Habitat Effects on the Breeding Performance of Three Forest-Dwelling Hawks

RESEARCH ARTICLE Habitat Effects on the Breeding Performance of Three Forest-Dwelling Hawks Heidi Björklund 1,2 *, Jari Valkama 1 , Erkki Tomppo 3 , Toni Laaksonen 4 1The Zoology Unit, Finnish Museum of Natural History Luomus, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland, 2Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland, 3Natural Resources Institute Finland, Vantaa, Finland, 4Department of Biology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland *[email protected] Abstract Habitat loss causes population declines, but the mechanisms are rarely known. In the European Boreal Zone, loss of old forest due to intensive forestry is suspected to cause declines in forest-dwelling raptors by reducing their breeding performance. We studied the boreal breeding habitat and habitat-associated breeding performance of the northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), common buzzard (Buteo buteo) and European honey buzzard (Pernis apivorus). We combined long-term Finnish bird-of-prey data with multi-source national forest inventory data at various distances (100–4000 m) around the hawk nests. We found that breeding success of the goshawk was best explained by the habitat within a 2000-m radius around the nests; breeding was more successful with increasing proportions of old spruce forest and water, and decreasing proportions of young thinning forest. None of the habitat variables affected significantly the breeding success of the common buzzard or the honey buzzard, or the brood size of any of the species. The amount of old spruce forest decreased both around goshawk and common buzzard nests and throughout southern Finland in 1992–2010. In contrast, the area of young forest increased in southern Finland but not around hawk nests. We emphasize the importance of studying habitats at several spatial and temporal scales to determine the relevant species-specific scale and to detect environmental changes. Further effort is needed to reconcile the socioeconomic and ecological functions of forests and habitat requirements of old forest specialists. Introduction Unfavourable habitat changes are the main threats to threatened species worldwide [1]. Adverse anthropogenic habitat changes include habitat loss, deterioration and fragmentation, which can affect reproductive success and survival of species [2]. In addition to these direct impacts, habitat change can cause cascading effects among or between trophic levels through interspecific interactions [2,3]. For instance, increasing interspecific competition for high-quality habitats may force a subdominant competitor into inferior habitats [4]. Human-caused environmental change has thus the potential to affect species in different ways. PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0137877 September 30, 2015 1/19 a11111 OPEN ACCESS Citation: Björklund H, Valkama J, Tomppo E, Laaksonen T (2015) Habitat Effects on the Breeding Performance of Three Forest-Dwelling Hawks. PLoS ONE 10(9): e0137877. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0137877 Editor: Sergio A Lambertucci, INIBIOMA (Universidad Nacional del Comahue-CONICET), ARGENTINA Received: November 5, 2014 Accepted: August 23, 2015 Published: September 30, 2015 Copyright: © 2015 Björklund et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability Statement: Due to ethical and legal restrictions concerning endangered or sensitive species in the study, data are available upon request. All interested researchers may contact Dr. Heidi Björklund at [email protected] for access to data. Funding: This study was funded by the Kone Foundation (www.koneensaatio.fi/en), the Doctoral Programme in Wildlife Biology Research Luova (www.helsinki.fi/luova) and the Finnish Museum of Natural History Luomus (http://www.luomus.fi/en), funds to HB. Administration of the Finnish Common Changes in boreal forests caused by intensification of forestry practices since the 1960s are one of the greatest recent anthropogenic environmental changes in Northern Europe [5]. Regeneration cuttings, establishment of new forest and forest management have led to forest fragmentation, decreases in areas of old-growth forest, small openings and forest fires, and changes in forest age structure and tree species composition [5–9]. Structural changes in forests resulting from intensified forest management (e.g. even-aged stands, fewer large trees with thick branches and removal of decaying snags or malformed trees) have affected the quality of boreal forests as habitats and sites of reproduction for many taxa [10–12]. The consequences of changes in forests can be particularly dramatic for forest-dwelling birds of prey [13], because resources (food, nest sites) are usually sparse for top raptors [14] and furthermore, habitat change effects can escalate in food webs. Our study species, the northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis, hereafter goshawk) with circumboreal distribution, and the common buzzard (Buteo buteo) and European honey buzzard (Pernis apivorus, hereafter honey buzzard) with Eurasian distributions, are capable of inhabiting diverse habitats, including coniferous, deciduous and mixed forests [15–22]. Mature forest and Norway spruce (Picea abies) seem important for these species [13,23–25]. Due to rather similar habitat requirements, the species can compete for territories and nest sites in their shared breeding range [26–29], although the goshawk is dominant as it can take over the nests of the other two species or even predate them [16,26,30]. Populations of the goshawk have declined in Northern Europe [31] and in parts of North America [20,25,32]. The common buzzard and the honey buzzard have overall stable populations except for their long-term declines in Northern Europe and a decline in the honey buzzard in Western Europe [31,33–35]. These declines can partly be due to intensified forest management and its consequences to prey availability [25,36–40]. The common buzzard and honey buzzard populations have decreased steeply in Finland and these species (but not the goshawk) are listed as vulnerable in the Finnish Red List [40]. The goshawk population has only slightly declined in Finland, which has raised concerns that the dominant goshawk could be replacing the buzzards from prime nest sites [26,39]. Despite the vast array of breeding habitat studies on these raptors, most of them are from the Temperate Zone. Only a few studies have been accomplished in the Boreo-nemoral Zone [21,23] and only one on the goshawk in the coniferous forest-dominated Boreal (Taiga) Zone in Europe [41]. This deficiency is striking, taking into account that these hawks have widespread distributions throughout the large Eurasian Boreal Zone [22]. Moreover, declining population trends of the hawks in Northern Europe have raised concerns of the state of the forests in their breeding grounds [36,40]. Breeding habitat studies are often conducted at rather small spatial scales (around nests, in restricted study areas), and typically over a short time period (such as a single year). It would be worthwhile to study habitat composition also at large scales, e.g. at a landscape scale of the nesting site, since these are often biologically more meaningful for species with large territories [25,36,42–45]. Additionally, it would be important to monitor temporal changes in habitat structure at these wider scales [25], and to plan management strategies in larger geographic areas for the benefit of hawks [25,46,47]. Modern methods, such as remote sensing combined with a geographic information system, can aid in fulfilling these needs. We studied the European Boreal Zone breeding habitat and habitat-associated breeding performance of the goshawk, common buzzard and honey buzzard. Our work combines two unique datasets: geographically wide-scale and long-term Finnish hawk breeding data and the output data from a satellite image–aided multi-source national forest inventory (MS-NFI) at various distances around the nest trees. This allowed us to extend our research in several dimensions: from the nest-site level to the territory and landscape levels, from a local area to a Habitat Effects on Forest-Dwelling Hawks PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0137877 September 30, 2015 2/19 Birds-of-Prey Survey was funded by the Finnish Ministry of the Environment and the Finnish Museum of Natural History Luomus. The funders had no role in study design, data collection (except the role of Luomus as an organiser of the Common Birds-ofPrey Survey) and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. nationwide geographic area and from few years to 19 years. Specifically, we aimed at investigating the following questions on multiple spatial scales: 1) is the breeding performance of the goshawk, common buzzard and honey buzzard associated with their breeding habitat in Northern European boreal forests, and 2) what are the typical characteristics of the boreal breeding habitats of the hawks, and have any temporal changes in the breeding habitats taken place during the study period that would reflect landscape changes. We were particularly interested in the role of old Norway spruce forest, since the importance of spruce and mature forest for the hawks has emerged from other studies, and forestry practices have particularly affected such forests [48]. Materials and Methods Study area Data on nests were included from the southern half of Finland (land area app. 154,000 km 2 ) from an area extending approximately 640 km from south to north and 440 km from west to east (S1,S2 and S3 Figs). In general, the landscape is low-lying (mean height 152 m) and most of the land area is dominated by forests that are managed (77%). Forests in southern Finland are dominated by Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris, 56%), Norway spruce (31%) and broadleaved trees (11%, mainly silver birch Betula pendula and downy birch B.pubescens)[49]. Study species The goshawk, common buzzard and honey buzzard are middle-sized, forest-dwelling hawks [22,50] that build their stick nests under the crown layer [51]. Goshawks predate mainly forest grouse in Finland, but also other birds and mammals [37]. Microtus voles, forest grouse and hares are the main prey of common buzzards [52], and honey buzzards feed mainly on wasps Vespidae, but also on frogs and small birds [53]. Adult goshawks are sedentary while the common buzzard subspecies B.b.buteo (western Finland) is a short-distance migrant to central Europe [54]. The subspecies B.b.vulpinus (eastern Finland) and the honey buzzards are longdistance migrants to Africa [54]. Nest data Nest card data on hawk nests were gathered by volunteer raptor ringers and enthusiasts since 1982 as a part of the Finnish Common Birds-of-Prey Survey coordinated by the Finnish Museum of Natural History Luomus. A nest card includes information on nest location, nest type, breeding species and nest visits of the ringer [51]. Hawk territories can have several alternative nests which should be taken into account in statistical analyses to avoid pseudoreplication [55], since nests of the same territory have habitats potentially more similar than nests from different territories. Therefore, each nest was provided with a territory identity code (details in S1 Text). We included nests with a verified breeding attempt that was ensured by observations of eggs, eggshells, chicks or remnants of chicks. This excludes occupied but only decorated nests, and possible breeding attempts in which eggs or chicks may have disappeared without trace. In total, we had data on the following numbers of breeding attempts: goshawk 1475 (from 861 nests), common buzzard 774 (529) and honey buzzard 166 (126). For breeding performance analyses, we included breeding attempts with known results (S1, S2 and S3 Figs) and discarded nests that were not visited after the incubation or early nestling period. We quantified breeding success on a binary scale (successful, unsuccessful), and the breeding attempt was considered successful when at least one chick was raised to ringing age Habitat Effects on Forest-Dwelling Hawks PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0137877 September 30, 2015 3/19 (14–28 days old). For brood size analyses, we included only those nests with an accurate number of chicks [51]. Ethics Statement Raptor ringers and enthusiasts followed the guidelines of Finnish Ringing Centre at the Finnish Museum of Natural History Luomus. According to these guidelines, unnecessary nest visits and nest climbing should be avoided during the breeding season in order to minimize disturbance. Ringing licences were issued by The Centres for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment. Hawk nests were located on different land types (private, state or company owned lands) which are accessible according to Finnish public right of access. Nests at protected areas were examined with a specific licence issued by The Centres for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment, or by Metsähallitus. No samples of protected species were taken for this study. Multi-source national forest inventory (MS-NFI) data Our habitat data were based on MS-NFIs of the Natural Resources Institute Finland. The MS-NFI data is a combination of information from satellite images (Landsat Thematic Mapper, TM), field plots of Finnish national forest inventories (NFIs) and other georeferenced digital data [56,57], further details on the MS-NFI data in S2 Text. We used the MS-NFI data (hereafter habitat data) from four MS-NFI periods (S2 Text) and we matched the year of habitat data (satellite image year) with the year of breeding data for each nest. Additionally, we generalized the habitat data for two preceding and two subsequent breeding years (but not before 1992, see S2 Text). For instance, if the habitat data around a nest were from the year 1999, these data were used for the breeding years 1997–2001 in this nest. As a result of the generalization of habitat data from four MS-NFI periods, we had breeding data on four breeding periods that we hereafter refer to as the first, second, third and fourth breeding periods. The first breeding period covered breeding years 1992–2004 (median breeding year of all species combined 1998), the second breeding period 2002–2007 (2004), the third breeding period 2005–2008 (2008) and the fourth breeding period 2008–2010 (2009). Since the number of honey buzzard nests was low in the fourth breeding period, we combined the third and fourth breeding periods as the last breeding period (median breeding year of all species 2008). We retrieved habitat data in circles with radii of 100 m, 250 m, 500 m, 1000 m, 2000 m and 4000 m around each nest (see [41,45,58] for similar radii) that corresponded to areas of 3.14 ha, 19.6 ha, 78.5 ha, 314.1 ha, 1256.6 ha and 5026.4 ha, respectively. Habitat data from different scales ensured that we would include all potentially important habitat composition scales for each species. Each pixel of the raw habitat data was classified into one of seven biologically relevant habitat classes (details in S2 Text): 1) spruce-dominated forest with tree stem volume 150 m 3 ha - 1 (hereafter old spruce forest); 2) other forest with tree stem volume 150 m 3 ha -1 (hereafter other old forest, half of which consists of pine forest at all scales); 3) young thinning forest with tree stem volume 60 m 3 –<150 m 3 ha -1 (young growing stock at the thinning cuttings stage [9]); 4) low stocking forest with tree stem volume from zero (treeless peatland or logged area) to <60 m 3 ha -1 (young seedling, seedling or seed tree stand, or peatland with low number of trees); 5) water; 6) arable land (of which cereals 52%, cultivated grasslands 29% and fallow areas 11%; [59]); and 7) built-up land (settlement, road or peat production area). We use here the terms ‘old spruce forest’and ‘other old forest’for brevity, but it should be noted that the correlation between tree age and size is not perfect [60,61]. By ‘old spruce forest’or ‘other old forest’we do not refer exclusively to natural, old-growth forest, which are rare in the study area Habitat Effects on Forest-Dwelling Hawks PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0137877 September 30, 2015 4/19 [62]. However, our limit of tree stem volume 150 m 3 ha -1 refers to advanced or mature forest, since the mean stock volume of advanced thinning stands is 163 m 3 ha -1 and that of mature stands 207 m 3 ha -1 in Finland (NFI 11: 2009–2012 [48]). We excluded clouds and areas without habitat data from the circular areas and then calculated the proportion of each habitat class in each area. We used log-ratio transformation for the habitat variables in the study question 1 (method of [63] described in [64,65]). This was done to purge the mutual correlation of the habitat proportions because the sum of the habitat proportions is 1 (see S3 Text). The habitat variable estimates within a radius contain some errors (error sources listed in [62], p. 91 onwards, see also S2 Text) that decrease when the size of the study area increases. Estimation of these errors and their incorporation in subsequent statistical analyses is a very complex and ambiguous issue [62,66], which we avoided in this study. Impacts of errors are potentially pronounced when evaluating temporal changes in habitat estimates (different model-based habitat data estimates); in such cases, comparisons can be done for a particular area, using NFI field data only [62]. Statistical analyses 1) How is breeding habitat associated with breeding performance? We included data from the nests from all breeding periods for breeding success and brood size analyses. We investigated the influence of log-ratio habitat variables on breeding success and brood size with generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) with the territory identity as a random effect. We preferred territory identity instead of nest identity as a random effect, because the landscape around alternative nests of the same territory is presumably similar and therefore the risk of pseudoreplication would still exist after considering nest identity as a random effect. The breeding success GLMMs of the goshawk and honey buzzard, assuming a binomial (with logit link) distribution, were then of the form (following [67]): Yij Binð1;pijÞ log itðpijÞ¼aþb1log rðold spruce forestrÞij þb2log rðyoung thinning forestrÞij þb3log rðlow stocking forestrÞij þb4log rðwaterrÞij þb5log rðarable landrÞij þb6log rðbuilt up landrÞij þai aiNð0;s2 aÞ ð1Þ where Y ij is 1 if nest j on territory i has a successful breeding attempt; otherwise Y ij is 0. Logr is the log-ratio of the habitat variable and r is the radius. We assumed the random intercept a i of the territory identity to be normally distributed (mean 0, variance s2 a). We found earlier with a longer-term dataset that the breeding success of the common buzzard decreases towards the north in Finland [51]. Thus, we added latitude to the breeding success model (1) of the common buzzard. The brood size GLMMs assumed a Poisson (log link) distribution and included the same explanatory variables as in the model 1. Since the appropriate scale was unknown, we first investigated, at which scale the habitat composition influences most the breeding performance of each species. Therefore, we fitted four GLMMs for both breeding success and brood size, using habitat variables within the radii of 100 m, 500 m, 1000 m and 2000 m. We standardized the model variables to mean = 0 and standard deviation (SD) = 0.5 [68]. We compared the Akaike information criterion (AIC) values of the models with habitat data at different scales, and chose for each species the model Habitat Effects on Forest-Dwelling Hawks PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0137877 September 30, 2015 5/19 with the lowest AIC as the model best explaining breeding success or brood size [69]. If several models were almost equally good (AIC-difference to the best model 2[68,69]), we inspected whether the parameter estimates of each of these top 2AIC models gave the same information than the best model. We further reduced the best model of each species if the log-ratio habitat variables were highly correlated (|r| >0.7 [70]). We used the likelihood-ratio test to decide which of the correlated variables could be dropped. In cases where both variables could be dropped, we discarded the variable whose removal led to the lowest AIC. Model fit was evaluated graphically, and with parametric bootstrapping [71]. We tested the residuals of the best models for spatial autocorrelation with global Moran’sI[72] and found no spatial autocorrelation. When fitting models for small counts (such as brood size of 1–5), but excluding zero (brood size 0) from possible values may potentially bias the parameter estimates of the model [67], while models including zero (brood sizes 0–5) could contain the same information already captured by breeding success models (since unsuccessful nests are the ones with brood size 0). To verify the brood size model results, we fitted zero-truncated generalized linear models (zerotruncated GLMs) with unstandardized log-ratio habitat variables, using the same variable sets as in the best models. The zero-truncation approach adjusts the parameter estimates by taking into account the exclusion of zero [67]. 2) Characteristics and changes in the boreal breeding habitat? We included nests from the first and last breeding periods, and quantified first the breeding habitat proportions in the two periods at all scales (radii of 100–4000 m). For the analyses of changes in the breeding habitat, we chose the radii 100 m, 1000 m and 2000 m, where 100 m represents the nest-site scale, 1000 m the territory core scale and 2000 m the territory on a broad scale. The habitat proportions were arcsine square-root-transformed; this transformation is commonly used for proportions [73]. We analysed the differences in habitat proportions between the first and last breeding periods for each species with linear mixed-effect models, in which the dependent variable was an arcsine square-root-transformed habitat proportion, and the explanatory variable was the breeding period. We included territory identity as a random effect with a random intercept. If necessary, we allowed a different variance for the two breeding periods. We adjusted the threshold for a significant p-value with a Bonferroni correction. We contrasted forest habitat changes around hawk nests with overall changes in forests in southern Finland using results of the NFI field data for the comparison [48]. The habitat classification in NFIs slightly differ from that of ours, but we used a classification that best matched with our habitat classes. We examined in the NFI data the changes in the area of >60-year-old spruce-dominated forest (hereafter ‘older spruce-dominated forest’; this corresponds roughly to our old spruce forest), of >60-year-old pine and deciduous forest (‘other older forest’, compares roughly with our other old forest), and of 21–60-year-old young forest (‘young forest’, corresponding approximately to our young thinning forest) in southern Finland between NFI9 (1996–2003) and NFI-11 (2009–2012). Results 1) Association of breeding performance with the habitat Breeding success. The overall breeding success was high in our nest card data. The proportion of successful breeding attempts was 89.8% for the goshawk (N = 1454 breeding attempts), 90.9% for the common buzzard (N = 762) and 87.0% for the honey buzzard (N = 161). Most breeding failures occurred at the egg-stage (S3 Table). Since nest cards may overestimate successful breeding attempts (early failures are missed or nest cards are filled Habitat Effects on Forest-Dwelling Hawks PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0137877 September 30, 2015 6/19 more often from successful breeding attempts), we provide respective proportions of successful breeding attempts from the Raptor Questionnaire data of the Finnish Common Birds-of-Prey Survey in 1986–2014 for a comparison: 86.7% for the goshawk (N = 20928 breeding attempts), 88.7% for the common buzzard (N = 10111), and 80.9% for the honey buzzard (N = 2077, Finnish Museum of Natural History Luomus). The breeding success of the goshawk was best explained by habitat proportions at the 2000 m radius scale. For the common buzzard, the best model was the one with habitat proportions within 100 m. The model with habitat proportions within 100 m was the best also for the honey buzzard, but habitat proportions at the 1000 m scale were almost as good in explaining honey buzzard breeding success. The proportions of old spruce forest (Fig 1A) and water within 2000 m were significantly and positively associated with the breeding success of the goshawk, whereas the proportion of young thinning forest was significantly and negatively associated with goshawk breeding success (Fig 1B,Table 1). To illustrate the results on the biologically interesting original habitat proportion scale, we fitted additional breeding success GLMMs in which the only explanatory variable was each of the untransformed habitat variable proportion in turn at the 2000 m radius scale. Also here, the proportion of old spruce forest showed a significant positive and the proportion of young thinning forest a significant negative association with goshawk breeding success (S4 and S5 Figs). The proportion of built-up land had a significant positive association with goshawk breeding success, whereas the proportion of water and arable land were not significantly associated with goshawk breeding success. None of the habitat proportions of the best models were significantly associated with the breeding success of the common buzzard or honey buzzard (Table 1). We also inspected the second-best breeding success model for the honey buzzard (within 1000 m), but the interpretation was the same; none of the habitat variables were significantly associated with breeding success. Brood size. The average brood size in successful nests was 2.89 (SD 0.86, N = 1167) for the goshawk, 2.26 (0.85, N = 592) for the common buzzard, and 1.79 (0.41, N = 121) for the honey buzzard. Two brood size models were included in the top 2AIC for both the goshawk (with habitat proportions within 2000 m and 1000 m) and common buzzard (within 2000 m and 500 m) while each of the four honey buzzard brood size models had a similar AIC (models with the lowest AIC in S1 Table). We verified the parameters of each competing model within the top 2AIC, and they made no change to the interpretation of the variables. None of the habitat variables were significantly associated with the brood size for any of the hawks in the best models (S1 Table), or in the competing models. The results of the zerotruncated GLMs (not shown) were in general similar to those of the GLMMs, confirming the non-significant association of the habitat variables with the brood size. 2) Breeding habitat and habitat changes Habitat proportions at all scales around the nests are shown in Fig 2A–2C for the first breeding period, and in three scales for the first and last breeding periods (S2 Table). The proportion of old spruce forest was highest for the goshawk at the nest-site scale (100 m) and decreased gradually with increasing radius (Fig 2A,S2 Table, see also S4 Text). The same pattern emerged for the honey buzzard, but in the first breeding period only (Fig 2C). In contrast, the proportions of water and arable land were low at the goshawk nest-sites and increased with increasing radius (Fig 2A). Young thinning forest was prominent in all radii and in both breeding periods for all species (Fig 2A–2C,S2 Table). The habitat proportions were very similar in different radii for the common buzzard (Fig 2B). However, arable land was Habitat Effects on Forest-Dwelling Hawks PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0137877 September 30, 2015 7/19 a large component in common buzzard nest sites and at territory scales (Fig 2B), while a high proportion of water was apparent at the territory scales around honey buzzard nests (Fig 2C, S2 Table). The proportion of old spruce forest declined significantly between the first and last breeding periods within 1000 m and 2000 m around goshawk nests, and within 1000 m around common buzzard nests (Fig 3A,S2 Table). At the nest-site scale (100 m), there was no significant difference in the proportion of old spruce forest between the first and last breeding periods for any of the species, although for the honey buzzard, the average proportion of old spruce forest was halved (Fig 3A). However, the sample size of the honey buzzard was low in the last breeding period. The proportion of other old forest increased at all scales (100 m, 1000 m and 2000 m) for both the goshawk and the common buzzard (Fig 3B,S2 Table). Other significant breeding habitat changes for the goshawk included a decline in the proportion of low stocking forest and an increase in built-up land within 2000 m around the nests. No significant changes were detected in the proportions of young thinning forest, water and arable land between the breeding periods for any of the species. The above-mentioned habitat changes were detected in territories that the hawks accepted for breeding and that can thus represent more suitable environments for the hawks than on average in the landscape. It was thus interesting to compare the habitat changes around nests to forest habitat changes throughout southern Finland. Areas of older spruce-dominated forest and other older forest decreased in southern Finland by 24% (from 19,040 km 2 to 14,471 km 2 ) and 10% (from 27,626 km 2 to 24,838 km 2 ), respectively. Instead, the area of young forest increased by 14% (from 42,901 km 2 to 48,877 km 2 )[48]. Discussion We studied habitat effects on the breeding performance of three hawk species in boreal forest landscapes. The continuously declining population trends of these hawks have raised concerns Fig 1. Probabilities of successful goshawk breeding based on the best breeding success GLMM (2000 m radius). All breeding attempts with a verified breeding result were included from all breeding periods. Thick line: predicted values, thin lines delineate 95% of the variation between territories in predicted values, dots: data points; 0 = unsuccessful, 1 = successful breeding attempt in the y-axis. (A) Probability of successful breeding along standardized log-ratio proportion of old spruce forest. (B) Probability of successful breeding along standardized log-ratio proportion of young thinning forest. Goshawk breeding success increases with (A) an increasing proportion of old spruce forest and (B) a decreasing proportion of young thinning forest within 2000 m around the nest. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0137877.g001 Habitat Effects on Forest-Dwelling Hawks PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0137877 September 30, 2015 8/19 about unfavourable changes in their breeding habitat, and some adverse changes were detected in this study. We found that goshawk breeding success increased with increasing proportions of old spruce forest and water, and decreasing proportions of young thinning forest within 2000 m around their nests. At the same time, old spruce forest decreased at the territory scales around goshawk nests and throughout southern Finland. We found no significant association with the habitat composition and the breeding success of the common buzzard and honey buzzard. Habitat-associated breeding performance We found a preference of the goshawk for breeding in old spruce forest, since they predominated at goshawk nest sites (Fig 2A), while their proportion was much smaller on the landscape scale. Moreover, a higher proportion of old spruce forest around the nest increased goshawk breeding success. The goshawk’s preference for mature stands has been confirmed in many studies [13,17,21,24,25,37,44]. The goshawk favours large forest patches [42,74] and hunts inside the forest or at forest edges [37,75,76]. Furthermore, goshawk populations are sensitive Table 1. Logit estimates of the GLMMs 1 that best explained the breeding success of each species. GLMMs included log-ratio habitat proportions within the radius of 100 m, 500 m, 1000 m or 2000 m, and the model with the lowest AIC was selected. Low stocking forest was removed from the best goshawk model due to high collinearity. Variance of the random variable (territory identity) describes variation among territories. Species Radius selected Variable Estimate SE z-value p (>|z|) 2 Goshawk 2000 m Intercept 2.74 0.13 21.34 <0.001 Old spruce forest 0.54 0.22 2.47 0.014* Young thinning forest –0.93 0.27 –3.40 <0.001*** Water 0.52 0.23 2.25 0.024* Arable land 0.22 0.25 0.90 0.369 Built-up land 0.43 0.24 1.79 0.074 random: Territory, σ 2 : 1.25 Common buzzard 100 m Intercept 7.77 0.95 8.21 <0.001 Old spruce forest 0.01 0.66 0.02 0.988 Young thinning forest 0.63 2.11 0.30 0.767 Low stocking forest 0.32 0.89 0.35 0.724 Water 2.64 2.23 1.19 0.235 Arable land –1.55 1.23 –1.26 0.206 Built-up land 0.13 1.19 0.11 0.912 Latitude –1.71 1.72 –0.99 0.322 random: Territory, σ 2 : 56.75 Honey buzzard 100 m Intercept 11.26 3.90 2.89 0.004 Old spruce forest 0.37 7.67 0.05 0.961 Young thinning forest 1.46 3.06 0.48 0.632 Low stocking forest –0.39 3.28 –0.12 0.905 Water 5.86 6.31 0.93 0.353 Arable land 0.68 11.02 0.06 0.951 Built-up land –1.75 3.59 –0.49 0.626 random: Territory, σ 2 : 288.95 1 GLMM: generalized linear mixed model, 2 Significance levels: *** <0.001, *<0.05, n.s. 0.05 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0137877.t001 Habitat Effects on Forest-Dwelling Hawks PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0137877 September 30, 2015 9/19 8. Myllyntaus T, Mattila T. Decline or increase? The standing timber stock in Finland, 1800–1997. Ecol Econ. 2002; 41: 271–288. dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00034-4. 9. Tomppo E, Heikkinen J, Henttonen HM, Ihalainen A, Katila M, Mäkelä H, et al. Designing and conducting a forest inventory—case: 9th national forest inventory of Finland. 1st ed. London: Springer; 2011. 10. Hanski I. Extinction debt and species credit in boreal forests: Modelling the consequences of different approaches to biodiversity conservation. Ann Zool Fennici. 2000; 37: 271–280. Available: http://www. helsinki.fi/~ihanski/AnnZool2000 Hanski.pdf. 11. Kuuluvainen T, Kallio E. Structural characteristics and diversity of natural, selectively cut and managed old Pinus sylvestris-dominated forests in Kuhmo. In: Heikkilä R, Lindholm T, editors. Biodiversity and conservation of boreal nature. Proceedings of the 10 years anniversary symposium of the Nature Reserve Friendship. Vantaa: Kainuu Regional Environment Centre; 2003. pp. 89–92. 12. Rouvinen S, Kuuluvainen T. Tree diameter distributions in natural and managed old Pinus sylvestrisdominated forests. For Ecol Manage. 2005; 208: 45–61. dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2004.11.021. 13. Lõhmus A. Nest-tree and nest-stand characteristics of forest-dwelling raptors in east-central Estonia: Implications for forest management and conservation. Proc Estonian Acad Sci Biol Ecol. 2006; 55: 31–50. 14. Newton I. Population ecology of raptors. 1st ed. Berkhamsted: T & A D Poyser; 1979. 15. del Hoyo J, Elliot A, Sargatal J, editors. Handbook of the Birds of the World. Vol. 2. New World Vultures to Guineafowl. 1st ed. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions; 1994. 16. Gamauf A, Tebb G, Nemeth E. Honey buzzard Pernis apivorus nest-site selection in relation to habitat and the distribution of goshawks Accipiter gentilis. Ibis. 2013; 155: 258–270. doi: 10.1111/ibi.12023 17. Penteriani V. Goshawk nesting habitat in Europe and North America: A review. Ornis Fenn. 2002; 79: 149–163. 18. Penteriani V, Faivre B. Breeding density and landscape-level habitat selection of common buzzards (Buteo buteo) in a mountain area (Abruzzo Apennines, Italy). J Raptor Res. 1997; 31: 208–212. 19. Penteriani V, Faivre B. Breeding density and nest site selection in a goshawk Accipiter gentilis population of the Central Apennines (Abruzzo, Italy). Bird Study. 1997; 44: 136–145. doi: 10.1080/ 00063659709461049 20. Reynolds RT, Graham RT, Reiser MH, Bassett RL, Kennedy PL, Boyce DA Jr, et al. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the Southwestern United States. General Technical Report RM-217. 1992: 1–90. 21. Selås V. Nest-site selection by four sympatric forest raptors in southern Norway. J Raptor Res. 1997; 31: 16–25. 22. Cramp S, Simmons KEL. Handbook of the birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa: The birds of the Western Palearctic, Hawks to bustards. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1980. 23. Amcoff M, Tjernberg M, Berg Å. Nest site choice of honey buzzard Pernis apivorus [Bivråkens Pernis apivorus boplatsval]. Ornis Svec. 1994; 4: 145–158. 24. Selås V, Steen OF, Johnsen JT. Goshawk breeding densities in relation to mature forest in southeastern Norway. For Ecol Manage. 2008; 256: 446–451. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2008.04.047 25. Squires JR, Kennedy PL. Northern goshawk ecology: An assessment of current knowledge and information needs for conservation and management. Stud Avian Biol. 2006; 31: 8–62. 26. Hakkarainen H, Mykrä S, Kurki S, Tornberg R, Jungell S. Competitive interactions among raptors in boreal forests. Oecologia. 2004; 141: 420–424. doi: 10.1007/s00442-004-1656-6 PMID: 15375689 27. Kostrzewa A. A comparative study of nest-site occupancy and breeding performance as indicators for nesting-habitat quality in three European raptor species. Ethology Ecology and Evolution. 1996; 8: 1–18. doi: 10.1080/08927014.1996.9522931 28. Krüger O. Analysis of nest occupancy and nest reproduction in two sympatric raptors: Common buzzard Buteo buteo and goshawk Accipiter gentilis. Ecography. 2002; 25: 523–532. doi: 10.1034/j. 1600-0587.2002.250502.x 29. Krüger O. Interactions between common buzzard Buteo buteo and goshawk Accipiter gentilis: Tradeoffs revealed by a field experiment. Oikos. 2002; 96: 441–452. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002. 960306.x 30. Kostrzewa A. Interspecific interference competition in three European raptor species. Ethology Ecology and Evolution. 1991; 3: 127–143. 31. BirdLife International. Birds in Europe: Population estimates, trends and conservation status. Cambridge: Bird Life International; 2004. Habitat Effects on Forest-Dwelling Hawks PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0137877 September 30, 2015 16 / 19 32. Doyle FI. Goshawks in Canada: Population responses to harvesting and the appropriateness of using standard bird monitoring techniques to assess their status. Stud Avian Biol. 2006; 31: 135–140. 33. Bijlsma RG, Vermeulen M, Hemerik L, Klok C. Demography of European honey buzzards Pernis apivorus. Ardea. 2012; 100: 163–177. 34. Honkala J, Saurola P, Valkama J. Breeding and population trends of common raptors and owls in Finland in 2012. The yearbook of the Linnut magazine 2012. 2013: 50–61. Available: http://www.luomus. fi/sites/default/files/files/linnut_vk2012_050-061_petolinnut.pdf. 35. Tjernberg M, Ryttman H. Survival and population development of the honey buzzard Pernis apivorus in Sweden [Bivråkens Pernis apivorus överlevnad och beståndsutveckling i Sverige]. Ornis Svec. 1994; 4: 133–139. 36. Widén P. How, and why, is the goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) affected by modern forest management in Fennoscandia? J Raptor Res. 1997; 31: 107–113. 37. Tornberg R, Korpimäki E, Byholm P. Ecology of the northern goshawk in Fennoscandia. Stud Avian Biol. 2006; 31: 141–157. Available: http://www.planetofbirds.com/northern-goshawk-article-2. 38. Valkama J, Vepsäläinen V, Lehikoinen A. The Third Finnish Breeding Bird Atlas. Finnish Museum of Natural History and Ministry of Environment. 2011. Available: http://atlas3.lintuatlas.fi/english/. Accessed 19 May 2014. 39. Saurola P. Monitoring birds of prey in Finland: A summary of methods, trends, and statistical power. Ambio. 2008; 37: 413–419. dx.doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447(2008)37[416:MBOPIF]2.0.CO;2. PMID: 18833793 40. Mikkola-Roos M, Tiainen J, Below A, Hario M, Lehikoinen A, Lehikoinen E, et al. Birds. In: Rassi P, Hyvärinen E, Juslén A, Mannerkoski I, editors. The 2010 Red List of Finnish Species. Helsinki: Ympäristöministeriö & Suomen ympäristökeskus; 2010. pp. 320–331. Available: http://www. ymparisto.fi/en-us/Nature/Species/Threatened_species/The_2010_Red_List_of_Finnish_species. 41. Byholm P, Nikula A, Kenttä J, Taivalmäki J-P. Interactions between habitat heterogeneity and food affect reproductive output in a top predator. J Anim Ecol. 2007; 76: 392–401. doi: 10.1111/j.13652656.2007.01211.x PMID: 17302847 42. Becker TE, Smith DG, Bosakowski T. Habitat, food habits, and productivity of northern goshawks nesting in Connecticut. Stud Avian Biol. 2006; 31: 119–125. 43. Carroll C, Rodriguez RL, McCarthy C, Paulin KM. Resource selection function models as tools for regional conservation planning for northern goshawk in Utah. Stud Avian Biol. 2006; 31: 288–298. 44. Finn SP, Marzluff JM, Varland DE. Effects of landscape and local habitat attributes on northern goshawk site occupancy in western Washington. For Sci. 2002; 48: 427–436. 45. Amar A, Arroyo B, Meek E, Redpath S, Riley H. Influence of habitat on breeding performance of hen harriers Circus cyaneus in Orkney. Ibis. 2008; 150: 400–404. doi: 10.1111/j.1474-919X.2007.00765.x 46. Hargis CD, McCarthy C, Perloff RD. Home ranges and habitats of northern goshawks in eastern California. Stud Avian Biol. 1994; 16: 66–74. 47. Graham RT, Reynolds RT, Reiser MH, Bassett RL, Boyse DA. Sustaining forest habitat for the northern goshawk: A question of scale. Stud Avian Biol. 1994; 16: 12–17. 48. Forest statistics service Metinfo. Finnish Forest Research Institute. 2013. Available: http://www.metla. fi/metinfo/vmi/index.htm. Accessed 14 October 2013. 49. Peltola A, Ihalainen A. Metsävarat (Forest resources). In: Ylitalo E, editor. Metsätilastollinen vuosikirja 2012 (Finnish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry). Vantaa: Finnish Forest Research Institute; 2012. pp. 37–78 (English summary: pp. 431–432). Available: http://www.metla.fi/metinfo/tilasto/julkaisut/vsk/ 2012/. Accessed 3 November 2014. 50. Kenward R. The goshawk. London: T & AD Poyser; 2006. 51. Björklund H, Valkama J, Saurola P, Laaksonen T. Evaluation of artificial nests as a conservation tool for three forest-dwelling raptors. Anim Conserv. 2013; 16: 546–555. doi: 10.1111/acv.12028 52. Reif V, Tornberg R, Jungell S, Korpimäki E. Diet variation of common buzzards in Finland supports the alternative prey hypothesis. Ecography. 2001; 24: 267–274. www.jstor.org/stable/3683704. 53. Itämies J, Mikkola H. The diet of honey buzzards Pernis apivorus in Finland. Ornis Fenn. 1972; 49: 7–10. 54. Saurola P, Valkama J, Velmala W. The Finnish bird ringing atlas. Vol. I. Helsinki: Finnish Museum of Natural History Luomus and Ministry of Environment; 2013. 55. Hurlbert SH. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol Monogr. 1984; 54: 187–211. doi: 10.2307/1942661 Habitat Effects on Forest-Dwelling Hawks PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0137877 September 30, 2015 17 / 19 56. Tomppo E, Haakana M, Katila M, Mäkisara K, Peräsaari J. The multi-source national forest inventory of Finland—methods and results 2005. Working papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute. 2009; 111: 1–277. Available: http://www.metla.fi/julkaisut/workingpapers/2009/mwp111.pdf. 57. Tomppo E, Katila M, Mäkisara K, Peräsaari J. The multi-source national forest inventory of Finland— methods and results 2009. Working papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute. 2013; 273: 1– 216. 58. Hakkarainen H, Mykrä S, Kurki S, Tornberg R, Jungell S, Nikula A. Long-term change in territory occupancy pattern of goshawks (Accipiter gentilis). Ecoscience. 2004; 11: 399–403. 59. Tike Information Centre of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Utilized agricultural area. 2014. Available: http://www.maataloustilastot.fi/en/utilised-agricultural-area. Accessed 12 March 2015. 60. Kuuluvainen T, Mäki J, Karjalainen L, Lehtonen H. Tree age distributions in old-growth forest sites in Vienansalo wilderness, eastern Fennoscandia. Silva Fennica. 2002; 36: 169–184. 61. Tomppo E, Henttonen H, Tuomainen T. Valtakunnan metsien 8. inventoinnin menetelmä ja tulokset metsäkeskuksittain Pohjois-Suomessa 1992–94 sekä tulokset Etelä-Suomessa 1986–92 ja koko maassa 1986–94. Metsätieteen aikakauskirja. 2001; 1B: 99–248. 62. Tomppo E, Haakana M, Katila M, Peräsaari J. Multi-source national forest inventory: Methods and applications. New York: Springer; 2008. 63. Aitchison J. The statistical analysis of compositional data. London: Chapman and Hall; 1986. 64. Aebischer NJ, Robertson PA, Kenward RE. Composition analysis of habitat use from animal radiotracking data. Ecology. 1993; 74: 1313–1325. doi: 10.2307/1940062 65. Hakkarainen H, Mykrä S, Kurki S, Korpimäki E, Nikula A, Koivunen V. Habitat composition as a determinant of reproductive success of Tengmalm's owls under fluctuating food conditions. Oikos. 2003; 100: 162–171. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.11906.x 66. McRoberts RE, Cohen WB, Næsset E, Stehman SV, Tomppo EO. Using remotely sensed data to construct and assess forest attribute maps and related spatial products. Scand J For Res. 2010; 25: 340–367. doi: 10.1080/02827581.2010.497496 67. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker NJ, Saveliev AA, Smith GM. Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. New York: Springer; 2009. 68. Grueber CE, Nakagawa S, Laws RJ, Jamieson IG. Multimodel inference in ecology and evolution: Challenges and solutions. J Evol Biol. 2011; 24: 699–711. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02210.x PMID: 21272107 69. Burnham K, Anderson D. Model selection and multimodel inference. A practical information-theoretic approach. 2 ed. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2002. 70. Dormann CF, Elith J, Bacher S, Buchmann C, Carl G, Carré G, et al. Collinearity: A review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography. 2013; 36: 027–046. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2012.07348.x 71. Canty A, Ripley B. Boot: Bootstrap R (S-Plus) Functions. R package version 1.3–15; 2015. 72. Dormann CF, McPherson JM, Araújo MB, Bivand R, Bolliger J, Carl G, et al. Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data: A review. Ecography. 2007; 30: 609–628. doi: 10.1111/j.2007.0906-7590.05171.x 73. McDonald JH. Handbook of biological statistics. 2 ed. Baltimore, Maryland: Sparky House Publishing; 2008. 74. Woodbridge B, Detrich PJ. Territory occupancy and habitat patch size of northern goshawks in the southern cascades of California. Stud Avian Biol. 1994; 16: 83–87. 75. Bloxton TD Jr Prey abundance, space use, demography, and foraging habitat of northern goshawks in western Washington. M.Sc. Thesis, the University of Washington. 2002. Available: http://www. ruraltech.org/pubs/theses/bloxton/bloxton_ms_thesis.pdf. 76. Widén P. The hunting habitats of goshawks Accipiter gentilis in boreal forests of central Sweden. Ibis. 1989; 131: 205–231. doi: 10.1111/j.1474-919X.1989.tb02763.x 77. Kurki S, Nikula A, Helle P, Lindén H. Landscape fragmentation and forest composition effects on grouse breeding success in boreal forests. Ecology. 2000; 81: 1985–1997. 78. Tornberg R, Lindén A, Byholm P, Ranta E, Valkama J, Helle P, et al. Coupling in goshawk and grouse population dynamics in Finland. Oecologia. 2013; 171: 863–872. doi: 10.1007/s00442-012-2448-z PMID: 22961371 79. Byholm P, Kekkonen M. Food regulates reproduction differently in different habitats: Experimental evidence in the Goshawk. Ecology. 2008; 89: 1696–1702. PMID: 18589533 Habitat Effects on Forest-Dwelling Hawks PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0137877 September 30, 2015 18 / 19 80. López-López P, García-Ripollés C, Urios V. Population size, breeding performance and territory quality of Bonelli's eagle Hieraaetus fasciatus in eastern Spain. Bird Study. 2007; 54: 335–342. doi: 10. 1080/00063650709461493 81. Tornberg R, Mönkkönen M, Kivelä SM. Landscape and season effects on the diet of the goshawk. Ibis. 2009; 151: 396–400. doi: 10.1111/j.1474-919X.2009.00910.x 82. Coeurdassier M, Riols R, Decors A, Mionnet A, David F, Quintaine T, et al. Unintentional wildlife poisoning and proposals for sustainable management of rodents. Conserv Biol. 2014; 28: 315–321. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12230 PMID: 24405288 83. Jonker RM, Chakarov N, Krüger O. Climate change and habitat heterogeneity drive a population increase in common buzzards Buteo buteo through effects on survival. Ibis. 2014; 156: 97–106. doi: 10.1111/ibi.12124 84. Lehikoinen A, Byholm P, Ranta E, Saurola P, Valkama J, Korpimäki E, et al. Reproduction of the common buzzard at its northern range margin under climatic change. Oikos. 2009; 118: 829–836. doi: 10. 1111/j.1600-0706.2008.17440.x 85. Krüger O. Dissecting common buzzard lifespan and lifetime reproductive success: The relative importance of food, competition, weather, habitat and individual attributes. Oecologia. 2002; 133: 474–482. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4223446. 86. Krüger O. The importance of competition, food, habitat, weather and phenotype for the reproduction of buzzard Buteo buteo. Bird Study. 2004; 51: 125–132. doi: 10.1080/00063650409461344 87. Agostini N, Panuccio M, Mellone U, Lucia G, Wilson S, Ashton-Booth J. Do migration counts reflect population trends? A case study of the honey buzzard Pernis apivorus. Ardeola. 2007; 54: 339–344. 88. Bijlsma RG. What is the predation risk for European honey buzzards Pernis apivorus in Dutch forests inhabited by food-stressed northern goshawks Accipiter gentilis? De Takkeling. 2004; 12: 185–197. 89. Bijlsma RG. Life-history traits of honey buzzards (Pernis apivorus) in Africa. Vogelwarte. 2002; 41: 240–248. 90. Strandberg R, Hake M, Klaassen RHG, Alerstam T. Movements of immature European honey buzzards Pernis apivorus in tropical Africa. Ardea. 2012; 100: 157–162. doi: 10.5253/078.100.0207 91. Chakarov N, Krüger O. Mesopredator release by an emergent superpredator: A natural experiment of predation in a three level guild. PLOS ONE. 2010; 5: e15229. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0015229 PMID: 21151912 92. López-López P, García-Ripollés C, Urios V. Food predictability determines space use of endangered vultures: Implications for management of supplementary feeding. Ecol Appl. 2014; 24: 938–949. doi: 10.1890/13-2000.1 PMID: 25154088 93. Hakkarainen H, Korpimäki E, Laaksonen T, Nikula A, Suorsa P. Survival of male Tengmalm's owls increases with cover of old forest in their territory. Oecologia. 2008; 155: 479–486. doi: 10.1007/ s00442-007-0929-2 PMID: 18080142 94. Kaila A, Ihalainen A. Forest resources. In: Peltola A, editor. Finnish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry 2014. Vantaa: Finnish Forest Research Institute; 2014. pp. 33–78. Available: http://www.metla.fi/ julkaisut/metsatilastollinenvsk/tilastovsk-sisalto.htm. 95. Bosakowski T, Speiser R. Macrohabitat selection by nesting northern goshawks: Implications for managing eastern forests. Stud Avian Biol. 1994; 16: 46–49. 96. Huhta E, Aho T, Jäntti A, Suorsa P, Kuitunen M, Nikula A, et al. Forest fragmentation increases nest predation in the Eurasian treecreeper. Conserv Biol. 2004; 18: 148–155. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739. 2004.00270.x 97. Laaksonen T, Hakkarainen H, Korpimäki E. Lifetime reproduction of a forest-dwelling owl increases with age and area of forests. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2004; 271: S461–S464. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2004. 0221 98. Mönkkönen M, Reunanen P, Kotiaho JS, Juutinen A, Tikkanen O-P, Kouki J. Cost-effective strategies to conserve boreal forest biodiversity and long-term landscape-level maintenance of habitats. Eur J Forest Res. 2011; 130: 717–727. doi: 10.1007/s10342-010-0461-5 99. Mykrä S, Kurki S, Nikula A. The spacing of mature forest habitat in relation to species-specific scales in managed boreal forests in NE Finland. Ann Zool Fenn. 2000; 37: 79–91. Available: http://www.sekj. org/PDF/anzf37/anzf37-079p.pdf. 100. Reynolds RT, Graham RT, Boyce DA Jr. An ecosystem-based conservation strategy for the northern goshawk. Stud Avian Biol. 2006; 31: 299–311. Habitat Effects on Forest-Dwelling Hawks PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0137877 September 30, 2015 19 / 19