Introduction

Low rates of nest and chick survival have driven large declines in breeding wader populations across Scotland (and in the UK and Europe). Whilst habitat availability and quality, primarily driven by shifts in agriculture, have played an important role in wader population trends over the longer-term, the most common direct cause of wader nest and chick failure is predation. Furthermore, there is evidence that overall predator abundance has increased in recent decades, exacerbating other drivers of declines. 

Remaining strongholds of wader breeding success are generally found in areas where rates of nest and chick predation are relatively low, such as on islands, near intensively-managed grouse moors, and in nature reserves managed for breeding waders.

Landowners and managers can become frustrated when conclusions reached by scientists and policy-makers, particularly on contentious issues such as the impacts or management of predators, run counter to their own understanding and experience.

Using cameras to monitor the outcome of wader nesting attempts can help to make the information gathered accessible to a wide range of stakeholders. Also, camera footage can provide more definitive information on predator identities than data generated by most other kinds of monitoring.

We trialled the use of trail cameras by land managers and other wader conservation stakeholders to monitor the outcome of wader nesting attempts. We present the results of this trial and assess the potential for the project to improve wader conservation knowledge and management. 

Methods

We developed guidance, data collection protocols, and data submission options, and provided these, along with 33 trail cameras, to 16 individuals drawn from a range of stakeholder groups across Scotland. 

Results

During 2022 and 2023, 87 nest records (61 in 2022 and 26 in 2023) based on nest camera monitoring were collected and sent to us by 11 individuals from various parts of mainland Scotland.

Participants submitted nest records for Curlew Numenius arquata (n = 29), Lapwing Vanellus vanellus (n = 31), Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus (n = 25) and Golden Plover Pluvialis apricaria (n = 1). Overall hatching success was 59% (36 out of 60 nests) in 2022 and 85% (22 out of 26) in 2023. Hatching rates for Curlew were 61% in 2022 and 73% in 2023; for Lapwing they were 72% in 2022 and 100% in 2023; and for Oystercatcher they were 48% in 2022 and 50% in 2023.

Of the 24 nesting attempts that failed in 2022, 20 (83%) failed due to predation, two (8%) due to deer trampling, and two (8%) due to disturbance (one caused by livestock the other by humans). Of the 20 nests reported as predated, six (30%) were predated by Domestic Sheep Ovis aries, four (20%) by Badger Meles meles, four (20%) by Fox Vulpes vulpes, three (15%) by Pine Marten Martes martes, one by Carrion Crow Corvus corone, one (5%) by Hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus, and one (5%) by Raven Corvus corax. Of the three nest records recorded as failed in 2023, two were predated (by Domestic Sheep and an unidentifiable predator) and one was trampled by cattle.

Outcomes (hatching success, causes of failure, and predator identities) of nest records reported by different stakeholder groups were similar to one another.

Conclusions

Land managers are well-placed to contribute wader nest camera records that can be usefully combined with those of individuals from environmental non-governmental organisations (ENGOs) or academic backgrounds.

The approach outlined in this report can deliver cost-effective, inclusive monitoring and robust, co-produced datasets. However, this depends on there being funding to cover effective coordination and support of participants, as well as equipment, analysis, and reporting.

Several aspects of the project could be improved, including training opportunities, guidance for participants, and mechanisms for data entry and submission. 

Key recommendations

• Continue the project in future years and secure funding for its costs (including input from staff to support and coordinate participants).
• In consultation with land managers, decide how best to deploy available management and monitoring resources to benefit breeding wader populations.
• Engage with ENGOs to discuss sharing of existing wader nest monitoring data.
• Ensure data collected by participants are regularly discussed with and made easily accessible to them, with findings and progress also communicated to the wider group of stakeholders.
• Be prepared to adapt and improve nest camera deployment protocols in the light of evidence arising from this or other projects to ensure that the right balance is struck between bird welfare, data quality, and engaging stakeholders.
• Develop robust protocols for interpreting nest camera footage (and other nest monitoring evidence) to assign outcomes accurately and transparently (ensuring we are interpreting the relevant evidence consistently).