N N Raptor Res. 31(2):129-137 J. © 1997 The Raptor Research Foundation, Inc. THE OSPREY PANDION HALIAETUS) AND MODERN ( FORESTRY: A REVIEW OF POPULATION TRENDS AND THEIR CAUSES IN EUROPE Pertti L. Saurola Zoological Museum, Ringing Centre, RO. Box 17, FIN-00014, University ofHelsinki, Finland — ABSTRACT. Nearly all European Osprey Pandion haliaetus) populations have had a similar fate during ( the 20th century. In the first two decades, if not earlier, dramatic decreases and even extirpations of many local populations occurred due to heavy persecution. There was then a recovery period until the second decrease from the 1950s to the mid-1970s, caused by DDT and other contaminants. Since then, populations have been recovering. The annual rates of population increase have varied from about 1% in Fennoscandia to about 10% in Scotland during the last 20 years. At present, 90% of all European Ospreys breed in Finland, Sweden and Russia. The nesting habitats vary widely from steep cliffs in the Mediterranean to closed climax coniferous forests, open peat bogs and large clear-cut areas in northern Europe. In some areas (e.g., Finland), cutting of old, flat-topped potential new nests by intensive com- mercial forestry has been the most important national threat for the local Osprey population during the last three decades. As early as the late 1960s dedicated bird banders started to construct artificial nests for Ospreys to compensate for the losses caused by one-track forestry. In 1995, 46% ofall occupied Finnish Osprey nests ( =951) were artificial. Also, clear-cuts around nesting trees are harmful because nests become more exposed to storms, predation by Eagle Owls Bubo bubo) and disturbances. In Finland ( and some other countries, new guidelines for foresters also account for the welfare of the Osprey. However, the principles and practices are still quite far from each other. KeyWords: Osprey, Europe, forestry, Pandion haliaetus; artificial nest. El Pandion haliaetusy forestal moderno: un reviso de las tendencias de poblacion y sus causas en Europa — Resumen. Casi todas las poblaciones de Pandion haliaetus europeo han tenido destino similar durante el siglo viente. En las primeras dos decadas, si no mas temprano, aumentos dramaticos y tambien el desarrollo de muchas poblaciones local ocurrieron a causa de alta persecucion. Luego hubo un tiempo de recuperacion hasta la siguiente reduccion de 1950s hasta el medio de 1970s, causado por DDT y otros contaminantes. Desde esos tiempos, poblaciones han estado recuperando. Los ritmos anual de aumento poblacion han variado de 1% en Fennoscandia a casi 10% en Escocia durante los ultimoviente anos. A1 presente, 90% de todo los Pandion haliaetus europeos se crfan en Finlandia, Suecia y Rusia. Los habitats de nidos varia muy diferente de precipicio abrupto en el mediterraneo a bosque de conifero cerrado y climax, turbera abierto, y areas grandes cortadas en el norte de Europa, en unas areas (e.g., Finlandia), de potencia de nuevos nidos por intensidad comercial de forestales ha tenido lo mas im- portante peligro nacional para la poblacion local de los Pandion haliaetus durante las tres decadas pa- sadas. Tan temprano como los ultimos anos de los 1960s marcadores de pajaros a empezaron construir nidos artificiales para el Pandion haliaetus para compensar la perdicion causada por fores- tales con solo una meta. En 1995, 46% de todos los nidos de Pandion haliaetus ocupados en Finlandia ( = 951) eran artificial. Tambien, areas cortadas alrededor de arboles con nido eran peligrosos porque los nidos estaban mas desprotegidos a tormentas, en peligro de buho aguila Bubo bubo, y disturbios. En Finlandia y otros pafses, nuevas reglas por guardabosques tambien cuenta por el bienestar de Pandion haliaetus. Sin embargo, los principios y costumbres estan todavla muy lejos de cada uno. [Traduccion de Raul De La Garza, Jr.] The Osprey (Pandion haliaetus), the emblem of world has suffered heavily from several human im- the former International Council for Bird Preser- pacts; persecution, pesticides, acid rain, distur- vation (ICBP) is a suitable species as a flagship for bances, fishery practices and modern forestry , bird protection. It is cosmopolitan and around the (Saurola & Koivu 1987). However, it is now recov- 129 130 Saurola Vol. 31, No. 2 Table 1. Present population estimates (breeding pairs) and trends of European Ospreys. Estimate Trend3 Reference Norway 200 + Fremming 1988, O. Steen pers. comm. 1996 Sweden 3200 + Risberg 1990 Finland 1200 + P. Saurola unpubl. data Denmark 3-5 + M. Grell pers. comm. 1996 Estonia 30-35 + E. Tammur pers. comm. 1996 Latvia 120 + M. Kreilis pers. comm. 1996 Lithuania 25-30 + B, Sablevicius pers. comm. 1996 Scodand 99-105 + R. Dennis pers. comm. 1996 Germany 290 + Schmidt 1996 Poland 50-60 0 T. Mizera pers. comm. 1996 Belarus 120-180 + A. Tishechkin pers. comm. 1996 European Russia 2500-4000 0(±) V. Galushin pers. comm. 1996 — Ukraine 1-5 Tucker and Heath 1994 — Moldova 0-3 Tucker and Heath 1994 — Bulgaria 3-6 Tucker and Heath 1994 France — —mainland 6 + Y. Tariel pers. comm. 1996 Corsica 25 + Y. Tariel pers. comm. 1996 Spain — mainland 0 C. Viada pers. comm. 1996 — —Balearic Islands 16 + C. Viada pers. comm. 1996 Canary Islands1, 13-15 C. Viada pers. comm. 1996 — Portugal 1 L. Palma pers. comm. 1996 a Symbols: + = increasing, — = decreasing, 0 = stable, ± = in some parts ofarea increasing and in other parts decreasing. b Canary Islands belong administratively to Spain but not geographically to Europe. ering almost everywhere in its range, as a result of Britain and Denmark in 1916, in Austria in the successful protection efforts. In many areas the Os- 1930s, in the former West Germany in 1933 and in prey has been classified as a species for which fur- Italy in 1956 (Bijleveld 1974). ther monitoring and support is still necessary. In the beginning of this century, the Osprey was Here, I give a short review of the present distri- a rare bird everywhere in Fennoscandia (Finland, bution, population estimates, production and pop- Sweden and Norway) After legal protection in the . ulation trends of Ospreys in Europe. In addition, 1920s in Finland and Sweden, populations slowly I describe the significance of human factors, es- recovered until a new decrease occurred in the late pecially modern forestry, to the welfare of Euro- 1950s and 1960s (Saurola 1986). This decrease was pean Ospreys. The meyority of these data come mainly due to toxic chemicals. from Finland where a nationwide monitoring pro- Present Distribution and Status. The present dis- gram Project Pandion was started in 1971 and con- tribution of the European Osprey population ex- tinues today (Saurola 1995a). tends from northern Norway and Finland to south- ern Portugal, the Balearic Islands and Corsica and European Ospreys from Scotland to the eastern border of the Euro- Historical Records. Bijleveld (1974) has collect- pean part of Russia (Table 1). The total European ed historical records on all European birds ofprey. population is estimated at 7000—9000 breeding During the 19th century, Ospreys were breeding pairs; about 50% of the population breeds in Swe- throughout Europe. Due to heavy persecution, lo- den and Finland, 35-40% in Russia, 8% in eastern cal populations decreased rapidly and, in many Germany, Poland, Belorus, Estonia, Latvia and countries, they were extirpated. The last known Lithuania, 3% in Norway and Scotland and less breeding in former Czechoslovakia was recorded than 1% in southern Europe (Table 1). in about the 1850s, in Switzerland in 1911, in Great The accuracy of these population estimates var- , June 1997 Ospreys in European Forests 131 Table 2. Average breeding output in some local Osprey populations in Europe. Young/ Young/ Young/ Occupied Active Successful Country Period NESTa Nest3 Nest3 Reference Finland (1971-95) 1.46 1.91 2.17 Saurola this study Sweden (1971-93) 1.59 Odsjo pers. comm. 1996 Germany (1972-93) Meyburg et al. 1996 — trees 1.32 1.47 2.08 — pylons 1.65 1.81 2.22 Scotland (1954r-94) 1.29 Dennis 1995 Poland (1976-92) 1.34 1.81 Mizera 1995 aSee Postupalsky (1977) for definitions. ies greatly from country to country, although most preys (Viada pers. comm.). The real situation in were provided by Osprey specialists from each southeastern Europe, in Ukraine, Moldova and country. For example, in Scotland (Dennis 1995) Bulgaria is poorly known; however, all population and Finland (Saurola 1995a) all known occupied trends from this area are negative (Tucker 8c territories have been checked annually for more Heath 1994). than 20 yr. In contrast, the estimate for European In Finland, Project Pandion was started in 1971 Russia (V. Galushin pers. comm.) is based on ex- (Saurola 1980) and since then almost all known trapolation of information from a handful of large occupied territories have been checked by bird study areas, but still small if compared with the banders (ringers) every year. These data indicate huge area for which the estimate is given. that breeding success has increased significantly Productivity and Population Trends. At the mo- since the start of the project. During the 1970s, ment, all local Osprey populations breeding in Finnish Ospreys raised on average 1.38 young/oc- northern and central Europe seem to be either sta- cupied nest/year, but during the 1980s and 1990s, ble or increasing (Table 1) and the average breed- the corresponding figures have been 1.47 and 1.61. ing output is good (Table 2). Definitions are ac- The trend for these three decades is similar in pro- cording to Postupalsky (1977). Also, the remnant duction per occupied (1.81, 1.96 and 2.03) and per populations in Corsica, mainland France (Tariel successful nests (2.09, 2.21 and 2.23; Fig. 1). pers. comm.) and the Balearic Islands (Viada pers. According to all data from Project Pandion the comm.) are now increasing, but in Portugal only Finnish Osprey population remained stable one breeding pair remains (Palma pers. comm.) through the 1970s and then increased during the A and in mainland Spain there are no breeding Os- 1980s and 1990s (Table 3, Fig. 2). part of this increase, especially in sparsely inhabited northern Finland, may be only a result of increasing survey coverage. In Hame, southern Finland, where my intensive study area is located and where few, if any, nests are not known by Project Pandion, the in- crease rate in 1972-1995 has been 0.7% per year. This is considerably less than the 2% per year cal- culated from all data for the whole country (Table 3) My estimate for the real growth rate of the total . Finnish Osprey population during the last 25 yr is between 1% and 1.5% per yr. Swedish Ospreys have been monitored at six year study areas located in southern and central Swe- Figure 1. Average annual breeding success of Finnish den. These areas have been carefully checked in Ospreys in 1971-95 (see Figure 2 for sample sizes and 1971—73 and after that every 5th yr in 1978, 1983, Postupalsky (1977) for definitions). 1988 and 1993 (Odsjd pers. comm.). The average 132 Saurola Vol. 31, No. 2 Table 3. Mean annual rate of population increase of the Osprey in some European study areas. Change N Period a ivb PER YEARC Reference ! 2 Finland (active nests) — all known 1972-95 465 736 2.0% Saurola, this study — Hame 1972-95 94 110 0.7% Saurola, this study Sweden (active nests) — 6 study areas 1972-93 97 113 0.7% Odsjo 1982 and pers. comm. 1996 Germany (pairs) — Mecklenburg 1980-93 62 94 3.3% Meyburg et al. 1996 — Brandenburg 1980-92 45 120 8.5% Meyburg et al. 1996 Scotland (pairs) — all known 1977-95 20 99 9.3% Dennis 1987 and pers. comm, 1996 -1 Ni = number of active nests or pairs in the first year of study period. b N = number of active nests or pairs in the last year of study period. c Me2an increase per year (p) was calculated from the formula: N2 = iV^l + jb/lOO)*, where t = elapsed time in years. annual increase during the last 20-25 yr within ter along the west coast of Africa (Dennis 1991), these study areas has been 0.7%, which is the same Swedish birds mainly in inland waters ofwestAfrica as in Hame, but much lower than in Germany and and the Finnish ones still further east, in west and Scotland (Table 3) So far, no clear explanation has central Africa (Osterlof 1977, Saurola 1994). So far, . been proposed for these geographic differences in only four banded European Ospreys have been re- rates ofpopulation increase (Saurola 1990, 1995a). covered from South Africa, about 10 000 km from Migration and Wintering Areas. European Os- their natal area, all of Finnish origin. preys migrate to the tropics (Osterlof 1977, Dennis In the late 1970s, a detailed study on the winter 1991, Saurola 1994), except for the Mediterranean ecology of European Ospreys was made in Sene- populations, which remain in the Mediterranean gambia (Prevost 1982). (Thibault et al. 1987). The main wintering area is Nesting Habitats and Nest Sites. The Osprey eats the Sahel-zone between latitudes 5—15°N. Band re- live fish almost exclusively (e.g., Hakkinen 1977, coveries revealed longitudinal differences in win- 1978, Saurola 8c Koivu 1987) and for this reason tering areas of the local populations from different its distribution is always restricted by the distribu- parts of the breeding range: Scottish Ospreys win- tion offavorable fishing waters. In ideal conditions the nest is located just at the shoreline. However, in areas disturbed by human activities, the distance from the nest to the fishing grounds may be several km. In addition to sufficient food resources, the most important prerequisite of a good nest site is a sta- ble and exposed base to support the nest. Because the Osprey nest has to be exposed to all directions, it is nearly always at the very top of the tree and no branches reach the upper edge of the nest. There are few exceptions from this general rule. year The nesting habitat and the base of the nest can Figure 2. Total number of known occupied (squares), be varied if the two main requirements are filled. breeding (triangles) and successful (dots) Osprey nests More than 95% of European Ospreys breed in for- in 1971-199.5 in Finland (see Postupalsky (1977) for def- ested habitats (coniferous forests or on peat bogs). initions) The cliff-nesting birds in Corsica (Terasse and Ter- . ) June 1997 Ospreys in European Forests 133 asse 1977), the Balearic Islands (Gonzalez et al. USSR in 1964 (enforced in 1974), Spain in 1966, 1992) and in Portugal (L. Palma pers. comm.), and former West Germany in 1968 and Italy in 1971 pairs nesting on power line pylons in the middle (Bijleveld 1974). ofopen fields in Germany (Moll 1962) are the only Legal protection does not necessarily mean that exceptions to this general pattern. The succession- killing ceases. Saurola (1985a, 1994) attempted to al stage, structure and openness of the forests assess changes in persecution of Fennoscandian around the nest varies from closed climax conif- Ospreys in Europe and Africa by calculating area- erous or mixed forests to dear-cuts where the nest specific persecution indices from band recoveries. tree is the only one left. One ofthe favorite natural This analysis, which might be biased by changes in sites is a small islet in a lake covered by big trees. reporting rates, suggested that persecution de- The most common nesting tree species both in creased in Italy, France and in the former USSR in European forests and peat bogs is the Scotch pine the 1970s after changes in legislation. In contrast, (Pinus silvestris). For example, this tree species killing of Ospreys in Africa has remained the same hosts 88% of natural nests in Finland. In this spe- during the last 30 yr. cies the structure of the flat top of an old tree pro- In addition to being killed as a competitive con- vides a stable base for the huge stick nest of the sumer of fish, European Ospreys have suffered Osprey. Norwegian spruce (Picea abies) is the next from illegal egg and skin collecting. In Scotland, most commonly utilized tree species (3% in Fin- egg robbing still continues, perhaps at least partly land), and broad-leaved trees (e.g. Belula, Populus, as a challenging game against police and conser- Alnus, Quercus are rarely used as nesting trees by vation authorities. For example, in 1988 and 1989, European Ospreys (only 1% in Finland). A total of 1 1 and 9 out of 49 nests were robbed in Scotland, 7% of natural Osprey nests are on dead trees in respectively (Dennis 1991). Finland. Norwegian spruce is suitable for the Os- Pesticides, In the late 1940s and 1950s, when prey only if the top has been broken some meters persecution increased again after World War II, from the tip, so that the branches are thick enough DDT and other environmental contaminants ap- to carry the heavy nest. In Scotland, about one- peared as a new threat to the future of the Osprey quarter of the nests are now on an introduced spe- and other birds of prey all over the world (Poole cies, Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii with broken ( ) 1989). Odsjo (1982) found that eggshell thickness tops (Dennis pers. comm.). of unhatched Swedish Osprey eggs was 11% lower DDT Human Impact than that of shells collected before was first in use in 1947. In nests where all eggs were broken, Persecution. Birds of prey were heavily persecut- eggshell thickness was 20% lower than in pre-DDT ed throughout Europe as early as the 17th century. eggs, and, as expected, breeding success had de- This persecution intensified during the 18th cen- creased from the pre-DDT level. tury and peaked in the 19th and early 20th cen- turies (Bijleveld 1974). For more than 200 yr, mil- In Finland, during Project Pandion, all addled eggs have been collected and DDT, DDD, DDE and lions ofbirds ofprey were killed because theywere considered harmful pests. During World Wars I total PCB concentrations have been analyzed but not yet published. Preliminary results show that and II, hunters were allowed to shoot each other, DDT concentrations in Finnish Osprey eggs have so killing of birds of prey decreased. Immediately after World War II, intensive persecution resumed. decreased significantly during the last 20 yr. More- For example, in autumn 1953 at least 93 Ospreys over, even in the early 1970s the concentrations were killed at three fishponds in Lower Saxony (Bi- were much lower than in Swedish eggs (Odsjo 1982). jleveld 1974). The Osprey has been legally protected since Acidification of Lakes. Eriksson et al. (1983) and 1926 in Finland (Saurola & Koivu 1987) and since Eriksson (1986) suggested that reduced breeding the late 1920s in Sweden (Osterlof 1973). In many success of the Osprey in southwestern Sweden was other European countries full legal protection was due to higher nestling mortality caused by reduced given to the Osprey less than 40 yr ago, for exam- foraging success in acidified lakes. They predicted ple, in Denmark in the 1950s, Poland in 1952, that a population decrease would occur as a con- United Kingdom in 1954, former East Germany in sequence of more widespread acidification. So far, 1954, Norway in 1962, France in 1964, former no further evidence of the negative effects of acid- 134 Saurola Vol. 31, No. 2 ification on European Osprey populations has forestry activities in the neighborhood of the nest been published. during the breeding season. Fishing and Fish Farms. Of Finnish band recov- Cutting of Occupied and Potential Alternative eries (returns) ofdead Ospreys in 1950—1987, 29% Nest Trees. The Osprey is fully protected by na- were found dead with no more information; while tional laws in those European countries which have of the remainder, 53% were shot or otherwise breeding Ospreys (Bijleveld 1974). Consequently, killed intentionally, 25% were entangled in a fish- the occupied nest trees should be protected during ing net and 10% were hit by overhead wires (Sau- the breeding season throughout Europe. In con- rola & Koivu 1987). Although the distribution of trast, during the nonbreeding season the nests and causes of death assessed from ring recoveries is bi- nesting trees are not protected in all European ased, it clearly demonstrates that fishing is an im- countries. Hence, in some countries the nest tree portant factor. In Finland, the most dangerous pe- can legally be cut after the breeding season, even riod for Ospreys is early spring when most of the though this nest tree would likely be used again fishing grounds are still covered by ice. At this time the following summer if left intact. Ospreys are caught in nets in small areas of open The same Osprey nest may be in use for decades and shallow water exploited both by Ospreys and (Saurola 8c Koivu 1987) and for this reason it is by fishermen. crucial to protect the nest tree all year. However, In Finland, at commercial fish farms growing the protection of an occupied nest tree is not North American rainbow trout Oncorhynchus my- enough because of the evolution of the top of an ( kiss Ospreys have been killed both by illegal Osprey nest tree. The Osprey brings new sticks to ), shooting or by poorly placed strings or nets set to the nest every year, the nest grows higher and high- protect trout. At the moment, most Finnish fish er, and finally falls down. After this the top of the farms are safe for Ospreys because the state pays tree usually is not of sufficient quality to serve as a compensation to the owners from damages caused base for the nest. Thus, within each territory, a suf- by Ospreys. ficient number of old, flat-topped nest trees should Illegal shooting of Ospreys at fish farms is still a be saved as alternative nest trees for the future. problem at least in Poland (Mizera 1995) and Cutting of Trees from the Protection Zone probably in other countries in eastern Europe. Around the Nest. If all trees around the nest tree Land Use and Disturbances. In Finland, about are removed, the probability of a breeding failure 15% of the present nest sites of the Osprey are increases for several reasons. First, a solitary tree is close to the shoreline (Project Pandion). The main much more exposed to damage caused by storms. reason for this unexpectedly low proportion is land Second, a tall tree in a clear-cut is an ideal hunting use because the dream of every Finn is to have a perch for the Eagle Owl (Bubo bubo), which is main- summerhouse by a lake or in the Baltic archipela- ly an open-land hunter (Mikkola 1983). Thus, the go. Hence, there is little shoreline left for Ospreys. probability is high that a hunting Eagle Owl will In many cases the historic nest sites have been locate and kill an incubating or brooding Osprey abandoned and Ospreys have moved to the middle or the entire brood. Moreover, the fledged young of forests, often several kilometers away from their are especially vulnerable because they use their historic nest sites. nest as a perch for eating for 4 wk after fledging After the persecution and pesticide eras in the (Saurola 8c Koivu 1987). The noisy begging of the 1980s, human disturbances (fishing, canoeing, sail- young at sunset from the middle of a clear-cut is ing and bathing) became the major threats to the like a dinner bell for an Eagle Owl starting to hunt. species in Swedish lake areas, where many Ospreys In Finland, where the Eagle Owl population has still bred close to the shore (Odsjo & Sondell been increasing rapidly during the last decades 1986). (Saurola 1985b, 1995b) and where many ofthe Os- prey nest sites have been classified as dear-cuts or Ospre\s and Modern Forestry other types of open forests (22% in 1995, Project Modern forestry may have four kinds ofnegative Pandion more and more Osprey nests have been ), effects on the welfare of the Osprey: cutting of oc- predated by Eagle Owls. Third, it is clear that the cupied nest trees, cutting of potential alternative disturbance zone of many activities (e.g., forestry, nest trees, cutting of trees from the protection recreation, sports) around the nest is wider in zone around the nest and noise disturbance from open clear-cuts than in closed forests. . June 1997 Ospreys in European Forests 135 Forestry Activities Near the Nest During Breed- Artificial Nests. Construction of artificial nests ing. According to the 26-yr data from Project Pan- has been the only possible direct measure to com- dion, inappropriate timing of forestry work in the pensate for the effects ofone-track commercial for- neighborhood ofthe nest has caused several breed- estry. In Finland, the first artificial nests for Os- ing failures in Finland. These failures have been preys were constructed in 1965 (Saurola 1978). In demonstrated as results of construction of logging 1995, 45.8% of all occupied nests in Finland were roads, digging ditches, harvesting, improving of artificial (Project Pandion). In my intensive study young stands and planting seedlings. area in southern Hame, the percentage ofartificial A Promising Example for a Better Future: nests was as high as 90% of 79 occupied nests. I Guidelines by the Finnish Forest and Park Service. have estimated that in this area which, without in- Finnish Forest and Park Service (1994) has recent- tensive modern forestry, would be an ideal natural ly published the new guidelines for all activities area for the Osprey, the population would be less near the Osprey nests for land owned by the gov- than 50% of the present level without artificial ernment. The main points of these guidelines are nests (in total 160 artificial nests are available for that the nest tree is protected all year under the the Osprey in this area) Nature Conservation Act, a protective tree stand Meyburg et al. (1996) have demonstrated that, (density 200 stems/ha) must be left around the in Germany, breeding output was clearly higher in nest for a radius of approximately 50 m, a bog sur- artificial nests on power line pylons than in natural rounding a clump of trees in which there is an tree nests within the same area (Table 2) However, . Osprey nest must be left in a natural state, any for- in Finland, no difference in breeding success be- estry activities must be avoided close to the nest in tween artificial and natural nests was detected the period 15 April-31 July, old Scotch pines and (Saurola 1990). This perhaps unexpected result saw timber trees must be left in clumps for future was probably because most of the unstable natural development into ideal nest sites and paths and nests were replaced by artificial nests. Therefore, hiking routes must not be established within about artificial nests were not compared with normal nat- m 500 from the nest. Almost identical advice has ural nests but with high quality natural nests. been given by the Forestry Center Tapio (1994) for In Europe, artificial nests have been constructed the management of Osprey nest sites on private during the 1980s and 1990s in almost all countries land. wdth breeding Ospreys and in most cases with good These guidelines for state-owned and private success. For example, soon after artificial nests lands are sufficient for the protection of Finnish were provided in southern Norway, Ospreys started Ospreys. In practice, these guidelines, especially on to expand their range westward back to their historic private lands, are only recommendations and breeding sites, where the number of suitable nest therefore not always followed by foresters. For ex- trees had greatly decreased because of forestry ample, clear-cuts still occur around nest trees and (Steen 1993). In Sweden, artificial nests have been seedlings are planted close to active nests during constructed to move Ospreys from disturbed areas sensitive periods in the breeding season. to undisturbed areas with good results (Hallberg In some countries the guidelines are even more et al. 1983). strict than in Finland. For example, in Poland no m Concluding Remarks trees are allowed to be cut within 200 from the nest and during the breeding season (1 February- During the last 10 yr, local Osprey populations 31 July), all forestry activities are forbidden within in northern and central Europe have been stable m 500 from the nest (Mizera 1995). In many other or are still recovering from the effects of persecu- European countries, guidelines for forestry near tion and organochlorine pesticides. These two nest sites of endangered or rare birds, such as ea- threats are currently not major problems in Eu- gles and Ospreys, are under changes or in prepa- rope but still may be so in Africa. ration. For example, in the eastern states of Ger- In contrast, both past and present effects of many, old, and often very strict, regulations are no modern forestry may be an important negative fac- longer officially enforced but are still in practice tor for the Osprey. In addition to the lack of suit- because new ones are not yet available (D. Schmidt able nest trees in some areas, many breeding fail- pers. comm.). Hence, it is difficult to make an ures are due to modern forestry, either direcdy overall European summary of this subject. (forestry activities near the nest during the breed- a . ) 136 Saurola Vol. 31, No. 2 ing season) or indirectly (nests on the open clear- GonzAlez, G., J.M. Santiago and L. FernAndez. 1992. cuts are more exposed to storms, Eagle Owls and El aguila pescadora (Pandion haliaetus) en Espana. (In Spanish with English summary.) ICONA, Madrid, disturbances) Spain. Official silvicultural guidelines are important for the protection of traditional nest sites of Ospreys Hallberg, L.-O., P.-S. Hallberg and J. Sondell. 1983. Styrning av fiskgjusens Pandion haliaetusval av boplat- in commercially treated forests. Instructions for ser i Helgasjon, Kronobergs lan, for att minska stor- management of Ospreys have been provided in ningsrisken (Summary: Changing the location ofnest some countries for foresters. In some others, such sites of the Osprey, Pandion haliaetus to reduce hu- , as the former socialist countries in eastern Europe, man disturbance). VarFagelvarid 42:73-80. the new guidelines are under preparation. HAkkinen, I. 1977. Food catch of the Osprey Pandion Construction of artificial nests has been an ef- haliaetus during the breeding season. Ornis Fenn. 54: fective tool to compensate for some of the effects 166-169. of modern forestry. However, the extensive protec- . 1978. Diet of the Osprey Pandion haliaetus in tion of natural nest trees and their surroundings Finland. Ornis Scand. 9:11-116. Mikkola, H. 1983. Owls of Europe. T. Sc A.D. Poyser, should always be the primary long-term goal. Con- Calton, U.K. struction of artificial nests should be used as the Mizera, T. 1995. Why is the Osprey Pandion haliaetus a last and temporary measure to save or reintroduce rare breeding species in Poland? Vogelwelt 116:197- local populations, but never as an excuse to destroy 198. natural breeding sites. Meyburg, B.-U., O. Manowsky and C. Meyburg. 1996. The Osprey in Germany: its adaptation to environ- Acknowledgments ments altered by man. Pages 125-135 in D.M. Bird, The invitation from Gerald Niemi made this contri- D.E. Varland andJ.J. Negro [Eds.], Raptors in human bution possible. Unpublished information on presentsta- landscapes. Academic Press, London, U.K tus of the Osprey in Europe is based on personal com- Moll, KH. 1962. Der Fischadler. (Osprey, in German). munications with Roy Dennis, Vladimir Galushin, Mikael Die Neue Brehm Bucherei 308. A. Ziemsen Verlag, Grell, Maris Kreilis, Tadeuz Mizera, Tjelvar Odsjo, Luis Wittenberg Lutherstadt, G.D.R. Palma, Bronius Sablevicius, Odd Frydenlund Steen, Ei- Odsjo, T. 1982. Eggshell thickness and levels of DDT, nar Tammur, Yvan Tariel, Alexey Tishechkin and Carlota Viada. Finnish data is from ProjectPandion, a monumental PCB and mercury in eggs ofOsprey (Pandion haliaetus voluntary work by Finnish bird ringers. Previous draft of L.) and Marsh Harrier (Circus aerugmosus L.) in rela- this paper was reviewed by Peter Evins, Charles Henny, tion to their breeding success and population status Mikael Kilpi and Daniel Varland. I am very grateful to all in Sweden. Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Stockholm, these people for their valuable help. Gotab, Stockholm, Sweden. and Sondell. 1986. Nar och hurborfiskgjusen J. Literature Cited skyddas (Summary: When, and in what way, is the Os- Bijleveld, M. 1974. Birds of prey in Europe. MacMillan prey to be protected)? VdrFagelvdrld 45:351-358. Press Ltd., London, U.K Osterlof, S. 1973. Fiskgjusen, Pandion haliaetus, i Sver- Dennis, R. 1991, Ospreys. Colin Baxter Photography ige 1971 (Summary: The osprey Pandion haliaetus in Ltd., Lanark, Scotland. Sweden in 1971). VarFagelvdrld 32:100-106. — . 1995. Ospreys Pandion haliaetus in Scotland . 1977. Migration, wintering areas, and site tenac- study of recolonization. Vogelwelt 116:193-196. ity of the European Osprey Pandion h. haliaetus (L.). Eriksson, M.O.G. 1986. Fish delivery, production of Ornis. Scand. 8:61-78. young, and nest density of Osprey (Pandion haliaetus Prevost, Y. 1982. The wintering ecology of Ospreys in in southwest Sweden. Can. Zool. 64:1961-1965. Senegambia. Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Edinburgh, J. L. Henrikson and H.G. Oscarson. 1983. For- Edinburgh, Scotland. , — surning ett framtida hot mot—fiskgjusen (Pandion Poole, A.F. 1989. Ospreys: a natural and unnatural his- haliaetus) (Summary: Acid rain a future danger for tory. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K A the Osprey, Pandion haliaetus). VdrFagelvdrld 42:293- Postupalsky, S. 1977. critical review of problems in 300. calculating Osprey reproductive success. Pages 1-11 Finnish Forest and Park Service. 1994. Forestry envi- inJ.C. Ogden [Ed.], Transactions ofthe North Amer- ronment guide. Tuokinprint, Helsinki, Finland. ican Osprey research conference. U.S. Nat. Park Ser., ForestryCenterTapio. 1994. Good forests for the good Transac. and Proceed. No. 2. of all. Helsinki, Finland. Risberg, L. 1990. Sveriges faglar. VarFagelvdrld, supple- — Fremming, O.R. 1988. Fiskeprn bestand pkologi ogfor- ment No. 14. — valtning (Summary: The osprey population, ecology SAUROLA, P. 1978. Artificial nest construction in Europe. and conservation). 0koforsk utredning20:1-70. Pages 72-80 in T.A. Geer [Ed.], Bird ofprey manage- June 1997 Ospreys in European Forests 137 ment techniques. The British Falconers’ Club, Pach- AND Koivu. 1987. Saaksi. (Osprey, in Finnish) J. ment Ltd., Oxford, U.K. Kanta-Hameen Lintumiehet, Forssa, Finland. . 1980. Finnish ProjectPandion. Acta Ornithol. XVII: Schmidt, D. 1996. Brutbestand und verbreitu—ng des Fis- 161-168. chadlers Pandion haliaetus in Deutschland eine ak- 1985a. Persecution of raptors assessed by Finn- tuelle Kurziibersicht (Summary: Breeding numbers . ish and Swedish ring recovery data. Pages 439-448 in and distr—ibution of the Ospreys Pandion haliaetus in I. Newton and R.D. Chancellor [Eds.], Conservation Germany a short review). Vogelwelt 117:337-340. studies on raptors. ICBP Tech. Publ. No. 5., Norwich, Steen, O.F. 1993. Fiske0rn i Vestfold i perioden 1984- England, U.K. 89. (Summary: Osprey Pandion haliaetus in Vestfold county, SE-Norway, during the period 1984-1989 . 1985b. Finnish birds of prey: status and popu- ) Fauna 46:150-165. lation changes. Ornis Fenn. 62:64—72. 1986. Viisitoista vuotta Suomen saaksikannan Terasse, J.-F. and M. Terasse. 1977. Le Balbuzard pe- . cheur Pandion haliaetus (L.) en Mediterranee occiden- seurantaa (Summary: The Ospreys, Pandion haliaetus, tale. Distribution, essai de recensement, reproduc- in Finland 1971-1985). Lintumies 21:66—80. — tion, avenir. (In French, with English summary.) Nos 1990. Saaksi suojelun ja seurannan symboli . — Oiseaux 34:111-127. (Summary: The Osprey symbol of bird protection Thibault,J.-C., O. Patrimonio and D, Brunstein-Alber- and monitoring). Lintumies 25:80—86. tini. 1987. Sedentarite et mouvements des balbu- 1994. African non-breeding areas ofFennoscan- . zards pecheurs Pandion haliaetus de la Corse. Pages ( ) dian Ospreys Pandion haliaetus1. a ring recovery analy- 253-260 inN. Baccetti and M. Spagnesi [Eds.], Rapaci sis. Ostrich 65:127-136. Mediterranei, III, Suppl. Ric. Biol. Selvaggina, XII. . 1995a. Finnish Ospreys Pandion haliaetus in Bologna, Italy. 1971-1994. Vogelwelt 116:199-204. Tucker, G.M. and M.F. Heath. 1994. Birds in Europe: . 1995b. Suomen pollot (Summary: Owls of Fin- their conservation status. BirdLife International, land). Kirjayhtyma, Helsinki, Finland. Cambridge, U.K.