Annual Progress Report on Actions Taken Under the Implementation Plan for the Calendar Year EU - Germany

DMU 072 Roscommon County Deer Management Unit

Central Hills Prairie Deer Goal Setting Block G9 Landowner and Hunter Survey Results

TALENT DEVELOPMENT IN SPORT. Professor Dr. Joerg Schorer (GER) 08/11/2014

DMU 082 Wayne County Deer Management Unit

DMU 038 Jackson County

DEER HUNT RESULTS ON ALABAMA WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREAS ANNUAL REPORT, CHRISTOPHER W. COOK STUDY LEADER MAY, 2006

Science Skills Station

Kansas Deer Report Seasons

Spring 2012 Wild Turkey Harvest Report

White-Tailed Deer Management FAQ

DMU 056 Midland County Deer Management Unit

DMU 361 Fremont Deer Management Unit Newaygo, Oceana, N. Muskegon Counties

DMU 057 Missaukee County Deer Management Unit

January ' Benelux. June. May. July

Deer Management Unit 349

Seasonal Collection Autumn/Winter 2013/14 Gents

DMU 046 Lenawee County Deer Management Unit

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Feasibility Study on the Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to the Olympic Peninsula

Black Sea Bass Encounter

Student Population Projections By Residence. School Year 2016/2017 Report Projections 2017/ /27. Prepared by:

Capacity of transport infrastructure networks

DMU 045 Leelanau County Deer Management Unit

2017 LATE WINTER CLASSIFICATION OF NORTHERN YELLOWSTONE ELK

Map Showing NAFO Management Units

DMU 419 Clinton, Eaton, Ingham, Ionia, and Shiawassee Counties

Hunter and Angler Expenditures, Characteristics, and Economic Effects, North Dakota,

The bigger picture: supplementing established monitoring surveys with knowledge on habitat-specific occurrence of fish in the Wadden Sea

CURRENT DEMOGRAPHIC SITUATION IN LATVIA

MS Transportation Common Stop Placement Project

Compression Study: City, State. City Convention & Visitors Bureau. Prepared for

Deer Management Unit 249

2011 Origin-Destination Survey Bicycle Profile

Report of Raccoon Dog management in Finland for 2014

ALABAMA HUNTING SURVEY

2009 SMALL GAME HUNTER MAIL SURVEY

German Insurance Association No. 14. Compact accident research. Safety Analysis of Road Networks: Experience Aquired Using an Automated System

DMU 073 Saginaw County Deer Management Unit

170 points. 38 points In your textbook, read about modern oceanography. For each item write the word that meets the description.

Modeling Population Decline

A Hare-Lynx Simulation Model

Mobility management to promote walking for older people

Report of Raccoon Dog management in Finland for 2018

ASSESSMENT OF THE WEST COAST OF NEWFOUNDLAND (DIVISION 4R) HERRING STOCKS IN 2011

CHEETAH PROJECT Cheetah Conservation Fund. Interviewers name Date

Full summaries of all proposed rule changes, including DMU boundary descriptions, are included in the additional background material.

During the mid-to-late 1980s

DMU 332 Huron, Sanilac and Tuscola Counties Deer Management Unit

Survey Techniques For White-tailed Deer. Mickey Hellickson, PhD Orion Wildlife Management

SECTION 2 HYDROLOGY AND FLOW REGIMES

MEMORANDUM. Joan Dukes, NPCC. Michele DeHart. DATE: August 5, Data Request

Monitoring of forest game in Finland. Pekka Helle Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) Oulu

DIRECTION DEPENDENCY OF OFFSHORE TURBULENCE INTENSITY IN THE GERMAN BIGHT

The Economic Benefits of Hunting and Fishing Activities in Alberta in 2008

Job Performance Report, Project F-73-R-9 Subproject II: SALMON AND STEELHEAD INVESTIGATIONS Study I: Salmon Spawning Ground Surveys

Olav Spahl. I Det tyske SportssytemI

The World Cup of iracing Official Guidelines

Study on fatal accidents in Toyota city aimed at zero traffic fatality

Transcription:

Wildtier-Informationssystem der Länder Deutschlands Results 25

What is WILD? größter Stichprobenwert Mittelwert (Median) Die Box umfaßt 5 % der Werte kleinster Stichprobenwert Diagram to illustrate the graphical representation of the results The Wildtier-Informationssystem der Länder Deutschlands (WILD) is a nation-wide monitoring program, which collects frequency data and populations trend of free ranging animals. WILD is a project of the German Hunting Association (Deutschen Jagdschutz-Verbandes, in short DJV) started in 21 and a permanent element of the long-term environmental assessment effort. Development of conservation and sustainable utilization strategies of free ranging animals are the most important objectives. It will also serve as a base for further research and for decision making in German hunting and conservation policy. Data collection in WILD is separated in two parts: animal censuses in selected areas (reference areas) and populations estimates in as many as possible hunting districts all over Germany. Support from hunters to the project is voluntarily and a significant contribution to the conservation of wildlife. At the moment data is collected for Brown Hare, Red Fox, Badger, Carrion Crow and Partridge and includes the actual counting of the animals and recording of additional factors, that influence population density like landscape structure, land use and climate. Occurrence and partly abundance of 24 additional species were recorded for the first time in 26 (area assessment). Further extension and cooperation with other wildlife monitoring efforts in Germany is imminent. Results of the yearly census are published in the annual report, which can be found in the internet: www.jagdnetz.de. This brochure gives a summarized overview of the results from 25. Brown Hare (Lepus europaeus) Since 21 spring and fall population densities are collected consistently in whole country with spotlight censuses. More than 8 reference areas are already established and each year nearly 6 of them provide population estimates. Germany was divided into three large regions to represent the significant distinctions between these areas, which are reflected in different animal densities and population trends. All results are represented as means. Brown Hare Northwest Germany (consisting of the federal states of Schleswig Holstein, Lower Saxony, Bremen, Hamburg and North Rhine-Westphalia) has the highest population density in all years, with 23,9 hares/1 ha in spring 25. The densities in Central and South Germany (consisting of the federal states of Baden Wurttemberg, Bavaria, Hesse, Rhineland-Palatinate and Saarland) are significantly lower with 14,6 Hasen/1 ha. The lowest densities can be found in Eastern Germany (consisting of the federal states of Berlin, Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt and Thuringia) accumulating to only 5,4 hares/1 ha.

A second yearly census is carried out in fall, which revealed for Northwest Germany 28,5 Hasen/1 ha, for Central und South Germany 15.7 hares/1 ha and for East Germany 5, hares/1 ha in 25. 1 9 Dichte [Individuen/1 ha Taxationsfläche] 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 271 Nordw esten 28 188 158 176 18 Frühjahr Herbst Comparison of spring and fall brown hare population densities in 25 Spring population densities of brown hare in the reference areas in 25 1 Dichte [Individuen/1 ha Taxationsfläche] 9 During the period of 22 to 25 spring population densities of the brown hare 8 were rising from 11, to 14,5 hares/1 ha on the base of all participating refer- 7 ence areas. When separated into the three large regions, results were quite different. In Northwest Germany the densities was rising by 11 %, it stayed nearly the same in Central and South Germany and with a 17 % increase East 6 5 4 3 22 Germany had the highest growth during these years. In the very hot summer of 2 23 23 the countrywide population increase reached the largest level so far with 26,2 %. 1 19 23 264 28 157 22 195 158 19 25 186 18 Nordw esten 24 25 Development of brown hare population desities from 22 to 25

Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) The countrywide uniform assessment of the fox population was taking place for the third time within the WILD project. In 25 fox den density data was available from more than 35 reference areas. Average den density was,3 dens/1 ha, which corresponds to the density of the last years. Lowest den densities were reported from Northwest Germany. To calculate average litter densities, den densities are multiplied with a factor to Red Fox account for the sex ratio of the species. The resulting average minimum population was,8 fox/1 ha in spring and 2,3 fox/1 ha in summer, with a mean litter size of 5 animals. With the data from 25 it was possible to evaluate the population trend of red fox for the first time. Den densities of the red fox from 23 to 25 show only minor fluctuations with no clear trend visible. 1,6 Dichte [Gehecke/1 ha] 1,4 1,2 1,,8,6,4,2, 155 84 128 Nordwesten Comparison of red fox den densities between the three geographical regions of Germany in 25 2, 1,8 Dichte [Gehecke/1 ha] 1,6 1,4 1,2 1,,8,6,4,2, 37 23 295 24 368 25 Den density of the red fox in the reference areas in 25 Development of red fox den densities in all hunting areas from 23 to 25

Badger (Meles meles) Collecting of badger population data is done in connection with the den density census of the red fox in the same reference areas. Badger dens are found throughout Germany with the exception of some parts of North Rhine- Westphalia, Lower Saxony and Schleswig Holstein. Average den density in all hunting areas in 25 was,1 dens/1 ha. Northwest Germany has considerably lower den densities in comparison to both other regions and the badger is only present in 6 % of the regions hunting areas. In contrast 8 % of the hunting areas in East respectively Central and South Germany have badger occurrence. Minimum spring density was determined with,2 badger/1 ha and minimum summer density with,3 badger/1 ha nationwide. Actual litter size in 25 was 3 litter/den, which corresponds to the data from previous years. Population densities during 23 and 25 indicate a insignificant decline in all participating hunting areas. Badger 1,2 Dichte [Gehecke/1 ha] 1,,8,6,4,2, 156 Nordw esten 84 128 Comparison of badger den densities between the three geographical regions of Germany in 25 Dichte [Gehecke/1 ha] 1,,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1, 147 78 8 84 85 145 156 13 128 Nordw esten 23 24 25 Den densities of the badger in the reference areas in 25 Development of badger den densities in the three geographical regions of Germany from 23 to 25

Carrion and Hooded Crow (Corvus corone) Carrion and Hooded Crow are both registered within the WILD project since 23. In 25 accounts from more than 35 reference areas are analyzed. Minimum mean pair density is 1 pair/1 ha across the country, with 7 % breeding pairs. Pair densities in Northwest Germany are 1,9 pair/1 ha and thus higher than in East respectively Central and South Germany. The proportion of the hunting areas with no crow pairs at all is 14 % and the majority of these is situated in the east German states. Carrion Crow Pair densities from 22 to 25 remained nearly constant, however East Germany showed a small increase, whereas Central and South Germany displayed a small decrease. 8 Dichte [Paare/1ha] 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 153 63 127 Nordwesten Comparison of carrion and hooded crow densities in the three geographical regions of Germany in 25 7 Dichte [Paare/1ha] 6 5 4 3 2 23 1 24 25 143 98 153 91 12 63 135 14 Nordwesten 127 Pair density of hooded and carrion crow in the reference areas in 25 Development of carrion and hooded crow pair densities in the three geographical regions of Germany from 23 to 25

Partridge (Perdix perdix) Nation-wide assessments of partridge densities are carried out since spring 22. Population densities varies highly on the regional level. Similar to the situation in brown hares, the east German states have a considerably lower partridge density than the west German states. It is even absent in more than half of the communities, where pair density was evaluated. The distribution hot-spots of partridge are characterized by atlantic climate (mild winter) and regions with warm and dry climate (vineyard areas). Here the pair density minimum average is 1-2 pair/1 ha and in some communities even 7 pair/1 ha were recorded. Partridge Pair densities over the last four years remained stable in those federal states, which provided state-wide assessments since 22. 7 Dichte [Paare/1 ha Offenlandfläche] 6 5 4 3 2 1 426 168 19 Niedersachsen Hessen Nordrhein-Westfalen 42 565 951 946 Mecklenb.-Vorpommern Thüringen Saarland Sachsen-Anhalt Comparison of partridge pair densities between different federal states of Germany in 25 Population density of partridge from 22-25

Example of land use mapping in a hunting district in the federal state of Rhineland-Palatinate Bundesland Länderbetreuer e-mail Telefon Baden-Württemberg Dr. M. Pegel manfred.pegel@lvvg.bwl.de 7525 / 942341 Bayern Dr. D. van der Sant dirk.vandersant@jagd-bayern.de 89 / 99234-23 Berlin Dr. H. Nösel heike.noesel@lfe-e.brandenburg.de 3334 / 65-125 Brandenburg G. Greiser grit.greiser@lfe-e.brandenburg.de 3334 / 65-126 Bremen H. Tempelmann tempelmann@t-online.de 428 / 2592849 Hamburg M. Willen mwi@ljv-hamburg.de 4 / 447712 Hessen R. Becker rolfw.becker@ljv-hessen.de 632 / 936116 Mecklenburg-Vorpommern R. Pirzkall info@ljv-mecklenburg-vorpommern.de 3871 / 631216 Niedersachsen Dr. E. Strauß egbert.strauss@tiho-hannover.de 511 / 856-762 Nordrhein-Westfalen Dr. H. Schlepper hschlepper@ljv-nrw.org 231 / 28686 Rheinland-Pfalz F. Voigtländer f.voigtlaender@ljv-rlp.de 6727 / 8944-19 Saarland J. Schorr saarjaeger@t-online.de 681 / 317 Sachsen F. Ende ljv-sachsen@t-online.de 351 / 417171 Sachsen-Anhalt O. Thärig ljv.sachsen-anhalt@t-online.de 3925 / 41757 Schleswig-Holstein Dr. D. Hoffmann daniel.hoffmann@bnl-petryhoffmann.de 4347 / 71729 Thüringen Dr. H. Nösel heike.noesel@lfe-e.brandenburg.de 3334 / 65-125