The harvest mouse (Micromys minutus Pallas, 1771) as prey: a literature review.
Key words: rodent, predation, habitat, winter
The harvest mouse is a tiny and elusive mammal, widespread in the Palaearctic and Indomalayan regions, from Spain and Great Britain to Japanese islands (Wilson & Reeder 2005). Whereas IUCN has assigned the status "least concern" to this species (Aplin et al. 2008), the harvest mouse has the growing attention of scientists and naturalists in some countries like Switzerland and Great Britain where its populations have declined during recent decades (Harris et al. 1995, Perrow & Jowitt 1995, Blant et al. 2012). Recently, several programs of biological conservation survey and species management have been planned in these countries in order to restore the populations of harvest mouse (Macdonald et al. 2001, Kean 2006). Among important parameters in such restoration projects, the risk of predation needs to be assessed to assure the viability of reintroduced individuals. A lot of scientific articles have been published since the beginning of the 2000s which specify feeding habits of avian raptors and carnivores, particularly in central Europe, and which allow assessment of the importance of the harvest mouse as prey. Moreover, a large dataset of harvest mouse predation by raptors and mammals in France offers new information about the efficiency of each group of predators. It was thus interesting to re-assess the role of this little known species, almost forty years after Trout's report (1978) which is still the only review.
Material and Methods
A search was conducted to find references addressing topics related to predation of the harvest mouse in Europe. Firstly with Google Scholar and then three main electronic databases that cover international literature in environmental science: Web of Science, ScienceDirect and SpringerLink. Additionally, an internet search was conducted to find grey literature (i.e. literature that has not been published in peer-reviewed journals). The terms used for each search are "micromys" added to "diet" or "feed" or "foraging", and "diet" added to the predator's name. Secondly, the literature mentioned in these articles was screened to identify new references. Then searches were made of some references in books at the library of the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle (Paris). It should be noted that a great proportion of pellets and scats surveys are made by naturalist societies which often publish in regional revues that are not easy to find. The search strategy did not have any language restriction but only papers published in English, French, Spanish, Italian and German could be used; others were only used when they contained a detailed abstract in English.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Studies were selected that met the two following criteria: (1) provided results from empirical research, (2) only quantitative results (total number of prey with number of specimens for each prey species or percentage of each prey). For each study site, the harvest mice frequency is calculated with the total number of mammals preyed, which is not necessarily the same as the total amount of prey, especially for primarily insectivorous birds of prey.
The small mammal inventory that was conducted in the Champagne-Ardenne region (France) by the Ligue pour la Protection des Oiseaux (LPO) since 1970s provided 671067 prey items of 24 micromammal species, from several predators. This huge dataset has been generously made available by the LPO to the author in order to analyse specifically the harvest mouse contribution.
The harvest mouse, a prey item for numerous avian raptors
In the whole of Europe, avian predators for harvest mouse include owls, harriers, falcons, buzzards, eagles, kites, shrikes, corvids, herons and even pheasants (Table 1); unfortunately, quantitative data are not available for each of these species. When it is present in their diet, the harvest mouse is always in low frequency and therefore surveys of avian raptor diet often do not quote Micromys as an item. Moreover, due to its low frequency in avian diet and to its small weight (6-8 g), harvest mouse usually represents a low biomass compared to other more frequent rodents like common vole (Microtus arvalis), bank vole (Myodes glareolus), field vole (Microtus agrestis) or wood mouse (Apodemus sylvaticus). Even when harvest mouse is an important prey by number, it never exceeds 10 % of the total biomass ingested by owls (Table 1). Caloric value of harvest mouse, equal to 23.78 kJ/g of dry weight, is rather high compared to other micromammals: 23.48 kJ/g for common vole, 21.68 kJ/g for wood mouse and 22.73 kJ/g for shrews (Soricidae) (Wijnandts 1984). However, according to this author, avian raptors seem to metabolize this energy with less efficiency than for other prey. For example, with long-eared owl, several tests tend to reveal that metabolizable energy coefficient, i.e. (kJ food intake--kJ rejecta)/kJ food intake, is the lowest for Micromys (0.61) compared to common vole (0.68), wood mouse (0.79) and shrews (0.62). Moreover, the weight percentage rejected in the pellets is high for the harvest mouse (25.4 %). As the compiling study is based on data gained with different methods from different people, their respective quality is not possible to judge. Due to the very delicate bones of Micromys minutus, the portion of it in analyses maybe slightly underestimated in many studies except when these are based on crop or stomach analyses.
In the quoted literature, four raptors are the major predators of harvest mouse (Table 1): the barn owl (Tyto alba), the long-eared owl (Asio otus), the tawny owl (Strix aluco) and to a lesser extent the little owl (Athene noctua). Of 15209 specimens of harvest mice found in samples of the regurgitated pellets, 90 % were preyed upon by these owls and the barn owl is responsible for 64 % of the total. It seems that most of prey individuals are young animals: in a Great Britain survey, 74 % of the males were pubertal or prepubertal animals and 92 % of the females were low or nonparous specimens (Buckley 1977). These owls hunt out in the open but long-eared owls and tawny owls also hunt under tree canopies. Small mammals constitute their main food, with M. arvalis as the most important prey species and M. minutus as an occasional prey, rarely exceeding 5 % of the food intake. Nevertheless, it can constitute more than 20 % and exceptionally 42 % of the diet in particular conditions, related to the type of habitat where birds forage and to season. These owls can also breed in various urban environments, including suburban forests, cemeteries, city parks, roadsides and abandoned buildings (Petrovici et al. 2013) where the harvest mouse represents sometimes a prey as abundant as in the countryside (Table 2). The little owl (A. noctua) usually lives in open landscapes such as mixed farmland (bocage) and parks, but it is a fact that the number of individuals has declined in these appropriate habitats across Europe, due to new agricultural practices. Pocora et al. (2012) assume that marshes could offer new suitable hunting habitats for this owl, according to the huge percentage of harvest mouse hunted by the little owl in the Danube Delta, equal to 42 % of total mammal prey. Although mammals usually represent a small portion of its diet, the frequency of harvest mice is also very high in other wetlands such as rice fields and water meadows in the Sesia Natural Park (north Italy), reaching 24.8 % (Gotta & Pigozzi 1997) and 13 % (Bon et al. 2001) of total mammals preyed, or in the reedbeds and marshes of the Axios Delta (Greece), with 17.9 % (Alivizatos et al. 2005) and to a lesser extent in the Rhine alluvial marshes near Rheinberg (Germany), with 6.2 % (Schmitt & Hofer 2011).
The other owls are casual hunters of harvest mice, since the total number of individuals preyed on by all of them represents less than 6 % of the total Micromys items hunted, as quoted in literature. Among these raptors, there is the Eurasian eagle owl (Bubo bubo), the largest owl predator in Europe which mainly feeds on mammals weighing more than 200 g. In Finland, it has been shown that a high number of harvest mice in its diet may be an indication of food shortage or even starvation, when small prey specimens may be hunted as a last resort (Mikkola & Tornberg 2014). Thus, in 1990 and 2001 which were poor vole years, two eagle owls having nine harvest mice in their stomachs were discovered near the sea shore, where harvest mice live in the reed beds. Other owls live and hunt mostly in the forest: the pygmy owl (Glaucidium passerinum), the Tengmalm's owl (Aegolius funereus), the Ural owl (Strix uralensis), the great gray owl (Strix nebulosa) and the hawk owl (Sturnia ulula). Logically, as woody habitat is unsuitable for the harvest mouse, they constitute scarce prey for these owls with low percentages of prey (Table 2). For example, in Central Europe, in Slovakia (Choc Mts., Nizke Tatry Mts. and Oravska Mts.) and in the Czech Republic (Sumava Mountains), the harvest mouse is exceptionally hunted by pygmy owl (Mikusek et al. 2001, Obuch & Karaska 2010). In the same way, it is a rare prey for the hawk owl in Finland (Mikkola 1972) and the great gray owl in Belarus (Tishechkin 1997) which feed mainly on forest voles (Myodes sp.). However, in particular conditions, this proportion may considerably increase, reaching 11.8 % for a female Ural owl which was wintering in a small wood surrounded with wide grasslands, marshes and fields on Ljubljansko barje, in central Slovenia (Vrezec 2001). It is a fact that winter seems to make harvest mice more vulnerable to avian raptors. In Finland, the pygmy owl hoards prey in winter and it has been shown that the proportion of small mammals in the hoarded prey decreases dramatically after snow fall, except for the harvest mouse (Halonen et al. 2007). The reason is that it feeds and moves above the snow cover and therefore becomes more vulnerable to predation than voles and shrews, which move below the snow cover (Halonen et al. 2007). As for the scops owl (Otus scops) which is mainly insectivorous, it can surprisingly feed heavily on harvest mouse such as on Oleron Island (France), where five mice were brought back to the nest in 58 minutes; these serial catches may reveal the exploitation of a dense population of harvest mouse (Bavoux et al. 2003).
Low proportion of harvest mouse in the diet of some raptors is more surprising, particularly for birds hunting in suitable habitats for Micromys, such as harriers and short-eared owl (Asio flammeus). In reality, the low number of surveys of their feeding habits does not allow any reliable assessment. Among harriers, the hen harrier (Circus cyaneus) is known for breeding mainly in reedbeds. Some surveys do not mention any Micromys in its diet (Marquiss 1980, Roulin 1996, Millon et al. 2002) but one tends to show that it is a significant resource for hen harrier in the Netherlands, for 13.2 % of its diet (Schipper 1973): when voles become too scarce, the hen harrier turns to prey upon birds and harvest mouse. According to the few articles found, it is difficult to determine the importance of harvest mice in Montagu's harrier (Circus pygargus) and marsh harrier (C. aeruginosus) feeding. Some authors do not quote any Micromys in the diet of the marsh harrier (Underhill-Day 1985, Witrowski 1989). Nevertheless, the dataset from LPO Champagne-Ardenne (France) points out that Montagu's harrier is able to significantly hunt for harvest mouse, since the proportion of Micromys in its diet reaches 3.5 % in this region. We could also highlight the lesser spotted eagle (Aquila pomarina) and the greater spotted eagle (Aquila clanga) which live closed to wetlands and which are known to hunt small mammals: the harvest mouse seems again to represent a small part of their diet (Meyburg 1970, Dombrovski 2010, Zub et al. 2010). Unexpected data come from Thrace region (Turkey), where the imperial eagle (Aquila heliaca) preys on Micromys in low numbers, its main prey usually being much larger (Demerdzhiev et al. 2014). Surprisingly, very few feeding-habit surveys were found about common generalist raptors like crows (Holyoak 1968), common buzzard (Buteo buteo) (Jedrzejewski et al. 1994, Graham et al. 1995, Selas et al. 2007) and kites (Sergio & Boto 1999). Although no quote of harvest mouse was found in the diet of these birds, the dataset from LPO Champagne-Ardenne (France) shows that harvest mice are part of the common buzzard and the red kite (Milvus milvus) diet, in respective proportions of 1.8 % and 2.2 % of the total prey. Moreover, Sleptsov (1947) points out that crows and also magpies (Pica pica) can heavily hunt for harvest mice in winter: the stomach contents of 15 magpies and 46 crows caught in Russia contained 24 and 88 Micromys remains, respectively. As for the kestrel (Falco tinnunculus), it feeds mainly on common vole but the harvest mouse is also a frequent prey, even in suburban areas (Zmihorski & Rejt 2007, Keckesova & Noga 2008).
The great grey shrike (Lanius excubitor) is not a bird of prey but it has similar behaviour and feeding habits. This shrike feeds predominantly on orthopterans and beetles in southern Europe, where the abundance of invertebrates is high, but it also captures mammals and birds in northern and central Europe. Even if the main prey items are voles, shrikes often hunt for shrews and harvest mice. These seem to be small enough to be easily killed, and may become the main mammalian alternative prey if Microtus voles become scarce (Brzezinski et al. 2010). In south-west Finland, harvest mice are the most numerous prey items of shrikes in midwinter, when snow cover is thick, whereas the larger Microtus voles dominate in autumn and late winter. In December and January, harvest mouse can reach more than 50 % of all vertebrate prey of the great grey shrike when Microtus voles decrease to less than 20 % (Karlsson 2007). In the Champagne-Ardenne region, a great grey shrike has been seen impaling a harvest mouse upon a broken willow stalk. Moreover, three species of shrikes (Lanius collurio, L. excubitor, L. sphenocercus) have been reported to hunt for Micromys in Russia and Germany (Sleptsov 1947).
In spite of their attraction to wetlands and marshes, herons have provided very few data of predation upon harvest mouse. They are known to be predominantly fish and amphibian eaters, but small mammals are a part of their diet too. The only reference concerns the night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) in the River Po region (Italy) which consumes an important proportion of harvest mice among a small number of mammals ingested: 4 Micromys for a total of 16 mammals (Fasola et al. 1981). Conversely, Jakubas & Mioduszewska (2005) found no remnants of harvest mouse in 1194 pellets of grey heron (Ardea cinerea) in large wetlands of northern Poland. No data was found about the Eurasian bittern (Botaurus stellaris) which yet shows a strong preference for reedbeds where the harvest mouse also lives. As for the common pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), it is able to eat young harvest mice, as observed by Sleptsov (1947) in cereal crops during autumn. Nowadays, in Europe, pheasants are widespread and common in the countryside due to frequent releases for hunting game (Hume 2014), and it may become a new predator for harvest mice in suitable habitats like marshy, reedy places and hedgerows.
A prey item for mammals
Surveys of diet for European carnivores are much scarcer than for avian raptors. These latter present the advantage of regurgitating pellets easy to find and to study, whereas for mammals it is necessary to examine scats, stomachs and guts. Nevertheless, this review yields some literature that reveals a great variety of mammal predators, mainly wild ones like red fox (Vulpes vulpes), stone marten (Martes foina), polecat (Mustela putorius), feral mink (Mustela vison), pine marten (Martes martes), wild cat (Felis sylvestris) and even golden jackal (Canis aureus). Sleptsov (1947) and Teagle (1964) also mention weasel (Mustela nivalis) as a serious predator of harvest mice. Furthermore, two domestic mammals are able to hunt for harvest mice: the domestic cat and the dog. All these wild species are likely to live in suitable habitat for Micromys but this represents a low proportion of their diet (Table 3). The only exception quoted in literature concerns the polecat for which the harvest mouse can reach 12.9 % of total mammals consumed in summer. Many authors regard the polecat as a generalist feeder (Blandford 1987, Hanski et al. 1991, Prigioni & De Marinis 1995), as an amphibian specialist (Jedrzejewski et al. 1989, Weber 1989, Jedrzejewski et al. 1993, Lode 1996) or even a lagomorph specialist (Blandford 1987, Lode 1997). In fact, its diet composition is strongly affected by habitat and in wetlands polecats principally feed on rodents and anurans (Lode 1996, Malecha & Antczak 2013). Moreover, no effect of winter was found for polecat and stone marten as for avian raptors; the share of Micromys is even higher in summer in their scats (Baghli & Engel 2002, Baghli et al. 2005).
Predation upon harvest mouse is not clear concerning two others mustelids known to live in wetlands. In Poland, no Micromys were found in annual diet of otter (Lutra lutra) and feral mink in river valleys of Bialowieza, although simultaneous live trapping revealed that it lives there with significant populations, up to 11 % of community of micromammals (Jedrzejewska et al. 2001). In the Mazurian and Brodnica lakelands (Poland), in spring, remnants of harvest mouse occur in 0.9 % of mink scats (Brzezinski & Zurowski 1992). In Devon (Great Britain), Wise et al. (1981) showed that mammals comprised only 1.2 % of the diet of otters and 29.5 % of that of mink, but harvest mouse was found only in scats of mink on rare occasions. Conversely, in the Slonsk Reserve (West Poland), in autumn-winter, only the harvest mouse occurs in mink scats with high frequency (10 %), which nevertheless makes less than 2 % of the biomass consumed (Bartoszewicz & Zalewski 2003). Red fox is a generalist predator which mainly preys on voles in western and northern Europe (Dell'Arte et al. 2007); harvest mouse never heavily occurs in its scats. No quantitative data were found in literature about harvest mice consumption by stoat (Mustela erminea) and pine marten. Nevertheless, some authors report that in Poland, pine marten occasionally feeds on Micromys in the Turew region (Goszczvnski 1976) and in Bialowieza Forest (Zalewski 2007), whereas LPO dataset in Champagne-Ardenne region (France) reveals a significant share of harvest mouse in the diet of this mustelid (2.5 % of total prey). In western Finland, stoat (and also weasel) mainly feed on Microtus vole, but this mustelid is able to shift to alternative prey such as harvest mouse, house mouse (Mus musculus), bank vole (Myodes glareolus) and water vole (Arvicola terrestris) (Korpimaki et al. 1991). Others authors showed that Micromys mice may serve as alternative prey to many predators of rodents when abundant enough (Hanski & Henttonen 1996, Pekkarinen & Heikkila 1997).
As for the golden jackal, its distribution overlaps that of the harvest mouse in south-eastern Europe. It lives in semi-arid areas but also in shrublands, marshlands and cultivated areas. Its variable diet, resulting from opportunistic feeding habits leads the golden jackal to feed partially on Micromys in Hungary and Greece (Lanski et al. 2010).
Due to their abundance in many ecosystems, domestic and feral cats are major predators of wildlife. In Great Britain, Woods et al. (2003) demonstrated that mammals make up 69 % of the 14370 prey items brought home by 986 cats; among them, the harvest mouse represents 1.8 % of the prey. It is conceivable that predation by superabundant and well-fed predators such as domestic cats could lead to the decline of species, if only on a local or temporary basis. Thus, Baker et al. (2003) recorded a negative relationship between numbers of wood mice and the numbers of cats visiting suburban gardens. In an anecdotal way, it has been reported that hunting dogs can eat some harvest mice when they find an occupied nest during their search for game (Darinot F., pers. observ.).
And what about other vertebrate predators?
Snakes are real predators of Micromys and particularly for nestlings. In Great Britain, Prestt (1971) showed that 91 % of the prey of adult adders (Vipera berus) were mammals, including wood mice (A. sylvaticus), harvest mice, common shrews (Sorex araneus), pygmy shrews (Sorex minutus), water shrews (Neomys fodiens), and field voles (M. agrestis). In Japan, it has been shown that snakes directly attack the nests of harvest mice and consume the young mice in the nests (Hata 2011). In Lavours marsh (France), both grass-snake (Natrix natrix) and green whip snake (Hierophis viridiflavus) were found in trap boxes set on stacks at 60 cm above ground level, that were used for Micromys surveys in reedbeds: no doubt nestlings may offer a good feeding resource for these species (Darinot F., pers. observ.).
Comparison of mammal and avian predation
It seems that carnivores are more efficient than birds of prey for hunting harvest mouse. Indeed, in the Champagne-Ardenne region (France), remnants of Micromys represent 2.2 % of total mammal prey in faeces and stomachs of foxes, wild cats, pine martens and stone martens (of 13663 prey items), versus 1.2 % in pellets and crops of ten diurnal and nocturnal raptors (of 626340 prey items). In order to eliminate small samples that favour over-valuated frequencies of harvest mouse items, only faeces/stomach and pellet studies with total number of mammal prey higher than median value have been conserved (respectively equal to 337 and 43 prey items). The difference between these two percentages is significant (Mann-Whitney test for two unequal sample variance, z = 5.998 for p < 0.001) which means that faeces and stomachs contain more harvest mouse remnants than pellets and crops. Why are carnivores more efficient in foraging for harvest mouse? Trout (1978) assumes that the affinity of the mouse for dense cover vegetation reduces its availability for avian raptors. Conversely, carnivores that forage amongst tall vegetation may be more likely to encounter harvest mice.
Critical view of data sets
Available data on Micromys prey items in the diet of raptors should be analysed regarding the size of pellet samples for each species of raptor, i.e. relative to the sampling effort. Numbers of pellets are often unspecified in studies or they are submitted aggregated in the form of sets, which is not useful to determine a sampling effort. However, total number of prey is generally provided and this gives a good estimation of the sampling value. Thus, we assume that median percentage of harvest mouse in the diet of barn owl, tawny owl, long-eared owl, eagle owl, common buzzard, Tengmalm's owl, little owl and kestrel is probably reliable due to the high number of total prey for each species (Table 1). Conversely, we should question the low proportion of harvest mice in the diet of avian raptors hunting in suitable habitats such as harriers and short-eared owl, due to the weakness of the prey sample: consequently, new surveys should be conducted to specify their feeding habits with a distinctive effort in wetlands. Secondly, the range of sampling area should be considered for analysing the proportion of harvest mouse in the diet of raptors. Large sampling areas, such as on a regional scale, lead to a smoothing of the average frequency of Micromys in predator diet because of a greater diversity of habitats, more or less suitable for the harvest mouse. For example, the average percentage of Micromys in the diet of barn owl equals to 1.4 % in the Rhone-Alpes region (France) for 55515 mammal prey on 43698 k[m.sup.2] (Rolland 2011), into which it reaches 3 % in the Dombes plain, for 7183 mammal prey in a 1000 k[m.sup.2] rich wetlands area (Aulagnier et al. 1980), into which it peaks at 24.2 % at Birieux, a small village surrounded by large ponds and reedbeds, for 434 mammal prey (Aulagnier et al. 1980). This remark particularly applies to some local surveys, for which the huge proportions of harvest mouse should be interpreted as a response of the mouse to a very suitable habitat. It is the case in the Danube Delta, where Micromys represents 42 % of mammal prey in the diet of little owl, with a survey that relies on a single site, the Letea village (Pocora et al. 2012). It also concerns the surveys conducted on Oleron island with 29 % of the diet of the Eurasian scops owl (Bavoux et al. 2003), in the Sesia Natural Park with 23.3 % of the diet of little owl (Gotta & Pigozzi 1997) and in the Monticchie Nature Reserve with 22.1 % of the diet of long-eared owl (Canova 1989). A lesser consideration should be devoted to bias due to annual fluctuations of harvest mouse population. Important density fluctuations have been observed in Russia (Sleptsov 1947) and in western Europe (Piechocki 1958, Migula et al. 1970, Trout 1978). In Britain, Trout (1978) has shown that annual densities may vary from 17 to 233 individuals/ha. Whereas these surveys were conducted with nests count or trapping, new results are given by owl pellets in the Champagne-Ardenne region (France), thanks to the Ligue pour la Protection des Oiseaux (LPO) (unpublished). This survey was conducted over 23 years between 1975 and 2003 in the village of Outines (Marne department) and yielded 565 Micromys items for 11690 mammal preyed by barn owl. In this single village, fluctuation of the percentage of harvest mouse in the diet of barn owl is significant over three decades (Fig. 1), ranging from 0.5 % to 22.7 %. Consequently, it is obvious that surveys of avian raptors diet habits, conducted in a restricted area, should rely on multiannual sampling or on an important amount of pellets which may correspond to several years of bird foraging.
Availability of prey
The proportion of remains of different mammal prey in pellets reflects their availability for raptors, which is linked with their population density in the birds' foraging areas and with their exposure to predation. This European review has shown that there is no specialised predator on harvest mouse, and moreover, that this species is almost always an occasional prey item. However, when main prey become scarce, i.e. their availability decreases, raptors are forced to hunt other prey such as the harvest mouse if present. Several authors describe this behaviour when the main mammal population density falls, due to interannual fluctuations (Schipper 1973, Kafkaletou-Diez et al. 2008, Brzezinski et al. 2010, Mikkola & Tornberg 2014). A less exposure to predation may be due to snow cover that hides small mammals and conversely, several surveys point out the influence of snow cover on the availability of harvest mice for raptors. In Finland, it was shown that Arvicolinae move rather under the snow cover, which makes them more difficult to hunt in case of the cover's larger thickness, whereas Murinae are being found rather above the snow, which usually makes them easier to hunt (Halonen et al. 2007). This was found also in Romania, where Benedek & Sirbu (2010) showed that the share of common vole (M. arvalis), which is the main prey of the long-eared owl, decreases in January whereas harvest mouse becomes the dominant prey: although voles are also active during the cold season, they more frequently move under the snow, while mice prefer moving on the snow surface. In Italy, Canova (1989) also demonstrated that the proportion of harvest mice in the diet of long-eared owls increases with snow cover, from 4.5 % with no cover, to 9.4 % with less than 15 cm of snow and 22.1 % with more than 15 cm of snow. Moreover, in the riparian biotopes, large areas of ground remain free from snow and hygrophilous mammals like harvest mouse may become more available (Canova 1989). However, Stasiak et al. (2014) did not observe such an influence of snow cover in the Lublin region (Poland). Exposure to predators may be linked to the density of vegetation cover. During winter, harvest mice are more prone to owl predation, when vegetation cover is not so dense and the species needs to forage also during the night (Kopij et al. 2012). In some articles, seasonality is mentioned as an important aspect, without precise explanation of impacts on harvest mouse behaviour and vulnerability to raptors. Thus in Great Britain, the percentage of harvest mice in the barn owls' prey rises in the autumn and goes down in the spring: during the months of September to March this species forms more than 4 % of the prey, and after March falls steadily to a low of 1.2 % in late July/early August, rising again to over 4 % in September (Buckley 1977). The influence of winter can also be observed with the great grey shrike in Poland, for which the percentage of Micromys in its diet varies from 1.6 % in autumn to 4 % in winter and 0.6 % in spring (Brzezinski et al. 2010). Such increase of hunting on harvest mouse in winter is also recorded for the little owl in central Poland (Romanovski et al. 2013). In a farmland landscape in Italy, Rubolini et al. (2003) have assessed weather variables (mean monthly rainfall and temperatures) on the variation of individual prey categories of long-eared owls. These weather variables have no or limited effects on mammal prey. The only prey whose prevalence in diet was consistently affected by temperature was the harvest mouse: it may reflect a higher availability of this prey with lower temperatures, when a fraction of the population may be forced to leave cultivated fields by habitat deterioration toward less suitable habitats but preferred by owls for hunting. More precisely, Romanowski & Zmihorski (2009) showed that the share of harvest mouse in the tawny owl diet increases in cold season vs. warm season in higher proportion in farmland than in forest (13.1 % vs. 0.6 % in farmland and 2.3 % vs. 1.2 % in forest). However, as for carnivores and specially the red fox, no increase of proportion of murids (M. minutus and Rattus norvegicus) in their winter diet has been shown in Finland (Dell'Arte et al. 2007).
Moreover, few reviews are interested in the influence of perturbations on small mammal predation. Among them, floodings are important natural perturbations for the harvest mouse that lives in wetlands. It has been shown that some individuals of Micromys find refuge on trees, willows and upper parts of reeds when flood arises (Darinot & Favier 2014) and indubitably this behaviour should enhance their exposure to avian raptors. Other perturbations are anthropogenic such as meadow-mowing and crop harvesting, which may lead to an increase of hunting of harvest mice by birds of prey as well as mammal predators, because of the destruction of vegetation cover.
Information about harvest mouse habitats
The harvest mouse is known to live in a wide variety of habitats (Harris 1979) from disturbed habitats with early vegetal succession, cultivated areas, urban environments, to marshes and wetlands. However, widespread changes in agricultural practice during recent decades have removed large areas of suitable habitat in which harvest mice appeared to be abundant (Harris et al. 1995). Nowadays, in several regions of Great Britain such as Suffolk and Norfolk, it is assumed that only wetland habitats harbour stable core populations of harvest mouse in lowland arable landscapes (Perrow & Jowitt 1995, Meek 2011). These wetland populations may have prevented the loss of the species from many intensive agricultural areas. The proportion of Micromys prey in the diet of avian raptors tends to confirm the preference of this species for wetlands. In northern Europe, in these habitats, the lowest quoted proportion (Table 2) is 9.7 % in the Weserinsel Strohauser Plate (Germany) while Uttendorfer (1952) had already found 12 % of Micromys remnants in long-eared owl pellets in the Sylt island (northern Germany). In the Netherlands, De Bruijn (1994) also found that the harvest mouse had a preference for river habitats in a farmland landscape, whereas Deuzeman et al. (2015) showed that Micromys represents 60 % of the mammals preyed by the great grey shrike in the Engbertsdijksvenen nature reserve peat bog (over 2314 pellets). For owls, the proportion can reach 42 % in the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve (Romania), 24.8 % in rice fields and water meadows in the Sesia Natural Park (Italy), 22.1 % in wetlands of the Monticchie Nature Reserve, near the River Po (Italy), 17.9 % in the marshes of the Axios Delta (Greece). However, these figures could also result from the progression towards the south-east of the European range of the harvest mouse, where it is known to disappear from the less humid farmlands and is only found in moist primary biotopes (Bohme 1978). As regards the diet of barn owl, significant correlations have been established between the percentage cover of the wetlands in the hunting territory and the share of harvest mouse in the diet, as for other wet-loving species such as Miller's water shrew (Neomys anomalus) and water vole (Arvicola terrestris) (Milchev et al. 2006). Thus, the proportion of harvest mouse in the diet of barn owl is more important in valleys of large rivers with wetlands and along some water canals, with extensive grasslands (Stasiak et al. 2014). Similar results are found in other wetlands such as the Novosibirsk oblast and Lake Malye Chany (south-west Siberia), where the harvest mouse is an important prey for long-eared owl since it represents 7.6 % of the total number of vertebrate prey (Dupal & Chernyshow 2013).
The fact that current harvest mouse populations are lower in farmland than in wetlands is supported by our review: in agricultural landscape, the species is much less abundant in the diet of avian raptors than in wetlands, with percentage ranging from 0.1 % to 8.8 %. Although the decline of harvest mouse in agricultural areas is widely accepted, published data on former population densities in either farmland and wetland biotopes are lacking, as previously noted by Judes (1981). My review does not uncover new information on the trend of the harvest mouse, in spite of the huge amount of data on raptor diet, also collected by earlier authors, like Uttendorfer (1929, 1952). Nevertheless, the increasing rarity of the harvest mouse is now accepted and is known to have mixed causes linked to changes in agricultural practices. In crop habitat, mechanical harvesters that appeared in the middle of the twentieth century, cut down the nests woven in the stalks and kill the harvest mice in the field, whereas in earlier times grain crops were manually scythed and the mice could escape to the margins of the field: in 1874, Gordon who was the vicar of the Harting parish, related that in west Sussex (Great Britain) "the harvest mouse...is not at all uncommon in our cornfields in the summer months, and our corn ricks in winter" (Gordon 1877). Nowadays, it has been shown that even arable field margins and rough grassland support very small numbers of harvest mice because of grass cutting practices and crop chemical use (Meek 2011). However, management of the margins to improve connectivity within a farm can increase the size of harvest mouse populations, especially when fields are surrounded by wet habitats (Judes 1981).
Unsurprisingly, this European survey reveals that the harvest mouse seems to be rarely attracted to woodlands, since this type of habitat is linked with the lowest proportions of Micromys in the diet of the four main raptor owls (Table 2). However, it is known that woodland borders and young plantations can provide to some extent suitable habitats for the species (Harris 1979). Results may be less predictable for urban environments since several surveys put forward a rather high percentage of harvest mouse in the diet of tawny owl and long-eared owls. For example, in the city of Milan (Italy), it represents 5.3 % for long-eared owls which hunt in the suburbs and the adjoining farmland (Pirovano et al. 2000). Several surveys quote harvest mouse in parks and cemeteries of big cities with shares in the diet of avian raptors often higher than in agricultural landscape. Thus, in Poland, Micromys represents 2 % and 4.9 % of the long-eared owl diet respectively in the Lublin and Rzeszow cemeteries (Wiacek et al. 2008, Dziemian et al. 2012) and 6.1 % of the tawny owl diet in the Torun cemetery (Zalewski 1994). This proportion reaches 9.4 % for long-eared owls which roost in a cemetery of Wroclaw, bordered with large water canal with mowed grassland, shrubs and trees along its bank (Kopij et al. 2012). In Romania, the proportion of harvest mouse reaches 10.4 % of long-eared owls diet which overwintered in a garden in the Satu Mare city (Benedek & Sirbu 2010). In fact, percentages of harvest mouse depend on the urbanization level: a less urbanized locality means more Micromys items in the diet composition (Grzedzicka et al. 2013).
Conclusion and recommendations
A wide distribution range, a high diversity of habitats, a small size and a both nocturnal and diurnal activity rhythm make the harvest mouse available to a great variety of vertebrate predators; consequently, this review cannot claim to be exhaustive. Nevertheless, this study highlights a lack of data concerning the diet of some raptors as common buzzard, kites, hen and marsh harriers, as well as carnivores in general. Long multiannual mammal surveys appear to be rare too, in spite of their high interest for population ecology. In that respect, new studies should assess the impact of predation upon harvest mouse populations in wetlands where it may constitute the main prey for raptors, and also to quantify mechanisms of prey shift to Micromys when the main prey becomes scarce. At least, this survey confirms that nowadays wetlands are a very important habitat for the harvest mouse conservation, and in return this tiny and friendly rodent could be a useful flag-ship species for their protection in Europe.
The author is grateful to Mrs Christian Riols and Christophe Herve, Ligue pour la Protection des Oiseaux in Champagne-Ardenne region (France), for sharing an important dataset of prey, and to Mr Raymond Ramousse for helping in statistical analysis. Phil Withers kindly improved the English.
Agnelli P. & Lazzeretti A. 2009: On the distribution of Micromys minutus in Italy. Boll. Zool. 62: 395-399.
Alivizatos H., Goutner V. & Zogaris S. 2005: Contribution to the study of the diet of four owl species (Aves, Strigiformes) from mainland and island areas of Greece. Belg. J. Zool. 135: 109-118.
Aplin K., Lunde D., Batsaikhan N. et al. 2008: Micromys minutus. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Accessed 12 December 2015. http://www.iucnredlist.org
Aulagnier S., Broyer J., Brunet-Lecomte P. et al. 1980: Comparaison de la faune micromammalienne de la Dombes et de la plaine du Forez. Bievre 2: 131-142.
Baghli A. & Engel E. 2001: Regime alimentaire semi-annuel de la fouine Martes foina au Luxembourg. Bull. Soc. Nat. Luxemb. 101: 67-74.
Baghli A. & Engel E. 2002: Feeding habits and trophic niche overlap of two sympatric Mustelidae, the polecat Mustela putorius and the beech marten Martes foina. Z. Jagdwiss. 48: 217-225.
Baghli A., Walzberg C. & Verhagen R. 2005: Habitat use by the European polecat Mustela putorius at low density in a fragmented landscape. Wildlife Biol. 11: 331-339.
Bakaloudis D.E., Vlachos C.G. & Papakosta M.A. 2012: Diet composition and feeding strategies of the stone marten (Martes foina) in a typical mediterranean ecosystem. Scientific World J. doi: 10.1100/2012/163920.
Baker P.J., Ansell R.J., Dodds P.A.A. et al. 2003: Factors affecting the distribution of small mammals in an urban area. Mammal Rev. 33: 95-100.
Balciauskas L., Balciauskiene L. & Alejunas P. 2011: Northern birch mouse (Sicista betulina) in Lithuania, findings in the diet of tawny owl (Strix aluco). Acta Zool. Acad. Sci. Hung. 57: 277-289.
Balciauskiene L., Jovaisas A., Narusevicius V. et al. 2006: Diet of tawny owl (Strix aluco) and long-eared owl (Asio otus) in Lithuania as found from pellets. Acta Zool. Lituan. 16: 37-45.
Bartoszewicz M. & Zalewski A. 2003: American mink, Mustela vison diet and predation on waterfowl in the Slonsk Reserve, western Poland. Folia Zool. 52: 225-238.
Baudvin H. & Jouaire S. 2006: Le regime alimentaire d'une population forestiere de Chouettes hulottes (Strix aluco) en Bourgogne. Rev. Sci. Bourgogne-Nature 4: 85-89.
Bavoux C., Burneleau G., Juillard M. & Nicolau-Guillaumet P. 2003: Le Hibou petit-duc, Otus scops, sur l'ile d'Oleron (France). Regime alimentaire des poussins. Nos Oiseaux 42: 159-170.
Bencova V., Kaspar T. & Bryja J. 2006: Seasonal and interannual changes in diet composition of the long-eared owl (Asio otus) in Southern Moravia. Tichodroma 18: 65-71. (in Czech with English summary)
Benedek A.M. & Sirbu I. 2010: Dynamics of Asio otus L., 1758 (Aves: Strigiformes) winter-spring trophic regime in western plain (Romania). Trav. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat. "Grigore Antipa" 53: 479-487.
Blandford P.R.S. 1987: Biology of the polecat Mustela putorius: a literature review. Mammal Rev. 17: 155-198.
Blant M., Marchesi P., Descombes M. & Capt S. 2012: Nouvelles donnees sur la repartition de la souris des moissons (Micromys minutus Pallas, 1771) en Suisse occidentale et implications pour la gestion de son habitat. Rev. Suisse Zool. 119: 485-500.
Bohme W. 1978: Micromys minutus (Pallas, 1778)--Zwergmaus. Handbuch der Saugetiere Europas. Akad. Verlagsges.: 290-304.
Bon M., Ratti E. & Sartor A. 2001: Seasonal variations in the diet of the little owl Athene noctua (Scopoli, 1769) in a tilled site on the edge of Venice Lagoon. Boll. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Venezia 52: 193-212.
Bon M., Roccarforte P. & Sirna G. 1992: First data on small mammals of the Venetian Lagoon by analyzing pellets of Tyto alba (Scopoli, 1769). Boll. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Venezia 41: 265-273. (in Italian)
Bon M., Roccarforte P. & Sirna G. 1997: Trophic ecology of barn owl, Tyto alba, in the central-eastern Veneto Plain. Boll. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Venezia 47: 265-283.
Boratynski Z. & Kasprzyk K. 2005: Does urban structure explain shifts in the food niche of the Eurasian kestrel (Falco tinnunculus)? Buteo 14: 11-17.
Borkenhagen P. 1978: Von Hauskatzen (Felis sylvestris f. catus L., 1758) eingetragene Beute. Z. Jagdwiss. 24: 27-33.
Bose M. & Guidali F. 2001: Seasonal and geographic differences in the diet of the barn owl in an agro-ecosystem in northern Italy. J. Raptor Res. 35: 240-246.
Brzezinski M., Zalewski A., Szalanski P. & Kowalczyk R. 2010: Feeding habits of great grey shrike Lanius excubitor wintering in northeastern Poland: does prey abundance affect selection of prey size? Ornis Fenn. 87: 1-14.
Brzezinski M. & Zurowski W. 1992: Spring diet of the American mink Mustela vison in the Mazurian and Brodnica Lakelands, northern Poland. Acta Theriol. 37: 193-198.
Buckley J. 1973: The prey of short-eared owls wintering on the Berkshire Downs. Br. Birds 66: 143-146.
Buckley J. 1977: Barn owl predation on the harvest mouse. Mammal Rev. 7: 117-121.
Buckley J. & Goldsmith J.G. 1975: The prey of the barn owl (Tyto alba alba) in East Norfolk. Mammal Rev. 5: 13-16.
Canova L. 1989: Influence of snow cover on prey selection by long-eared owls Asio otus. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 1: 367-372.
Capizzi D. 2000: Diet shifts of the tawny owl Strix aluco in central and northern Italy. Ital. J. Zool. 67: 73-79.
Casagrande S., Nieder L., Di Minin E. et al. 2008: Habitat utilization and prey selection of the kestrel Falco tinnunculus in relation to small mammal abundance. Ital. J. Zool. 75: 401-409.
Chanin P.R. & Linn I. 1980: The diet of mink (Mustela vison) in southwestern Britain. J. Zool. Lond. 192: 205-223.
Cserkesz T. 2007: High relative frequency of Sicista subtilis (Dipodidae, Rodentia) in owl-pellets collected in Borsodi Mezoseg (NE Hungary). Folia Historico Naturalia Musei Matraensis 31: 173-177.
Darinot F. & Favier C. 2014: Inondation hivernale et mouvements migratoires au sein d'une population de rat des moissons, Micromys minutus (Pallas, 1771). Bull. Mens. Soc. Linn. Lyon 83 (9-10): 235-244.
De Bruijn O. 1994: Population ecology and conservation of the barn owl Tyto alba in farmland habitats in Liemers and Achterhoek (The Netherlands). Ardea 82: 1-109.
Dell'Arte G.L., Laaksonen T., Norrdahl K. & Korpimaki E. 2007: Variation in the diet composition of a generalist predator, the red fox, in relation to season and density of main prey. Acta Oecol. 31: 276-281.
Demerdzhiev D., Dobrev D., Isfendiyaroglu S. et al. 2014: Distribution, numbers, breeding parameters, threats and prey preferences of the eastern imperial eagle (Aquila heliaca) in European Turkey. Slovak Rapt. J. 8: 17-25.
Deuzeman S., van den Berg A., van den Akker P. & van Turnhout C. 2015: Diet, fitness and site fidelity of wintering grey shrikes. Limosa 88: 2-10. (in Dutch)
Dolenec Z. & Kis N. 2010: Winter prey of the long-eared owl (Asio otus) in northern Croatia. Nat. Croat. 19: 249-252.
Dombrovski V. 2010: The diet of the greater spotted eagle (Aquila clanga) in Belarusian Polesie. Slovak Rapt. J. 4: 23-36.
Dupal T.A. & Chernyshow V.M. 2013: Small mammals in the diets of the long eared owl (Asio otus) and short eared owl (A. flammeus) in the South of Western Siberia. Russ. J. Ecol. 44 (5): 397-401.
Dziemian S., Pilacinska B. & Pitucha G. 2012: Winter diet composition of urban long-eared owls (Asio otus) in Rzeszow (SE Poland). Biol. Lett. 49: 107-114.
Fasola M., Gaelotti P., Bogliani G. & Nardi P. 1981: Food of night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) and little egret (Egretta garzetta) feeding in rice fields. Riv. Ital. Orn. 51: 97-112.
Galeotti P., Tavecchia G. & Bonetti A. 1997: Home-range and habitat use of long-eared owls in open farmland (Po plain, Northern Italy), in relation to prey availability. J. Wildlife Res. 2: 137-145.
Godin J. 1975: Donnees sur le regime alimentaire de la chouette effraie (Tyto alba) en Belgique et dans le nord de la France. Aves 12: 105-126.
Gonzales Oreja J.A., Lorenzo Rodolfo J.C. & Perez de Ana J.M. 1993: Nota sobre la alimentacion de la lechuza comun en dos zonas de Viscaya. Est. Mus. Cienc. Nat. de Alava 8: 227-230.
Gordon H.D. 1877: The history of harting. Printed for the author by W. Davy, London.
Goszczvnski J. 1976: Composition of the food of martens. Acta Theriol. 21: 527-534.
Gotta A. & Pigozzi G. 1997: Trophic niche of the barn owl and little owl in a rice field habitat in northern Italy. Ital. J. Zool. 64: 55-59.
Graham I.M., Redpath S.M. & Thirgood S.J. 1995: The diet and breeding density of common buzzards Buteo buteo in relation to indices of prey abundance. Bird Study 42: 165-173.
Gryz J., Krauze D. & Goszczynski J. 2008: The small mammals of Warsaw as inferred from tawny owl (Strix aluco) pellet analyses. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 45: 281-285.
Grzedzicka E., Kus K. & Nabielec J. 2013: The effect of urbanization on the diet composition of the tawny owl (Strix aluco L.). Pol. J. Ecol. 61: 391-400.
Halonen M., Mappes T., Meri T. & Suhonen J. 2007: Influence of snow cover on food hoarding in pygmy owls Glaucidium passerinum. Ornis Fenn. 84: 105-111.
Hanski I., Hansson L. & Henttonen H. 1991: Specialist predators, generalist predators, and the microtine rodent cycle. J. Anim. Ecol. 60: 353-367.
Hanski I. & Henttonen H. 1996: Predation on competing rodent species: a simple explanation of complex patterns. J. Anim. Ecol. 65: 220-232.
Harris S. 1979: Breeding season, litter size and nestling mortality of the harvest mouse, Micromys minutus (Rodentia: Muridae), in Britain. J. Zool. Lond. 188: 437-442.
Harris S., Morris P., Wray S. & Yalden D. 1995: A review of British mammals: population estimates and conservation status of British mammals other than cetaceans. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, U.K.
Hata S. 2011: Nesting characteristics of harvest mice (Micromys minutus) in three types of Japanese grasslands with different inundation frequencies. Mamm. Study 36: 49-53.
Hetmanski T., Aleksandrowicz O. & Ziolkowski M. 2008: The food of the barn owl Tyto alba and the long-eared owl Asio otus from the Pomeranian province, N Poland. Slupskie Prace Biologiczne 5: 53-61.
Holyoak D. 1968: A comparative study of the food of some British Corvidae. Bird Study 15: 147-153.
Hume R. 2014: Birds of Britain and Europe. Ed. Dorling Kindersley, London, U.K.
Indelicato N. 2000: Aspects biogeographiques de la distribution des micromammiferes dans le Limousin (France). Annales Scientifiques du Limousin 11: 61-79.
Jakubas D. & Mioduszewska A. 2005: Diet composition and food consumption of the grey heron (Ardea cinerea) from breeding colonies in northern Poland. Eur. J. Wildlife Res. 51: 191-198.
Janzekovic F. & Ficko M. 2000: Diet composition of the barn owl Tyto alba at Goricko. Acrocephalus 21 (98-99): 27-29.
Jedrzejewska B., Sidorovich V.E., Pikulik M.M. & Jedrzejewski W. 2001: Feeding habits of the otter and the American mink in Bialowieza Primeral Forest (Poland) compared to other Eurasian populations. Ecography 24: 165-180.
Jedrzejewski W., Jedrzejewska B. & Brzezinski M. 1993: Winter habitat selection and feeding habits of the polecats (Mustela putorius) in the Bialowieza National Park, Poland. Z. Saugetierkd. 58: 75-83.
Jedrzejewski W., Jedrzejewska B. & Szymura A. 1989: Food niche overlaps in a winter community of predators in the Bialowieza Primeval Forest, Poland. Acta Theriol. 43: 487-496.
Jedrzejewski W., Szymura A. & Jedrzejewska B. 1994: Reproduction and food of the buzzard Buteo buteo in relation to the abundance of rodents and birds in Bialowieza National Park, Poland. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 6: 179-190.
Judes U. 1981: Some notes on population density of Micromys minutus in a secondary biotope. Z. Saugetierkd. 46: 226-243.
Kafkaletou-Diez A., Tsachalidis E.P. & Poirazidis K. 2008: Seasonal variation in the diet of the long-eared owl (Asio otus) in a northeastern agricultural area of Greece. J. Biol. Res.-Thessalon. 10: 181-189.
Kalivoda B. 2001: Data of barn owl (Tyto alba) studies from South-Tiszantul (south-eastern Hungary) in 2000. Crisicum 5: 195-219.
Karanovic P.J.J. 1991: First data on small mammal fauna from Krnjeusa (Bosanska Krajina), as obtained by a barn owl Tyto alba pellet analysis. Biol. Vesin. 39 (3): 41-44.
Karlsson S. 2007: Food consumption and roosting behaviour of great grey shrikes Lanius excubitor wintering in south-western Finland. Ornis Fenn. 84: 57-65.
Kean E. 2006: Post release survival and dispersal of harvest mice, Micromys minutus, in relation to reintroduction method. BIAZA Research Newsletter 7 (2).
Keckesova L. & Noga M. 2008: The diet of the common kestrel in the urban environment of the city of Nitra. Slovak Rapt. J. 2: 81-85.
Kitowski I. 2005: Food composition of marsh harrier Circus aeruginosus during autumnal migration in eastern Poland. Acta Biol. Univ. Daugavp. 5: 85-89.
Kitowski I. 2013: Winter diet of the barn owl (Tyto alba) and the long-eared owl (Asio otus) in Eastern Poland. North-West. J. Zool. 9: 16-22.
Kitowski I. 2014: The response of Eurasian kestrel Falco tinnunculus to falconry at Deblin Military Airfield, East Poland. Turk. J. Zool. 38: 298-305.
Kitowski I. & Pitucha G. 2007: Diet of the Eurasian tawny owl in farmalnd of East Poland. Berkut 16 (2): 225-231.
Kociuba M. 2012: Factors affecting diet composition of the Ural owl Strix uralensis at the foothills of the Central Beskidy Mountains, SE Poland. Ornis Polonica 53: 283-292.
Koks B.J., Trierweiler C., Visser E.G. et al. 2007: Do voles make agricultural habitat attractive to Montagu's harrier Circus pygargus? Ibis 149: 575-586.
Kopij G., Moska M., Nikiel R. & Kozyra K. 2012: A large proportion of Micromys minutus in winter diet of the long-eared owl Asio otus. Cas. Slez. Muz. Opava (A) 61: 91-92.
Korpimaki E. 1986: Prey caching of breeding Tengmalm's owls Aegolius funereus as a buffer against temporary food shortage. Ibis 129: 499-510.
Korpimaki E. 1988: Diet of breeding Tengmalm's owls Aegolius funereus: long-term changes and year-to-year variation under cyclic food conditions. Ornis Fenn. 65: 21-30.
Korpimaki E., Norrdahl K. & Rinta-Jaskari T. 1991: Responses of stoats and least weasels to fluctuating food abundances: is the low phase of the vole cycle due to mustelid predation? Oecologia 88: 552-561.
Kuhar B., Kalan G. & Janzekovic F. 2006: Diet of the tawny owl Strix aluco in the Kozjansko region (East Slovenia). Acrocephalus 27 (130/131): 147-154.
Lanski J., Giannatos G., Dolev A. et al. 2010: Late autumn trophic flexibility of the golden jackal Canis aureus. Acta Theriol. 55: 361-370.
Lanski J. & Szeles L.G. 2006: A diet composition of stone martens (Martes foina) living in the Drava district, Hungary, in spring. Somogyi Muzeumok Kozlemenyei 17: 199-206.
Latkova H. 2008: Seasonal changes in food composition of the barn owl (Tyto alba) in the northern part of the "Zahorie" region. Slovak Rapt. J. 2: 107-112.
Lawicki L. & Raclawski B. 2006: Food little owl Athene noctua in the breeding season of the agricultural landscape Niziny Mazowieckiej. Notatki Ornitologiczne 47 (3): 203-206. (in Polish with English summary)
Lesinski G., Blachowski G. & Siuchno M. 2009: Vertebrates in the diet of the tawny owl Strix aluco in northern Podlasie (NE Poland) --comparison of forest and rural habitats. Fragm. Faun. 52: 51-59.
Lesinski G., Romanowski J., Gryz J. et al. 2013: Small mammals of Kampinos National Park and its protection zone, as revealed by analyses of the diet of tawny owls (Strix aluco Linnaeus, 1758). Fragm. Faun. 56: 65-81.
Lesinski G. & Stolarz P. 2012: Small mammals in pellets of the tawny owl Strix aluco from the village of Paszkowka near Krakow. Chronmy Przyr. Ojcz. 68 (2): 109-113. (in Polish with Eglish summary)
Lode T. 1996: Polecat predation of frogs and toads at breeding sites in western France. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 8: 115-124.
Lode T. 1997: Trophic status and feeding habits of the European polecat Mustela putorius L. 1758. Mammal Rev. 177-184.
Lustrat P. 2002: Le regime alimentaire de la Chouette effraie dans le massif de Fontainebleau. La voix de la foret 1: 16-18.
Macdonald D.W., Tattersall F. & Barrett P. 2001: Britain's mammals: the challenge for conservation. People's trust for Endangered Species, London, U.K.
Malecha A.W. & Antczak M. 2013: Diet of the European polecat Mustela putorius in an agricultural area in Poland. Folia Zool. 62: 48-53.
Marquiss M. 1980: Habitat and diet of male and female hen harriers in Scotland in winter. Br. Birds 73: 555-560.
Meek M. 2011: Suffolk's harvest mice in focus. Report by Suffolk Wildlife Trust to the People's Trust for Endangered Species, London, U.K.
Meisener K., Sunde P., Kuhlmann Clausen K. et al. 2014: Foraging ecology and spatial behaviour of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) in a wet grassland ecosystem. Acta Theriol. 59: 377-389.
Meyburg B.U. 1970: On the biology of the lesser spotted eagle (Aquila pomarina). Deutscher Falkenorden 1969: 32-66.
Migula P., Grodzinski W., Jasinski A. & Musialek B. 1970: Vole and mouse plagues in South-Eastern Poland in the years 1945-1967. Acta Theriol. 15: 233-252.
Mikkola H. 1972: Hawk owl and their prey in northern Europe. Br. Birds 65: 453-460.
Mikkola H. & Tornberg R. 2014: Sex-specific diet analysis of the Eurasian eagle owl in Finland. Ornis Fenn. 91: 1-6.
Mikusek R., Kloubec B. & Obuch J. 2001: Diet of the pygmy owl (Glauceridium passerinum) in eastern Central Europe. Buteo 12: 47-60.
Milchev B., Boev Z. & Kodjabashev N. 2006: Breeding distribution and diet composition of the barn owl Tyto alba (Scopoli, 1769), (Aves: Strigiformes) in the North-Western Upper Thracian Plain (Bulgaria). Acta Zool. Bulgar. 58: 83-92.
Millan de la Pena N., Butet A., Delettre Y. et al. 2003: Response of the small mammal community to changes in western French agricultural landscapes. Landsc. Ecol. 18: 265-278.
Millon A., Bourrioux J.L., Riols C. & Bretagnolle V. 2002: Comparative breeding biology of hen harrier and Montagu's harrier: an 8-year study in north-eastern France. Ibis 144: 94-105.
Miltschev B., Boev Z. & Georgiev V. 2004: Food of the barn owl (Tyto alba) in South-eastern Bulgaria. Egretta 47: 66-77. (in German with English summary)
Nelson S.H., Evans A.D. & Bradbury R.B. 2005: The efficacy of collar-mounted devices in reducing the rate of predation of wildlife by domestic cats. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 94: 273-285.
Nistreanu V. 2007: The importance of the long-eared owl Asio otus otus (L.) in rodent control. Bulletin USAMV-CN 63: 424-429.
Noga M. & Dobry M. 2013: Nesting and non-nesting occurence of the short-eared owl Asio flammeus in the Zahorie region (SW Slovakia). Slovak Rapt. J. 7: 73-80.
Obuch J. 2011: Spatial and temporal diversity of the diet of the tawny owl (Strix aluco). Slovak Rapt. J. 5: 1-120.
Obuch J., Danko S., Mihok J. et al. 2013: Diet of the Ural owl (Strix uralensis) in Slovakia. Slovak Rapt. J. 7: 59-71.
Obuch J. & Karaska D. 2010: The Eurasian eagle-owl (Bubo bubo) diet in the Orava Region (N Slovakia). Slovak Rapt. J. 4: 83-98.
Pailley M. & Pailley P. 2000: Le regime alimentaire de la Chouette effraie Tyto alba en Maine-et-Loire. Crex 5: 41-53.
Pekkarinen P. & Heikkila J. 1997: Prey selection of the least weasel Mustela nivalis in the laboratory. Acta Theriol. 42: 179-188.
Perrow M.R. & Jowitt A.J.D. 1995: What future for the harvest mouse? British Wildlife 6: 356-365.
Petrovici M., Molnar P. & Sandor A.D. 2013: Trophic niche overlap of two sympatric owl species (Asio otus Linnaeus, 1758 and Tyto alba Scopoli, 1769) in the North-Western part of Romania. North-west. J. Zool. 9: 250-256.
Piechocki R. 1958: Die Zwergmaus Micromys minutus Pallas. Neue Brehm Bucherei H 222. A. Ziemsen Verlag, Wittenberg Lutherstadt, Germany.
Pirovano A., Rubolini D., Brambilla S. & Ferrari N. 2000: Winter diet of urban roosting long-eared owls Asio otus in northern Italy: the importance of the brown rat Rattus norvegicus. Bird Study 47: 242-244.
Plass J. 2004: Zur Ernahrung der Schleiereule (Tyto alba guttata C.L. Brehm 1831) im nordlichen Machland, Oberosterreich. Naturschutz Aktuell. 12: 21-28.
Pocora V., Popovici M., Manci C.O. & Iorgu I.S. 2012: Feeding of the little owl during nesting season in the Danube delta (Romania). An. Stiint. Univ. Al. I. Cuza 58: 107-114.
Polacek M., Balaz M. & Obuch J. 2012: Diet of the tawny owl (Strix aluco) in urban and forest environment. Tichodroma 24: 29-39. (in Slovak with English summary)
Prestt I. 1971: An ecological study of the viper Vipera berus in Britain. J. Zool. Lond. 164: 373-418.
Prigioni C. & De Marinis A.M. 1995: Diet of the polecat Mustela putorius L. in riverine habitats (Northern Italy). Hystrix 7: 69-72.
Prigioni C. & Tacchi F. 1991: Trophic niche of the fox Vulpes vulpes in the Ticino Valley (Northern Italy). Hystrix 3: 65-75.
Purger J.J. 1990: Diet of barn owl, Tyto alba (Scop, 1769) in Western Backa (Vojvodina, Yugoslavia) using the pellets analysis. Larus 41-42: 135-139.
Purger J.J. 2014: Survey of the small mammal fauna in north-western Somogy county (Hungary), based on barn owl Tyto alba (Scopoli, 1769) pellet analysis. Nat. Somogy. 24: 293-304.
Rolland C. 2011: Programme regional d'atlas des micromammiferes de Rhone-Alpes. Le Bievre 25: 44-54.
Romanowski J., Altenburg D. & Zmihorski M. 2013: Seasonal variation in the diet of the little owl, Athene noctua in agricultural landscape of Central Poland. North-West. J. Zool. 9: 310-318.
Romanowski J. & Zmihorski M. 2009: Seasonal and habitat variation in the diet of the tawny owl (Strix aluco) in Central Poland during unusually warm years. Biologia 64: 365-369.
Roulin A. 1996: Alimentation hivernale de la chouette effraie (Tyto alba), du hibou moyen-duc (Asio otus), du busard Saint-Martin (Circus cyaneus) et du faucon crecerelle (Falco tinnunculus). Bull. Soc. Vaud. Sci. Nat. 84: 19-32.
Roulin A., Ducret B., Bize P. et al. 2008: Regime alimentaire de la Chouette hulotte Strix aluco en Suisse romande de 1986 a 2007. Nos Oiseaux 55: 149-156.
Rubolini D., Pirovano A. & Borghi S. 2003: Influence of seasonality, temperature and rainfall on the winter diet of the long-eared owl, Asio otus. Folia Zool. 52: 67-76.
Ruzic M., Spremo N. & Durakic M. 2009: The diet of barn owl Tyto alba in Central Banat. Ciconia 18: 99-113.
Sandor A.D. 2009: The summer diet of barn owl (Tyto alba) (Aves: Strigiformes) in the Southern part of Danube delta biosphere reserve. Acta Zool. Bulgar. 61: 87-92.
Schipper W.J.A. 1973: A comparison of prey selection in sympatric harriers, Circus, in western Europe. Le Gerfaut 63: 17-120.
Schmitt M. & Hofer J. 2011: Kleinsauger aus Wiesenlebensraumen bei Rheinberg, Niederrhein. Elektronische Aufsatze der Biologischen Station Westliches Ruhrgebiet 21: 1-6.
Selas V., Tveiten R. & Aanonsen O.M. 2007: Diet of common buzzards (Buteo buteo) in southern Norway determined from prey remains and video recordings. Ornis Fenn. 84: 97-104.
Sergio F. & Boto A. 1999: Nest dispersion, diet, and breeding success of black kites (Milvus migrans) in the Italian Alps. J. Raptor Res. 33: 207-217.
Shrubb M. 1980: Farming influences on the food and hunting of kestrels. Bird Study 27: 109-115.
Skierczynski M. 2006: Food niche overlap of three sympatric raptors breeding in agricultural landscape in Western Pomerania region of Poland. Buteo 15: 17-22.
Sleptsov M.M. 1947: The biology of Micromys minutus ussuricus B.-Ham. Fauna and ecology of rodents 2. Materialy k poznaniyu fauny i flory SSSR, n.s. 8: 69-100. (in Russian)
Sommer R.S., Niederle M., Labes R. & Zoller H. 2009: Bat predation by the barn owl Tyto alba in a hibernation site of bats. Folia Zool. 58: 98-103.
Spitzenberger F. & Steiner H.M. 1975: Die Okologie der Insectivora und Rodentia (Mammalia) der Stockerauer Donau-Auen (Niederosterreich). Bonn. Zool. Beitr. 18 (3-4): 258-296.
Stasiak K., Piekarska K. & Kusal B. 2014: The comparison of the winter diet of long-eared owl Asio otus in two communal roosts in Lublin region (Eastern Poland) according to selected weather conditions. Ecol. Balk. 6: 103-108.
Stiebling U. 1998: Der Rotfuchs, Vulpes vulpes (L., 1758), im Biospharenreservat Schorfheide-Chorin. Nat. Schutz. Landsch. Pfl. Brandenburg 1: 89-92.
Szymanski P., Malecha A.W. & Tobolka M. 2010: Food composition of the short-eared owl Asio flammeus wintering in Pomorze Zachodnie (northwestern Poland). Chronmy Przyr. Ojcz. 66 (4): 295-298. (in Polish with Eglish summary)
Salek M., Riegert J. & Krivan V. 2010: The impact of vegetation characteristics and prey avaibility on breeding habitat use and diet of little owls Athene noctua in Central European farmland. Bird Study 57: 495-503.
Teagle W.G. 1964: The harvest mouse in the London area. Lond. Nat. 43: 136-149.
Temme M. 2006: Die Beutetiere aus Gewollen von Schleiereulen Tyto alba von der Weserinsel Strohauser Plate. Natur und Umweltschutz (Zeitscrift Mellumrat) 5: 5-10.
Ternois V. 1999: Determination des micromammiferes entrant dans le regime alimentaire du Hibou moyen-duc Asio otus dans la vallee de l'Avalasse. Avifaune Picarde 8: 77-80.
Tishechkin A. 1997: Comparative food niche analysis of Strix owls in Belarus. In: Duncan J.R., Johnson D.H. & Nicholls T.H. (eds.), Biology and conservation of owls of the northern hemisphere. 2nd International Owl Symposium, February 5-9, 1997, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: 456-460.
Toffoli R. 1994: Winter feeding of hen harrier (Circus cyaneus) in Piemonte (Aves, Accipitriformes). Riv. Piemont. Stor. Nat. 15: 155-161. (in Italian)
Tome D. 2000: Winter diet of the long-eared owl Asio otus in Slovenia. Acrocephalus 21 (98-99): 3-7.
Tome D. 2009: Changes in the diet of long-eared owl Asio otus: seasonal pattern of dependence on vole abundance. Ardeola 56: 49-56.
Trnka A. & Obuch J. 2006: On the diet of short-eared owls (Asio flammeus) wintering in south-western Slovakia. Tichodroma 18: 71-72.
Trout R.C. 1978: A review of studies on population of wild harvest mice (Micromys minutus Pallas). Mammal Rev. 8: 143-158.
Tulis P. 2011: Variegated diet composition of long-eared owl (Asio otus) in eastern part of Nitrianska Pahorkatina Hills. Young Scientists and Pedagogues Conference Proceedings, Constantine the Philosopher University, Nitra, Slovakia: 496-503.
Underhill-Day J.C. 1985: The food of breeding marsh harriers Circus aeruginosus in East Anglia. Bird Study 32: 199-206.
Uttendorfer O. 1929: Studien zur Ernahrung unserer Tagraubvogel und Eulen. Naturforschende Gesellschaft zu Gorlitz, Gorlitz, Germany.
Uttendorfer O. 1952: Neue Ergebnisse uber die Ernahrung der Greifvogel und Eulen. E. Ulmer, Stuttgart, Germany.
Vrezec A. 2001: Winter diet of one female Ural owl (Strix uralensis) at Ljubljansko barje (central Slovenia). Buteo 12: 71-76.
Wavrin de H., Walravens M. & Rabosee D. 1991: Nidifications exceptionnelles du Hibou moyen-duc (Asio otus) et du Faucon crecerelle (Falco tinnunculus) en 1991 en foret de Soignes (Brabant). Aves 28 (4): 169-188.
Wazna A., Cichocki J., Lupicki D. et al. 2011: Diet of barn owl Tyto alba in Lubuskie region. UP Wroc., Biol. Hod. Zwierz., LXII 580: 65-87. (in Polish)
Weber D. 1989: Foraging in polecats (Mustela putorius L.) of Switzerland: the case of a specialist anuran predator. Z. Saugetierkd. 54: 377-392.
Wiacek J., Krawczyk R. & Polak M. 2011: The influence of the winter weather conditions on the food of long-eared owl Asio otus in Dabrowa Forest near Lublin. Studia i Materialy CEPL w Rogowie 13 (Suppl. 27): 114-119. (in Polish with English summary)
Wiacek J. & Niedzwiedz M. 2005: The food of Montagu's harriers during pre-laying period. Berkut 14 (2): 189-192.
Wiacek J., Polak M. & Niedzwiedz M. 2008: The diet composition of the tawny owl Strix aluco in forest and urban zone in Lublin: a comparison. Ochronic roznorodnosc biotyczna w miastach: 501-505. (in Polish with English summary)
Wiacek J., Polak M. & Niedzwiedz M. 2009: The diet composition of the tawny owl Strix aluco in the Kozlowka forest (eastern Poland). Annales UMCS Sec. C 64 (2): 75-81.
Wijnandts H. 1984: Ecological energetics of the long-eared owl (Asio otus). Ardea 72: 1-92.
Wilson D.E. & Reeder D.M. 2005: Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference, 3rd edition. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
Wise M.H., Linn J. & Kennedy C.R. 1981: A comparison of the feeding biology of mink Mustela vison and otter Lutra lutra. J. Zool. Lond. 195: 181-213.
Witrowski J. 1989: Breeding biology and ecology of the marsh harrier Circus aeruginosus in the Barycz valley, Poland. Acta Ornithol. 25: 223-320.
Woods M., Mc Donald R.A. & Harris S. 2003: Predation of wildlife by domestic cats Felis catus in Great Britain. Mammal Rev. 33: 174-188.
Wuntke B. & Ludwig I. 1998: Zur Nahrungswahl der Schleiereule (Tyto alba guttata) im Landkreis Potsdam-Mittelmark (Brandenburg). Brandenburgische Umwelt Berichte 3: 19-24.
Zabala J. 1973: Contribucion al conocimiento de Micromys minutus (Mammalia, rodentia) en el Cantabrico. Munibe 1: 39-44.
Zalewski A. 1994: Diet of urban and suburban tawny owls (Strix aluco) in the breeding season. J. Raptor Res. 8: 246-252.
Zalewski A. 2007: Does size dimorphism reduce competition between sexes? The diet of male and female pine martens at local and wider geographical scales. Acta Theriol. 52: 237-250.
Zarybnicka M., Sedlacek O. & Korpimaki E. 2009: Do Tengmalm's owls alter parental feeding effort under varying conditions of main prey avaibility? J. Ornithol. 150: 231-237.
Zmihorski M. & Osojca G. 2006: Diet of the tawny owl (Strix aluco) in the Romanincka forest (north east Poland). Acta Zool. Lituan. 16: 54-60.
Zmihorski M. & Rejt L. 2007: Weather-dependent variation in the cold-season diet of urban kestrels Falco tinnunculus. Acta Ornithol. 42: 107-113.
Zschille J., Stier N., Roth M. & Mayer R. 2014: Feeding habits of invasive American mink (Neovison vison) in northern Germany--potential implications for fishery and waterfowl. Acta Theriol. 59: 25-34.
Zub K., Pugacewicz E., Jedrzejewska B. & Jedrzejewski W. 2010: Factors affecting habitat selection by breeding lesser spotted eagles Aquila pomarina in northeastern Poland. Acta Ornithol. 45: 105-114.
Reserve Naturelle Nationale du Marais de Lavours, 31, chemin des pres de la tour, 73310 Chindrieux, France; e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received 11 September 2015; Accepted 10 March 2016
Table 1. European avian predators for the harvest mouse (Micromys minutus) according to the literature with available quantitative data. un.--unvailable data, (*) total prey (not only mammals) and unused for ,,Total", (**) on total prey (not only mammals). N n %n range %n median (total (Micromys (on total (on total mammals) minutus) mammals) mammals) barn owl 416832 9679 0.1-23.3 1.6 Tyto alba long-eared owl 100935 2464 0.09-27.6 3 Asio otus tawny owl 150432 1246 0.01-15.5 1.9 Strix aluco common buzzard 10603 (*) 609 1.8 (**) Buteo buteo little owl 6114 343 0.7-42 6.8 Athene noctua Tengmalm's owl 17448 298 0.04-3.3 2.3 Aegolius funereus kestrel 5458 174 0.3-2.5 2.4 Falco tinnunculut red kite 4230 (*) 93 2.2 (**) Milvus milvus Eurasian 30630 70 0.07-24.8 0.1 eagle owl Bubo bubo Montagu's harrier 2035 59 0.6-3 1.9 Circus pygargus Ural owl 2604 37 0.4-12 0.8 Strix uralensis great grey shrike 663 29 4.4 Lantus excubitor pygmy owl 3014 28 0.6-15 0.8 Glaucidium passerinum hen harrier 297 23 1.8-14 7.5 Circus cyaneus short-eared owl 1244 23 1-5.8 1.9 Asio flammeus Eurasian scops owl 59 17 29 Otus scops lesser spotted 1601 4 0.2-1.9 eagle Aquila pomarina hawk owl 732 4 0.6 Surnia ulula great gray owl 1517 3 0.7 Strix nebulosa imperial eagle 359 3 0.8 Aquila heliaca greater spotted 322 2 0.6 eagle Aquila clanga marsh harrier 151 2 1.3 Circus aeruginosus Total 742447 15209 % Most frequent Biomass mammal prey by Range number (on total (in quoted prey) literature) barn owl 0.1-5.1 Microtus arvalis Tyto alba long-eared owl 0-5.4 Microtus arvalis Asio otus tawny owl 0-5.3 Microtus arvalis Strix aluco Myodes glareolus common buzzard un. un. Buteo buteo little owl 1-9.3 Microtus arvalis Athene noctua Tengmalm's owl 0.9-1.2 Microtus arvalis Aegolius funereus kestrel 0.1-1.1 Microtus arvalis Falco tinnunculut red kite un. un. Milvus milvus Eurasian un.-0.5 Microtus arvalis eagle owl Bubo bubo Montagu's harrier 0.2-un. Microtus arvalis Circus pygargus Ural owl 0.1-3 Apodemus flavicol Strix uralensis great grey shrike un. Microtus arvalis Lantus excubitor pygmy owl 0 Microtus arvalis Glaucidium passerinum hen harrier un. Microtus arvalis Circus cyaneus short-eared owl 0.5-un. Microtus arvalis Asio flammeus Eurasian scops owl un. Microtus arvalis Otus scops lesser spotted 0 Microtus arvalis eagle Aquila pomarina Myodes sp. hawk owl un. Surnia ulula Myodes glareolus great gray owl un. Strix nebulosa Erinaceus roumani imperial eagle Aquila heliaca Arvicola amphibiu greater spotted un. eagle Aquila clanga marsh harrier 0.5 Kitowski 2005 Circus aeruginosus Total Agnelli & Lazzeretti 2009, Alivizatos et al. 2005, Bon et al. 1992, 1997, Bose & Guidali 2001, Buckley 1977, Buckley & Goldsmith 1975, Cserkesz 2007, De Bruijn 1994, Godin 1975, barn owl Gonzales Oreja et al. 1993, Gotta & Pigozzi Tyto alba 1997, Hetmanski et al. 2008, Indelicate 2000, Janzekovic & Ficko 2000, Kalivoda 2001, Karanovic 1991, Kitowski 2013, Latkova 2008, Lustrat 2002, Meek 2011, Millan de la Pena et al. 2003, Milchev et al. 2006, Miltschev et al. 2004, Obuch 2011, Pailley & Pailley 2000, Petrovici et al. 2013, Plass 2004, Purger 1990, 2014, Rolland 2011, Ruzic et al. 2009, Sandor 2009, Sommer et al. 2009, Spitzenberger & Steiner 1975, Temme 2006, Uttendorfer 1952, Wazna et al. 2011, Wuntke & Ludwig 1998, Zabala 1973 Balciauskiene et al. 2006, Bencova et al. 2006, Benedek & Sirbu 2010, Canova 1989, Dolenec & Kis 2010, Dupai & Chernyshow 2013, long-eared owl Dziemian et al. 2012, Galeotti et al. 1997, Asio otus Hetmanski et al. 2008, Kafkaletou-Diez et al. 2008, Kopij et al. 2012, Nistreanu 2007, Petrovici et al. 2013, Pirovano et al. 2000, Roulin 1996, Rubolini et al. 2003, Stasiak et al. 2014, Ternois 1999, Tome 2000, 2009, Tulis 2011, Uttendorfer 1952, Wavrin et al. 1991, Wiacek et al. 2008, 2011 Balciauskas et al. 2011, Balciauskiene et al. 2006, Baudvin tawny owl & Jouaire 2006, Capizzi 2000, Strix aluco Gryz et al. 2008, Grzedzicka et al. 2013, Kuhar et al. 2006, Lesinski et al. 2009, 2013, Lesinski & Stolarz 2012, Obuch 2011, Polacek et al. 2012, Romanowski et al. 2013, Romanowski & Zmihorski 2009, Roulin et al. 2008, Tishechkin 1997, Uttendorfer 1952, Wiacek et al. 2008, 2009, Zalewski 1994, Zmihorski & Osojca 2006 common buzzard LPO Champagne-Ardennes (unpublished) Buteo buteo Alivizatos et al. 2005, Bon et al. little owl 2001, Gotta & Pigozzi 1997, Lawicki Athene noctua & Raclawski 2006, Obuch 2011, Pocora et al. 2012, Romanowski et al. 2013, Schmitt & Hofer 2011, Salek et al. 2010 Tengmalm's owl Korpimaki 1986, 1988, Obuch 2011, Aegolius Zarybnicka et al. 2009 funereus Boratynski & Kasprzyk 2005, kestrel Casagrande et al. 2008, Keckesova Falco & Noga 2008, Kitowski 2014, tinnunculut Shrubb 1980, Skierczynski 2006, Zmihorski & Rejt 2007 red kite LPO Champagne-Ardennes (unpublished) Milvus milvus Eurasian Mikkola & Tornberg 2014, eagle owl Obuch 2011, Obuch & Karaska 2010 Bubo bubo Montagu's harrier Koks et al. 2007, Wiacek & Circus pygargus Niedzwiedz 2005 Ural owl Kociuba 2012, Obuch et al. Strix uralensis 2013, Vrezec 2001 great grey shrike Brzezihski et al. 2010 Lantus excubitor pygmy owl Halonen et al. 2007, Glaucidium Mikusek et al. 2001, Obuch 2011 passerinum hen harrier Schipper 1973, Toffoli 1994 Circus cyaneus short-eared owl Buckley 1973, Dupai & Asio flammeus Chernyshow 2013, Noga & Dobry 2013, Szymanski et al. 2010, Trnka & Obuch 2006, Uttend"rfer 1952 Eurasian scops owl Bavoux et al. 2003 Otus scops lesser spotted Meyburg 1970, Zub et al. 2010 eagle Aquila pomarina Mikkola 1972 hawk owl Surnia ulula Tishechkinl997 great gray owl Strix nebulosa Demerdzhiev et al. 2014 imperial eagle Aquila heliaca Dombrovski 2010 greater spotted eagle Aquila clanga marsh harrier Kitowski 2005 Circus aeruginosus Total Table 2. Proportion of harvest mouse in the diet of the four main raptors. N--total mammal prey items, n--number of harvest mouse prey items in quoted literature (selection for n > 20), n%--percentage of harvest mouse prey items compared with total mammal prey items; Wet = wetland, Boc = bocage landscape, Wood = woodland, Farm = farmland, Urb = urbanized area, Mix = mixed habitats. Tyto alba Asio otus barn owl long-eared owl N n n% N n n% Austria 2670 39 1.5 Belarus Bulgaria 4842 66 1.4 Bulgaria 23436 372 1.6 Czech republic 2701 40 1.5 France 59109 233 0.4 France 55515 783 1.4 France 6228 158 2.5 France 52668 1495 2.8 France Germany 522 25 4.8 Germany 794 77 9.7 Great Britain 16481 226 1.4 Greece 988 24 2.4 Greece Hungary 9693 152 1.6 Hungary 23200 928 4 Hungary 6131 313 5.1 Italy 4030 167 4.1 Italy 4309 283 6.6 Italy 1233 100 8.1 Italy 200 24 12 Italy Italy 1472 270 23.3 Italy 2511 132 5.3 Italy 2478 132 5.3 Italy 254 23,88 9.4 Italy 235 51,94 22 Italy 2247 620 27.6 Lithuania Moldova 4238 29 0.7 Netherlands 963 21,19 2.2 Netherlands 9605 37 0.4 Poland 1976 97 4.9 Poland 3351 31 9 Poland 244 23 9.4 Poland 30044 430 1.4 Poland 1277 26 2 Poland Poland Poland Poland Poland 1236 42 3.4 Romania 1370 177 1.9 Romania 546 57 10.4 Romania Serbia 2179 65 3 Slovakia 9812 143 1.5 Slovakia 49479 1028 2 49938 584 1.2 Slovakia 714 50 7 Slovakia Slovenia 3712 100 2.7 Slovenia 10129 303 3 Spain 1119 27 2.4 Total 377377 7660 88502 2345 Median 2.8 5.1 Strix alucc Athene noctua tawny owl little owl N n n% N n n% Habitat Austria Boc Belarus 1517 30 2 Boc Bulgaria Boc Bulgaria Boc Czech republic Urb France Mix France Mix France Boc France Mix France 51734 28 0.05 Wood Germany Farm Germany Wet Great Britain Mix Greece Farm Greece 273 49 18 Wet Hungary Farm Hungary Boc Hungary Farm Italy Farm Italy Farm Italy Wet Italy Wet Italy 195 26 13 Farm Italy 348 78 25 Wet Italy Urb Italy Farm Italy Wet Italy Wet Italy Farm Lithuania 1211 24 2 Mix Moldova Urb Netherlands Boc Netherlands Wet-Farm Poland Urb Poland Farm Poland Urb Poland Boc Poland Urb Poland 3090 22 0.7 Farm Poland 3813 100 2.6 Farm Poland 7522 293 3.9 Boc Poland 1038 64 6.2 Farm Poland Farm Romania Wet Romania Urb Romania 60 25 42 Wet Serbia Farm Slovakia Boc Slovakia 46743 360 0.8 1508 111 7.4 Mx Slovakia Farm Slovakia 1237 99 8 Wet Slovenia Mix Slovenia Farm Spain Farm Total 114815 998 5474 311 Median 2.3 15.6 Austria Spitzenberger & Steiner 1975 Belarus Tishechkin 1997 Bulgaria Michev et al. 2006 Bulgaria Mitschev et al. 2004 Czech republic Bencova et al. 2006 France Indelicate 2000 France Rolland 2011 France Milan de la Pena et al. 2003 France Pailley & Pailley 2000 France Baudvin & Jouaire 2006 Germany Wuntke & Ludwig 1998 Germany Temme 2006 Great Britain Meek 2011 Greece Kafkaletou-Diez et al. 2008 Greece Alivizatos et al. 2005 Hungary Purger 2014 Hungary Cserkesz 2007 Hungary Kalivoda 2001 Italy Bos? & Guidali 2001 Italy Bon et al. 1997 Italy Bon et al. 1992 Italy Agnelli & Lazzeretti 2009 Italy Bon et al. 2001 Italy Gotta & Pigozzi 1997 Italy Pirovano et al. 2000 Italy Rubolini et al. 2003 Italy Canova 1989 Italy Canova 1989 Italy Galeotti et al. 1997 Lithuania Balciauskas et al. 2011 Moldova Nistreanu 2007 Netherlands Wijnandts 1984 Netherlands De Bruijn 1994 Poland Dziemian et al. 2012 Poland Wiacek et al. 2011 Poland Kopij et al. 2012 Poland Wazna et al. 2011 Poland Wiacek et al. 2008 Poland Romanowski et al. 2013 Poland Kitowski & Pitucha 2007 Poland Lesinski et al. 2013 Poland Romanowski et al. 2013 Poland Kitowski 2013 Romania Sandor 2009 Romania Benedek & Sirbu 2010 Romania Pocoraet al. 2012 Serbia Ruzic et al. 2009 Slovakia Latkova 2008 Slovakia Obuch 2011 Slovakia Tulis 2011 Slovakia Obuch 2011 Slovenia Tome 2000 Slovenia Tome 2009 Spain Zabala 1973 Total Median Table 3. European mammalian predators for the harvest mouse (Micromys minutus) according to the literature with available quantitative data. N - total mammal prey items, n - number of harvest mouse prey items in quoted literature, n%--percentage of harvest mouse prey items compared with total mammal prey items, * on total prey (not only mammals) and unused for ,,Total". N n %n range domestic cat 6225 181 0.3 - 3.2 wild cat Felis sylvestris 2323 (*) 66 (*) 2.8* red fox Vulpes vulpes 1405 + 5832 (*) 18 + 92 (*) 2.4-5.4 stone marten Martes foina 486 + 1012 (*) 16 + 32 (*) 2-3.9 pine marten Martes martes 5621 (*) 141 (*) 2.5* polecat Mustela putorius 186 12 0.2-13 American mink Mustela vison 1198 6 0.4-1.2 Total 9500 233 %n median domestic cat 1.3 Borkenhagen 1978, Nelson et al. 2005, Woods et al. 2003 wild cat Felis sylvestris LPO Champagne-Ardennes (unpublished) red fox Vulpes vulpes 2.5 LPO Champagne-Ardennes (unpublished), Meisener et al. 2014, Prigioni & Stiebling 1998 stone marten Martes foina 3.2 Baghli & Engel 2001, 2002, Bakaloudis et al. 2012, Lanski & Szeles 2006, LPO Champagne-Ardennes (unpublished) pine marten Martes martes LPO Champagne-Ardennes (unpublished) polecat Mustela putorius 4.8 Baghli & Engel 2002, Baghli et al. 2005, Malecha & Antczak 2013 American mink Mustela vison 0.8 Chanin & Linn 1980, Zschille et al. 2014 Total
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Date:||Jul 1, 2016|
|Previous Article:||Phylogeography of the Alpine shrew, Sorex alpinus (Soricidae, Mammalia).|
|Next Article:||Depredatory impact of free-roaming domestic dogs on Mediterranean deer in southern Spain: implications for human-wolf conflict.|