145
Acrocephalus 33 (154/155): 145−157, 2012
10.2478/v10100-012-0003-y
Overview of raptor monitoring activities in Europe
Pregled monitoringa ptic roparic v Evropi
Al Vrezec1, Guy Duke2, András Kovács3, Pertti Saurola4, Chris Wernham5, Ian Burfield6, Paola 
Movalli7 & Irena Bertoncelj1
 1 National Institute of Biology, Večna pot 111, SI–1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia, e–mail: al.vrezec@nib.si, 
irenabertonceljnib@gmail.com
 2 Oxford University Centre for the Environment, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3QY, United Kingdom,  
e–mail: guy.duke@skynet.be
 3 Koszorú u. 46, H–3300 Eger, Hungary, e–mail: andras.kovacs.ecol@gmail.com 
 4 Finnish Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 17, FI–00014 University of Helsinki, Finland,  
e–mail: saurola@cc.helsinki.fi
 5 British Trust for Ornithology (Scotland), School of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, 
Scotland, e–mail: chris.wernham@bto.org
 6 BirdLife International, Wellbrook Court, Girton Road, Cambridge CB3 0NA, United Kingdom,  
e–mail: ian.burfield@birdlife.org
 7 Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), VU University, De Boelelaan 1087, 1081 HV Amsterdam,  
The Netherlands, e–mail: paola.movalli@skynet.be
Despite the key role of raptors (including birds of prey Falconiformes and 
owls Strigiformes) in ecosystems and their sensitivity to environmental 
change, a well coordinated, Europe-wide monitoring of raptors is lacking. 
EURAPMON, a Research Networking Programme of the European Science 
Foundation, was launched with the aim of establishing a sustainable Europe-
wide network for monitoring of raptors. An overview of current monitoring 
schemes for raptor populations in 28 European countries, as reported by 
EURAPMON National Coordinators at the workshop in Murcia (Spain) in 
2012, showed existing monitoring schemes to be limited to a restricted number 
of species (mostly diurnal and rare raptor species). The most widely monitored 
species are the Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos amongst diurnal raptors and 
the Eagle Owl Bubo bubo amongst owls. Broad coverage of a species range 
across Europe is reached only for restricted-range species. The key driver for 
monitoring, which is mostly coordinated by NGOs, is conservation, and the 
main end users are governmental institutions. International collaboration in 
the field of monitoring of raptors is mainly regional and not yet pan-European 
in scale. The involvement of volunteers in raptor monitoring was perceived as 
the main strength of many schemes, but insufficient manpower and a focus on 
rare species were recognised as the main weaknesses across Europe as a whole. 
Among priorities identified for the future development of monitoring schemes 
are: improvements to national coordination; support to increase the number 
of volunteers; and assurances of stable funding. Further analysis of 
EURAPMON questionnaires will identify knowledge gaps, which will steer 
good practice guidance on survey methodologies; the need for the latter was 
identified as the main benefit that National Coordinators expect to gain from 
international networking.
Key words: Europe, raptor monitoring scheme, birds of prey, owls, monitoring 
inventory
Ključne besede: Evropa, monitoring ujed in sov, pregled shem monitoringa
146
A. Vrezec, G. Duke, A. Kovács, P. Saurola, C. Wernham, I. Burfield, P. Movalli & I. Bertoncelj: Overview of 
raptor monitoring activities in Europe
1. Introduction
As top predators, raptors are key species in eco-
systems, for which large positive relationships with 
overall biodiversity have been shown (Sergio et al. 
2005). However, the benefits for conservation science 
of focussing on raptors can be two-fold (Movalli et 
al. 2008). First, as top predators they are vulnerable 
to ecosystem degradation and can respond rapidly 
to biodiversity loss lower down the food chain 
(Kovács et al. 2008). Second, due to contaminant 
biomagnification processes, they can act as valuable 
sentinels of environmental pollution (Helander et 
al. 2008). Both perspectives are crucial in assessment 
of the state of ecosystems, since biodiversity loss and 
contamination have significant environmental, social 
and economic impacts. Indeed, raptor monitoring can 
provide relevant information to inform assessment of 
the effectiveness of EU environmental policy and law 
aimed at nature conservation and at the prevention of 
environmental contamination (Duke 2008). Despite 
this, due to the need for specific survey protocols, raptors 
are usually poorly covered by more generic common 
bird censuses (Hardey et al. 2009). Monitoring 
schemes for raptors are not spread uniformly across 
Europe, apply diverse methods, and are conducted at 
quite different scales, from intensive academic research 
projects to broad-scale volunteer surveys (Kovács et 
al. 2008). There is a need to reinforce national and 
sub-national initiatives and improve coordination of 
raptor monitoring at pan-European scale. This applies 
both to monitoring largely focused on the health of 
raptor populations themselves (which we subsequently 
refer to as “monitoring for raptors”) and to monitoring 
largely focused on what raptors can tell us about the 
environment (“monitoring with raptors”). These issues 
prompted the initiation of EURAPMON, a recently 
established Research Networking Programme of the 
European Science Foundation.
Traditionally, only birds of prey (order 
Falconiformes) were considered as raptors following 
Hartert’s (1912) taxonomic division of order 
Accipitres. However, following modern discussions 
over the role of raptorial birds as top predators in 
ecosystems, and due to their similar predatory habits, 
owls (order Strigiformes) are often also considered as 
raptors (e.g. Burfield 2008, Saurola 2008). Thus, 
birds of prey and owls belong to the same ecological 
guild, i.e. a group of ecologically similar species 
exploiting the same environmental resources in a 
similar way as defined by Root (1967), within which 
strong competitive and even intraguild predation 
interactions are described (Carotheres & Jaksic 
1984, Sergio et al. 2003, Vrezec & Tome 2004, 
Sergio & Hiraldo 2008). Some recent views on 
raptor assemblages define raptors even more broadly, 
including some passerine groups: shrikes (Laniidae), 
as indicated by publications in the Journal of Raptor 
Research; and even some corvids (Corvidae), i.e. 
Raven Corvus corax (Hardey et al. 2009). In this 
sense, ecologically based views are actually repeating 
old taxonomic considerations of raptors as the 
former order Accipitres, comprising birds of prey, 
owls and shrikes (Linnaeus 1758). For the purposes 
of the EURAPMON programme and this paper, 
however, only top predator species with an apex role 
in ecosystems are included, which require specific 
methodological approaches for monitoring: birds 
of prey (Falconiformes; diurnal raptors) and owls 
(Strigiformes; mainly nocturnal raptors).
The EURAPMON inventory of raptor population 
monitoring (monitoring for raptors) in Europe was 
initiated in 2012. The inventory will form the basis 
of future development of common monitoring 
approaches, including good practice guidance on 
survey methodologies and analysis of data. It will 
assist in setting priorities and is complementary 
to, and will be used in conjunction with, a similar 
inventory of with raptor monitoring schemes across 
Europe (Gómez-Ramírez et al. submitted) to foster 
cross-cooperation between these two monitoring 
communities. A network of National Coordinators 
has been established for the monitoring for raptors, 
who have the combined role of facilitating data 
provision for the inventory and promoting common 
pan-European raptor monitoring activities.
The for raptors monitoring inventory was launched 
at a workshop held in Murcia, Spain, 7–10 February 
2012, organized by EURAPMON to bring together 
the National Coordinators for the first time to report 
on the monitoring schemes existing in their countries 
(EURAPMON 2013). This paper aims to provide 
an overview of the main insights arising from the 
National Coordinators’ reports, providing a first up to 
date review of current monitoring activities for raptors 
across Europe. A further paper will synthesize the results 
of a subsequent questionnaire survey of those carrying 
out raptor monitoring across Europe and provide more 
detail on the particular biological parameters that are 
monitored, variation in survey methods across Europe 
and individual species coverage.
2. Material and methods
At the workshop held in Murcia in 2012, the appointed 
National Coordinators each provided a PowerPoint 
147
Acrocephalus 33 (154/155): 145−157, 2012
presentation reviewing the current status of 
monitoring for raptors within their country (available 
at http://www.eurapmon.net), following this with 
papers summarising the current state of knowledge 
(published within this issue of Acrocephalus). The 
workshop participants were asked to answer a set of 
standard questions under five topics, covering a range 
of relevant monitoring issues:
(1) Main players
 – Who are the main actors in monitoring for raptors 
in your country?
 – Which are the main countries with which you 
collaborate, within your region, within Europe 
and/or globally?
 – Who are the main users of the data obtained from 
this monitoring and for what purpose do they use 
the data?
(2) National coverage
 – Is there any national co-ordination? By whom?
 – Is there a national network for monitoring for 
raptors?
 – How comprehensive or patchy, spatially, is 
monitoring across the country?
(3) Key species and key issues
 – What are the key species addressed by monitoring 
for raptors in your country?
 – What are the key issues (threats) addressed by 
monitoring for raptors in your country?
 – For which, if any, of these species and issues might 
your country most benefit from international 
networking?
(4) Strengths and weaknesses
 – What are the main strengths and weaknesses of 
monitoring for raptors in your country?
 – What are the main gaps (species, regions, threats…) 
in monitoring for raptors in your country?
 – Are there specific areas of weakness, or challenges, 
for which your country might benefit from 
international sharing of good/best practice?
(5) Priorities, capacity-building
 – What are the priorities to strengthen monitoring 
for raptors in your country?
 – What are the main capacity-building needs to 
strengthen for monitoring for raptors in your 
country?
The responses have been summarized and pooled 
into groups containing related answers. Some 
questions were not answered for all countries, so in 
the analysis we have excluded those countries in 
which National Coordinators have skipped certain 
questions. The scale of international collaboration 
was measured as distances between capital cities of 
collaborating countries. The scale was estimated by 
comparing actual collaboration distances with all 
possible distances between capital cities in Europe, 
assuming that the latter would reflect a pan-European 
collaboration scale. Non-parametric and χ² statistical 
tests have been used whenever needed for numerical 
evaluation of the data. The known presence of 
breeding raptor populations in European countries 
followed BirdLife International (2004), and only 
for poorly known countries have recent updates been 
taken into account, e.g. Bosnia and Herzegovina 
(Kotrošan & Hatibović 2012). In the paper we deal 
especially with monitoring of breeding populations 
and less with migration and wintering monitoring 
issues, which were less comprehensively covered with 
the current survey approach.
3. Results and discussion
Within this overview we have collected reports of 
raptor monitoring activity from 28 European countries 
(in alphabetical order; see also Figure 2): Austria, 
Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria, 
Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, 
Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, 
Latvia, Malta, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, 
Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and United 
Kingdom. Surveyed countries comprise 58% of all 
countries and 83% of the whole territory of Europe 
covered by EURAPMON (which includes Europe 
east to the Urals, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and 
Turkey).
3.1. Main players
In more than 90% of surveyed countries, monitoring 
for raptors is conducted by non-governmental 
organisations (NGOs), such as ornithological societies, 
BirdLife Partners and other associations (Figure 1 
left). However, in 75% of countries, governmental 
(i.e. ministries, environmental agencies, protected 
areas administrations) and research institutions (i.e. 
universities, research institutes, museums) are also 
involved in running monitoring schemes. In some 
countries, further monitoring activities are the result 
of the enthusiasm of individuals, and monitoring 
is conducted only via private initiatives. The latter 
monitoring schemes are usually small-scale, but not 
necessarily short-term.
Large-scale, country-wide monitoring schemes 
usually incur higher costs, such that stable financing is 
necessary to conduct them in the long-term. For this 
reason, the needs of users of monitoring data are crucial 
148
A. Vrezec, G. Duke, A. Kovács, P. Saurola, C. Wernham, I. Burfield, P. Movalli & I. Bertoncelj: Overview of 
raptor monitoring activities in Europe
to consider when setting up monitoring schemes. In 
88% of the surveyed European countries, the main 
identified users of monitoring data are governmental 
institutions (Figure 1 right), particularly for imple-
menting their international monitoring obligations 
set by, for example, EU Directives (see an overview 
in Duke 2008). However, National Coordinators 
also reported large user needs for monitoring data 
within NGOs, particularly for assessing species’ 
conservation status and other conservation issues (e.g. 
Burfield 2008). Research institutions are in general 
less involved with the analysis and management 
of monitoring data (Figure 1 right), and this was 
reported as one of the main weaknesses of monitoring 
schemes by many National Coordinators (see later). 
Due to obligations to assess the environmental and 
biodiversity impacts of development, many private 
companies are also involved in monitoring activities as 
both data users and monitoring funders (e.g. to carry 
out work to assess the impacts of wind farms, power 
lines etc.), although such monitoring activities are 
usually undertaken at a local scale only.
According to information obtained from National 
Coordinators, there is some existing network of 
international collaboration for the monitoring 
for raptors in Europe, with 102 different contacts 
reported (Figure 2). Our measure of the scale of this 
network (measured as distances between capital cities) 
has shown that this network represents more or less 
regional, but not pan-European, scale collaboration, 
with the majority of contacts restricted to neighbouring 
countries (Figure 3). The current network is significantly 
(Mann-Whitney U = 26,290, P < 0.0001) limited to 
short distance collaboration (median distance 680 
km, n = 102 connections) compared to potential 
overall pan-European collaboration (median distance 
1,314 km, n = 946 connections; see Figure 3). Long 
distance collaborations reported usually involved the 
monitoring of migrating raptors, with collaboration 
for monitoring of breeding populations less evident. 
Aside from EURAPMON, there are few existing 
collaborative initiatives aimed at moving towards 
pan-European monitoring for raptors: the MEROS 
programme and initiatives by BirdLife International 
and the European Bird Census Council (EBCC) are 
relevant in this respect (Kovács et al. 2008). Despite 
this, some countries reported intercontinental 
collaboration with South America, Africa and Asia, 
suggesting some global networking already exists for 
monitoring for raptors. These global connections were 
not targeted specifically within the current survey, and 
are thus probably underestimated in our results.
3.2. National Coverage
At least some national coordination of monitoring 
activity exists in 71% of surveyed countries. Most 
of the coordination is limited to one or a restricted 
number of species (43% of surveyed countries), 
while comprehensive coordination for monitoring 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Governmental
Institutions
Research
Institutions
NGO private
initiative
Pe
rc
en
ta
ge
 o
f 
co
un
tr
ie
s
/
O
d
s
to
te
k
 d
r
ž
a
v
(%
)
Main actors / Glavni protagonisti
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Governmental
Institutions
Research
Institutions
NGO private
companies
Pe
rc
en
ta
ge
 o
f 
co
un
tr
ie
s 
(%
)
Main users / Glavni uporabniki
Figure 1: Main actors conducting monitoring for raptors in Europe (n = 28 countries) and main users of data of monitoring 
for raptors in Europe by the percentage of the surveyed countries (n = 26 countries). Each country can appear more than 
once in each graph.
Slika 1: Glavni protagonisti monitoringa populacij ptic roparic v Evropi (n = 28 držav) in glavni uporabniki podatkov 
monitoringa populacij ptic roparic v Evropi po odstotkih sodelujo~ih držav (n = 26 držav). Vsaka država je lahko upo{tevana 
ve~ kot enkrat v obeh grafikonih.
149
Acrocephalus 33 (154/155): 145−157, 2012
0
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0
50
0
–
50
1
10
00
–
10
01
15
00
–
15
01
20
00
–
20
01
25
00
–
25
01
30
00
–
30
01
35
00
–
35
01
40
00
–
40
01
45
00
–
45
01
50
00
–
Range of distances / Razredi razdalj (km)
R
el
at
iv
e 
co
un
t 
/ 
R
el
at
iv
no
 {
te
vi
lo
Figure 3: Range of international collaboration between 
European countries for monitoring for raptors, measured as 
distances between capital cities of collaborating countries. 
Dark columns show the actual collaboration detected, and 
light columns show the potential for collaboration if all 
possible connections between countries in Europe were 
made. The relative count is the proportion of the number of 
distances within actual or potential collaboration.
Slika 3: Razpon mednarodnega sodelovanja med evropskimi 
državami pri monitoringu populacij ptic roparic, izmerjen 
z razdaljami med glavnimi mesti sodelujo~ih držav. Temni 
stolpci prikazujejo dejansko sodelovanje, svetli stolpci pa 
potencialno sodelovanje, ~e se vzpostavijo vsi možni stiki 
med državami v Evropi. Relativno {tevilo je delež {tevila 
razdalj znotraj dejanskega ali potencialnega sodelovanja.
Figure 2: The current international collaboration network in Europe for monitoring for raptors, showing reported collaboration 
contacts between countries. Countries from which data were obtained are shaded grey.
Slika 2: Trenutno omrežje mednarodnega sodelovanja v Evropi v okviru monitoringa populacij ptic roparic s sporo~animi stiki 
sodelovanja med državami. Države, od katerih so bili pridobljeni podatki o monitoringu, so obarvane sivo.
of the whole raptor community or of the majority of 
raptor species within countries is less frequent (36% 
of surveyed countries). National coordination of 
monitoring schemes for raptors is mainly confined to 
NGOs (85% of the countries with reported national 
coordination). Only in a few countries is the national 
coordination conducted by research or governmental 
institutions (Figure 4), for example the comprehensive 
monitoring scheme (national Raptor Grid) in Finland, 
which is coordinated by the Finnish Museum of 
Natural History, University of Helsinki (Saurola 
2008).
3.3. Key species
Monitoring activity exists for 50 (90%) of the 56 
known breeding raptor species in Europe. Among 
the species monitored in most European countries 
are the Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos, White-tailed 
Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla and Peregrine Falcon Falco 
peregrinus (Table 1). Considering species range 
coverage, the whole European range is monitored 
for just two species: the Spanish Imperial Eagle 
A. adalberti and Steppe Eagle A. nipalensis, both of 
which are range-restricted in Europe to one or two 
countries only (BirdLife International 2004). The 
results suggest that for 62% of diurnal raptors, more 
than half of the species range is monitored in Europe, 
V. Dumbović Mazal & K. Mikulić: Preliminary overview of monitoring for raptors in Croatia
150
Table 1: Monitoring schemes for bird of prey species (Falconiformes) established in Europe (only species breeding in 
surveyed European countries are shown; according to BirdLife internationaL (2004), Kotrošan & HatiBovi} (2012). The number 
of countries and estimated percentage of the species range in Europe covered by monitoring schemes as reported in the 
survey are shown (monitoring coverage of European range is calculated as the percentage of countries with a species 
population in which monitoring is conducted).
Tabela 1: Sheme monitoringa za ujede (Falconiformes), osnovane v Evropi (prikazane so samo vrste, ki gnezdijo v 
sodelujo~ih evropskih državah; po BirdLife internationaL (2004), Kotrošan & HatiBovi} (2012). Tabela prikazuje {tevilo držav 
in ocenjene odstotke arealov vrst v Evropi, ki jih pokrivajo sheme monitoringa, kot je bilo sporo~eno v popisih (obseg 
monitoringa v evropskem arealu je izra~unan kot odstotek držav s populacijami vrst, v katerih je bil opravljen ali poteka 
monitoring).
Species / Vrsta No. of countries / Št. držav Monitoring coverage of European range / Obseg monitoringa v evropskem arealu (%)
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos 18 75
White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla 17 81
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus 17 68
Montagu’s Harrier Circus pygargus 12 50
Kestrel Falco tinnunculus 12 43
Osprey Pandion haliaetus 11 85
Red Kite Milvus milvus 11 61
Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus 10 40
Goshawk Accipiter gentilis 10 37
Buzzard Buteo buteo 10 37
Lesser Spotted Eagle Aquila pomarina 9 56
Saker Falcon Falco cherrug 8 73
Black Kite Milvus migrans 8 35
Honey Buzzard Pernis apivorus 8 31
Sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus 8 30
Egyptian Vulture Neophron percnopterus 7 87
Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca 7 70
Red-footed Falcon Falco vespertinus 7 54
Hobby Falco subbuteo 7 27
Griffon Vulture Gyps fulvus 6 67
Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni 6 54
Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus 6 33
Lammergeier Gypaetus barbatus 5 83
Greater Spotted Eagle Aquila clanga 5 71
Black Vulture Aegypius monachus 4 57
Bonelli’s Eagle Aquila fasciata 4 57
Merlin Falco columbarius 4 50
Short-toed Eagle Circaetus gallicus 4 22
Eleonora’s Falcon Falco eleonorae 3 75
Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus 3 75
Spanish Imperial Eagle Aquila adalberti 2 100
Rough-legged Buzzard Buteo lagopus 2 50
Lanner Falcon Falco biarmicus 2 33
Booted Eagle Aquila pennata 2 13
Steppe Eagle Aquila nipalensis 1 100
Black-winged Kite Elanus caeruleus 1 33
Long-legged Buzzard Buteo rufinus 1 14
Pallid Harrier Circus macrourus 0 0
Levant Sparrowhawk Accipiter brevipes 0 0
151
Acrocephalus 33 (154/155): 145−157, 2012
European countries (BirdLife International 2004) 
and is monitored at least in four of these. Only for 
23% of owl species is more than half of the species 
range reported as monitored in Europe, and other 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Governmental
Institutions
Research
Institutions
NGO
Pe
rc
en
ta
ge
 o
f 
co
un
tr
ie
s
/
O
d
s
to
te
k
 d
r
ž
a
v
(%
)
Organisations / Organizacije
Figure 4: Organisations involved in national coordination 
of monitoring activities for raptors in surveyed European 
countries (n = 20)
Slika 4: Organizacije, vklju~ene v nacionalno koordinacijo 
monitoringa populacij ptic roparic v sodelujo~ih evropskih 
državah (n = 20)
particularly for threatened species. Species with lower 
monitoring coverage in Europe are mainly common 
and widespread species (e.g. Buzzard Buteo buteo, 
Honey Buzzard Pernis apivorus, Goshawk Accipiter 
gentilis, Sparrowhawk A. nisus) and species breeding 
predominantly in southern and eastern Europe (e.g. 
Long-legged Buzzard B. rufinus, Booted Eagle A. 
pennata, Short-toed Eagle Circaetus gallicus). However, 
from annually operated breeding bird surveys in 21 
European countries, PECBMS (2009) was able to 
produce population trends at least for some common 
raptors at the pan-European scale, i.e. Sparrowhawk, 
Buzzard, Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus, and 
Kestrel F. tinnunculus. Two species breeding in 
surveyed countries, Pallid Harrier C. macrourus and 
Levant Sparrowhawk A. brevipes, are not covered by 
any reported monitoring scheme.
Less comprehensive monitoring of owl populations 
in Europe is suggested by the lower number of 
countries conducting owl monitoring as well as by 
the lower monitoring coverage of European ranges 
compared to diurnal raptors (median coverage of owls 
per species is 37%, median coverage of birds of prey 
per species is 54%; Tables 1 & 2). The most monitored 
owl species in Europe is the Eagle Owl Bubo bubo, 
but the highest monitoring coverage of breeding 
population in Europe is for the Great Grey Owl Strix 
nebulosa, which has a range restricted to only five 
Table 2: Owls (Strigiformes) for which monitoring schemes are established in Europe. The number of countries and 
estimated percentage of the species range in Europe covered by monitoring schemes are shown (monitoring coverage of the 
European range is calculated as the percentage of countries with a species population in which monitoring is conducted).
Tabela 2: Sove (Strigiformes) z obstoje~imi shemami monitoringa v Evropi. Tabela prikazuje {tevilo držav in ocenjene 
odstotke arealov vrst v Evropi, ki jih pokrivajo sheme monitoringa (obseg monitoringa v evropskem arealu je izra~unan kot 
odstotek držav s populacijami vrst, v katerih je bil opravljen ali poteka monitoring).
Species / Vrsta No. of countries / Št. držav Monitoring coverage of European range / Obseg monitoringa v evropskem arealu (%)
Eagle Owl Bubo bubo 15 58
Tawny Owl Strix aluco 10 40
Tengmalm’s Owl Aegolius funereus 9 37
Long-eared Owl Asio otus 9 33
Ural Owl Strix uralensis 8 42
Barn Owl Tyto alba 7 29
Pygmy Owl Glaucidium passerinum 6 32
Little Owl Athene noctua 5 23
Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus 5 22
Great Grey Owl Strix nebulosa 4 80
Snowy Owl Bubo scandiacus 2 50
Hawk Owl Surnia ulula 2 40
Scops Owl Otus scops 2 12
152
species are monitored to a rather limited extent. The 
least monitored are Scops Otus scops and Short-eared 
Owl Asio flammeus, which are the only truly migratory 
owl species in Europe (Mikkola 1983).
Monitoring of non-breeding populations, i.e. 
A. Vrezec, G. Duke, A. Kovács, P. Saurola, C. Wernham, I. Burfield, P. Movalli & I. Bertoncelj: Overview of 
raptor monitoring activities in Europe
monitoring of migration and wintering populations, 
was less well covered by the current survey. As 
expected, the most monitored species within 
migration monitoring schemes is the Honey Buzzard 
(Table 3), since this species is probably the most 
Table 3: Preliminary overview of monitoring of raptor non-breeding populations in Europe, showing the number of surveyed 
countries which reported migration and/or wintering monitoring
Tabela 3: Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij negnezde~ih ptic roparic v Evropi s �tevilom sodelujo~ih držav, ki so 
poro~ale o monitoringu sele~ih se in/ali prezimujo~ih vrst
Species / Vrsta Monitoring No. of countries / Št. držav
Honey Buzzard Pernis apivorus Migration 5
Black Kite Milvus migrans Migration 4
Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus Migration 4
Short-toed Eagle Circaetus gallicus Migration 3
Osprey Pandion haliaetus Migration 3
Kestrel Falco tinnunculus Migration 3
Red-footed Falcon Falco vespertinus Migration 3
Griffon Vulture Gyps fulvus Migration 2
Black Vulture Aegypius monachus Migration 2
Pallid Harrier Circus macrourus Migration 2
Montagu’s Harrier Circus pygargus Migration 2
Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Migration 2
Buzzard Buteo buteo Migration 2
Long-legged Buzzard Buteo rufinus Migration 2
Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni Migration 2
Hobby Falco subbuteo Migration 2
White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla Migration 1
Lammergeier Gypaetus barbatus Migration 1
Egyptian Vulture Neophron percnopterus Migration 1
Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus Migration 1
Sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus Migration 1
Levant Sparrowhawk Accipiter brevipes Migration 1
Rough-legged Buzzard Buteo lagopus Migration 1
Lesser Spotted Eagle Aquila pomarina Migration 1
Greater Spotted Eagle Aquila clanga Migration 1
Steppe Eagle Aquila nipalensis Migration 1
Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca Migration 1
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Migration 1
Booted Eagle Aquila pennata Migration 1
Merlin Falco columbarius Migration 1
Eleonora’s Falcon Falco eleonorae Migration 1
Saker Falcon Falco cherrug Migration 1
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Migration 1
Long-eared Owl Asio otus Wintering 4
Black Kite Milvus migrans Wintering 2
Montagu’s Harrier Circus pygargus Wintering 2
Red Kite Milvus milvus Wintering 1
White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla Wintering 1
Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus Wintering 1
153
Acrocephalus 33 (154/155): 145−157, 2012
numerous and widespread migrating raptor confined 
to bottlenecks during migration. The only owl species 
covered by non-breeding population monitoring is 
the Long-eared Owl A. otus, for which systematic 
counting at winter roosting sites is becoming more 
widespread in some European countries (e.g. Ružić 
et al. 2010).
3.4. Key issues
We have identified 12 key issues that have been 
addressed by National Coordinators for raptor 
monitoring schemes in Europe: (1) decision making 
(conservation and agricultural policy, Natura 2000 
site monitoring, Red List/Red Data Book preparation, 
management plans), (2) defining species population 
status (including faunistic and atlas projects), (3) 
reporting (to local, national or EU authorities), (4) 
research, (5) habitat preservation (monitoring of 
threats and habitat loss), (6) persecution (hunting, 
illegal trade, poisoning), (7) mortality (electrocution, 
wind farms and other sources of increased mortality 
in raptors), (8) reproduction (monitoring breeding 
success), (9) migration, (10) wintering populations, 
(11) education (publicity and public relations), and 
(12) pollution (connected to with raptor monitoring 
issues). In the majority of raptor monitoring schemes, 
issues connected to conservation predominate, e.g. 
habitat preservation, persecution, mortality, popu-
lation status, but also decision making policy (Figure 5). 
These issues are not surprising, since most of the users 
of monitoring data are governmental institutions and 
NGOs (Figure 1 right). In current monitoring schemes 
for raptors, issues related to research and monitoring 
with raptors (notably, contaminant monitoring) are 
rarely addressed. Enhancing contaminant monitoring 
in raptors could serve to draw greater attention to the 
value of monitoring raptors.
The National Coordinators were asked about 
the benefits that could accrue to them from 
international networking. Based on their responses, 
we have defined 10 main groups of such benefits: 
(1) international associations (e.g. BirdLife 
International, EBCC or raptor specific associations), 
(2) projects and funding, (3) manpower (to support 
monitoring schemes of international importance 
with volunteers from abroad), (4) conservation 
issues (international approach to solving main 
conservation problems, e.g. creating international 
pressure on local authorities), (5) threatened species 
(common approaches and knowledge exchange about 
monitoring and conservation of target species, e.g. 
Imperial Eagle, White-tailed Eagle, Saker Falcon F. 
cherrug, Gyrfalcon F. rusticolus), (6) common trends 
(comparison of population trends), (7) research, 
(8) sharing best practice (common monitoring 
protocols, standardisation of methods, monitoring of 
threats), (9) migration (bottleneck counts, telemetry 
studies), and (10) pollution (connected to with raptor 
monitoring). Best practice and funding were the two 
most frequently cited benefits of European networking 
(Figure 6).
Figure 5: Frequency of key issues of raptor monitoring in 
Europe as reported by surveyed countries (n = 28)
Slika 5: Pogostost klju~nih ciljev pri monitoringu ptic roparic 
v sodelujo~ih evropskih državah (n = 28)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
De
cis
ion
 m
ak
ing
Po
pu
lat
ion
 st
atu
s
Re
po
rti
ng
Re
se
arc
h
Ha
bit
at 
pre
se
rva
tio
n
Pe
rse
cu
tio
n
Mo
rta
lity
Re
pro
du
cti
on
Mi
gr
ati
on
Wi
nte
rin
g
Ed
uc
ati
on
Po
llu
tio
n
K / Kljuey issues čni cilji
Pe
rc
en
ta
ge
 o
f 
co
un
tr
ie
s
/
O
d
s
to
te
k
 d
r
ž
a
v
(%
)
Figure 6: Frequency of main benefits of international 
networking in raptor monitoring in Europe as identified by 
surveyed countries (n = 28)
Slika 6: Pogostost glavnih koristi mednarodnega 
povezovanja pri monitoringu ptic roparic v Evropi, kot so bile 
ugotovljene v sodelujo~ih državah (n = 28)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Int
ern
at.
 as
so
cia
tio
ns
Pr
oje
cts
 &
 fu
nd
ing
Ma
np
ow
er 
su
pp
or
t
Co
ns
erv
ati
on
 is
su
es
En
da
ng
ere
d s
pe
cie
s
Co
mm
on
 tr
en
ds
Re
se
arc
h
Be
st-
pr
ac
tic
e
Mi
gr
ati
ng
 ra
pto
rs
Po
llu
tio
n
Main benefits / Glavne koristi
Pe
rc
en
ta
ge
 o
f 
co
un
tr
ie
s
/
O
d
s
to
te
k
 d
r
ž
a
v
(%
)
154
A. Vrezec, G. Duke, A. Kovács, P. Saurola, C. Wernham, I. Burfield, P. Movalli & I. Bertoncelj: Overview of 
raptor monitoring activities in Europe
3.5. Strengths and weaknesses of existing 
 monitoring schemes
The reported strengths of existing monitoring schemes 
for raptors in Europe can be divided into 12 thematic 
groups: (1) long-term monitoring scheme (several 
schemes in Europe cover 20 or more years of annual 
counts), (2) endangered species (several monitoring 
schemes focus on rare and endangered species or species 
of conservation importance, e.g. qualifying species at 
Natura 2000 sites), (3) migration monitoring (some 
countries have well developed monitoring of migrating 
but not breeding raptors), (4) research (especially 
where research institutions are more involved in data 
collection, monitoring coordination or as data users), 
(5) conservation (where monitoring is contributing 
more to the conservation of the species alongside other 
concurrent conservation activities), (6) volunteers 
(availability and organisation of volunteers supporting 
monitoring activities is sufficient in some countries), 
(7) network (good organized network for raptor 
enthusiasts enabling also enough volunteers to get 
involved in monitoring activities), (8) good coverage 
(covering national range of monitored species or in 
the country more or less all occurring raptor species 
are monitored), (9) database (organised monitoring 
database at national scale), (10) monitoring protocols 
(developed and available monitoring protocols used by 
all professional and voluntary fieldworkers involved in 
programmes), (11) public interest (connected also to 
funding available for monitoring), and (12) funding 
(crucial for comprehensive and long-term monitoring 
scheme development). Two strengths of monitoring 
for raptors schemes were most frequently cited as 
important, volunteers and research (Figure 7 left).
The most frequently cited weakness/gap relates to 
missing coverage for certain species, common species 
and/or owls (Figure 7 right). We have identified in 
total 14 weaknesses/gaps based on the responses 
of National Coordinator (Figure 7 right): (1) no 
national coordination, (2) no data sharing (different 
monitoring schemes in the country are not connected 
and apparently the willingness to share existing data 
is low), (3) low funding (one of the main weaknesses, 
which prevents development of more comprehensive 
monitoring schemes), (4) only short-term and local 
schemes, (5) no conservation monitoring (usually 
only population monitoring is conducted, but no 
threats are monitored), (6) low research and data 
publishing (the reason addressed is general lack of 
interest in monitoring data by research institutions, 
while interest for data publishing by NGOs, which 
conduct most of the schemes, is usually low), (7) 
lack of volunteers, (8) fieldwork problems (in some 
countries fieldwork conditions can prevent more 
comprehensive monitoring scheme development, e.g. 
intensive hunting or mine fields), (9) no protocols (or 
no best practice, which is the major issue highlighted 
already as a major benefit of an international 
network), (10) missing species (especially common 
raptors and owls), (11) no monitoring of breeding 
success (more time consuming monitoring than pure 
counts of territories or individuals is not conducted 
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Lo
ng
-te
rm
 m
on
ito
rin
g
Mo
nit
or
ing
 of
 en
da
ng
ere
d s
p.
Mi
gr
ati
on
 m
on
ito
rin
g
Re
se
arc
h
Co
ns
erv
ati
on
Vo
lun
tee
rs
Ne
tw
or
k
Go
od
 co
ve
rag
e
Da
tab
as
e
Mo
nit
or
ing
 pr
oto
co
ls
Pu
bli
c i
nte
res
t
Fu
nd
ing
S Ptrengths / rednosti
Pe
rc
en
ta
ge
 o
f 
co
un
tr
ie
s
/
O
d
s
to
te
k
 d
r
ž
a
v
(%
)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
No
 co
ord
ina
tio
n
No
 da
ta 
sh
ari
ng
Lo
w 
fun
din
g
Sh
or
t-te
rm
 &
 Lo
ca
l s
ch
em
es
No
 co
ns
erv
ati
on
 m
on
ito
rin
g
Lo
w 
Re
se
arc
h &
 Pu
bli
sh
ing
La
ck
 of
 vo
lun
tee
rs
Fie
ldw
or
k p
rob
lem
s
No
 pr
oto
co
ls
Mi
ss
ing
 sp
., C
om
mo
n s
p. 
& 
Ow
ls
No
 m
on
it. 
of 
bre
ed
ing
 su
cc
es
s
Lo
w 
int
ern
ati
on
al 
co
lab
or
ati
on
Lo
w 
pu
bli
c i
nte
res
t
No
 po
llu
tio
n s
tud
ies
W Seaknesses and gaps / labosti in vrzeli
Figure 7: Frequency of the strengths (left graph) and weaknesses and gaps (right graph) of existing raptor monitoring 
schemes in Europe as suggested by surveyed countries (n = 28)
Slika 7: Pogostost prednosti (levi grafikon) ter slabosti in vrzeli (desni grafikon) v obstoje~ih shemah monitoringa ptic roparic 
v Evropi glede na poro~ila sodelujo~ih držav (n = 28)
155
Acrocephalus 33 (154/155): 145−157, 2012
due to limited financial or manpower sources), 
(12) low international collaboration (collaboration 
usually involves neighbouring countries having 
some common monitoring interest), (13) low public 
interest (apparent in many countries but not a main 
weakness), and (14) no monitoring with raptors 
scheme (usually involving a lack of trained experts or 
adequate laboratories).
3.6. Priorities and capacity building needs
Priorities and capacity building needs were addressed 
by separate questions but the responses by National 
Coordinators to these two questions were somewhat 
similar. For example, around half of respondents 
cited an increase in the number of volunteers as 
both a priority and a capacity-building need (Figure 
8). Cited priorities and capacity-building needs 
included: (1) increasing volunteers and manpower for 
monitoring activities, (2) the development of national 
coordination and national schemes, (3) funding for 
long-term and comprehensive monitoring schemes, 
(4) best-practice standards development, possibly on 
an international level, (5) international collaboration, 
(6) enhancing research monitoring activities with 
possibly annual publishing of monitoring results, 
(7) increased attention to conservation issues (i.e. 
conservation strategy development and monitoring 
of main threats), (8) networking, (9) development of 
more comprehensive monitoring scheme by including 
common raptors and owls, (10) starting reproduction 
monitoring, (11) individual marking (i.e. raptor 
ringing and telemetry), (12) mortality monitoring, 
(13) collecting biological material (e.g. egg shells, 
feathers, carcasses) for monitoring with raptors 
purposes (14) national database development, and 
(15) increase in public awareness about raptors, their 
threats and population trends.
However, in general among the main priorities 
for future development of monitoring schemes, only 
a few countries actually suggested development of 
more comprehensive monitoring schemes through 
the inclusion of common raptors and owls (compare 
Figures 7 right and 8). Hence current priorities 
identified by individual countries appear to omit 
the most frequently suggested weakness of current 
schemes, a gap that a pan-European raptor monitoring 
network like EURAPMON should prioritize and 
facilitate inclusion of common diurnal raptors and 
owls into existing monitoring in Europe wherever 
possible.
4. Conclusions
This preliminary overview of for raptor monitoring 
in Europe gives a useful insight into the level 
of current monitoring activities, perceived gaps 
and needs identified by each country. This study 
will be followed up by a more comprehensive 
inventory using a systematic approach (based on a 
detailed questionnaire), which was launched on the 
EURAPMON website at the end of 2012, actively 
publicised by the EURAPMON network of National 
Coordinators, and aims to cover all European 
countries (to the Urals), including those on the far 
eastern border of Europe.
In summary, our current knowledge of existing 
monitoring for raptors in Europe from this study 
shows that:
 – the main players conducting and coordinating 
raptor monitoring activities in Europe are 
NGOs, while the main end users and funders are 
governmental institutions;
 – international collaboration for raptor monitoring 
in Europe is mainly regional (and largely nearest-
neighbour driven) and not yet pan-European in 
extent;
 – most monitoring schemes are confined to small 
numbers of species, usually species of conservation 
importance, and do not cover the whole raptor 
community within the country;
 – the most widely monitored species are the Golden 
Eagle amongst diurnal raptors and the Eagle Owl 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Na
tio
na
l c
oo
rdi
na
tio
n
Ne
tw
or
kin
g
Fu
nd
ing
Re
se
arc
h &
 Pu
bli
sh
ing
Int
ern
ati
on
al 
co
op
era
tio
n
Be
st-
pr
ac
tic
e s
tan
da
rds
Vo
lun
tee
rs 
& 
Ma
np
ow
er
Co
mm
on
 sp
ec
ies
 &
  o
wl
s
Re
pro
du
cti
on
 m
on
ito
rin
g
Ind
ivid
ua
l m
ark
ing
Mo
rta
lity
 m
on
ito
rin
g
Bio
log
ica
l m
ate
ria
l c
oll
ec
tio
n
Co
ns
erv
ati
on
Da
tab
as
e
Pu
bli
c i
nte
res
t
Pe
rc
en
ta
ge
 o
f 
co
un
tr
ie
s 
/
P / Prednostne nalogeriorities
Figure 8: Overview of priorities and capacity building 
needs for monitoring for raptors as suggested by surveyed 
European countries (n = 28)
Slika 8: Pregled prednostnih nalog in potreb po pove~anju 
kapacitet za monitoring populacij ptic roparic, kot jih 
sporo~ajo iz sodelujo~ih evropskih držav (n = 28)
156
A. Vrezec, G. Duke, A. Kovács, P. Saurola, C. Wernham, I. Burfield, P. Movalli & I. Bertoncelj: Overview of 
raptor monitoring activities in Europe
amongst owls, and in general good range coverage 
is reached only for restricted-range species;
 – conservation is reported as the key driver for raptor 
monitoring schemes in Europe;
 – the development and sharing of best-practice is 
the most beneficial aspect expected by National 
Coordinators from an international network;
 – the greatest strengths of monitoring schemes for 
raptors in Europe are volunteers, which are in some 
countries still lacking, preventing those countries 
from conducting more comprehensive monitoring 
schemes;
 – the main gaps in many European raptor monitoring 
schemes are the lack of coverage of commoner 
diurnal raptor and owl species;
 – priorities reported for future development of 
national monitoring schemes for raptors in Europe 
are: improvements to national coordination, 
support to increase the number of volunteers 
available to participate and assurances of stable 
funding;
 – current priorities identified by individual National 
Coordinators rarely include one of the main 
weakness identified in current monitoring schemes, 
specifically the lack of inclusion of common diurnal 
raptors and owls, and this should be one of the 
developments that a future pan-European network 
in the field of monitoring for raptors can facilitate.
Acknowledgements: The study was conducted with 
the support of the European Science Foundation 
(ESF) in the scope of the Research Networking 
Programme EURAPMON. Data on monitoring 
activities for raptors was collected at the workshop 
held in February 2012 in Murcia (Spain). The 
workshop was hosted by CEMACAM and funded 
by EURAPMON (ESF) and the Spanish Ministry of 
Research and Innovation. We would like to thank the 
local organisers of the workshop at the University of 
Murcia, especially Antonio Juan García Fernández, 
Emma Martínez López, Jose Francisco Calvo Sendin, 
Jose Enrique Martínez, Pilar Gómez Ramírez and 
Silvia Espin. The study would not have been possible 
to conduct without data provided by EURAPMON’s 
National Coordinators, and we would like to thank 
them for their collaboration and support: Aleksandre 
Abuladze (Georgia), Alessandro Andreotti (Italy), 
Arianna Aradis (Italy), János Bagyura (Hungary), 
Dimitris E. Bakaloudis (Greece), Václav Beran (Czech 
Republic), Edward Bonavia (Malta), Szilard Daroczi 
(Romania), Andy Dobson (Great Britain), Valery 
Dombrovski (Belarus), Miroslav Dravecký (Slovakia), 
Vlatka Dumbović Mazal (Croatia), Vladimir Galushin 
(Russia), Anita Gamauf (Austria), Zuzana Guziová 
(Slovakia), Ena Hatibović (Bosnia & Herzegovina), 
Björn Helander (Sweden), Peter Hellström (Sweden), 
Márton Horváth (Hungary), Dražen Kotrošan 
(Bosnia & Herzegovina), Ubbo Mammen (Germany), 
Allan Mee (Ireland), Krešimir Mikulić (Croatia), Rein 
Nellis (Estonia), Torgeir Nygård (Norway), Luís 
Palma (Portugal), Jean-Yves Paquet (Belgium), Jānis 
Reihmanis (Latvia), José Antonio Sánchez Zapata 
(Spain), Janusz Sielicki (Poland), Svetoslav Spasov 
(Bulgaria), Jean-Paul Urcun (France), and Glenn 
Vermeersch (Belgium). For help in preparation of the 
map we would like to thank Andrej Kapla (National 
Institute of Biology, Slovenia). IB was supported 
partly by an NGO operating grant from the European 
Commission (DG Environment, under the LIFE+ 
programme) to Stichting BirdLife Europe.
5. Povzetek
Kljub temu da so ptice roparice, ujede Falconiformes 
in sove Strigiformes, prepoznane kot ključne vrste 
v ekosistemih in so zelo občutljive za okoljske 
spremembe, v Evropi še ni mednarodnega usklajenega 
monitoringa teh vrst. Zato so pri Evropski znanstveni 
fundaciji zagnali projekt EURAPMON, katerega 
cilj je vzpostavitev trajne panevropske raziskovalne 
mreže na področju monitoringa ujed in sov v Evropi. 
Pregled obstoječih shem monitoringa v 28 evropskih 
državah, ki so jih na EURAPMON-ovi delavnici v 
Murciji (Španija) leta 2012 predstavili nacionalni 
koordinatorji, je pokazal, da je v trenutne sheme 
monitoringov vključenih malo vrst (predvsem ujede 
in nekatere redke vrste). Največ shem monitoringa 
je vzpostavljenih za spremljanje populacije 
planinskega orla Aquila chrysaetos med ujedami in 
za veliko uharico Bubo bubo med sovami, dobra 
pokritost območja razširjenosti z monitoringom pa 
je dosežena le pri nekaterih ozko razširjenih vrstah. 
Ohranjanje ugodnega stanja populacij je glavni 
razlog za monitoring, ki ga večinoma opravljajo 
nevladne organizacije, končni uporabniki rezultatov 
monitoringa pa so večinoma vladne ustanove. 
Mednarodno sodelovanje na področju monitoringa 
ujed in sov je večinoma regionalno omejeno z 
malo panevropskimi povezavami. Kot pozitivne 
lastnosti obstoječih monitoringov so nacionalni 
koordinatorji označili vključevanje prostovoljcev; kot 
pomanjkljivosti pa pomanjkanje delovne sile (majhno 
število prostovoljcev) ter osredotočanje na redke 
vrste. Med prioritetami za razvoj shem monitoringa 
v prihodnosti so: izboljšanje nacionalne koordinacije, 
podpora za večje vključevanje prostovoljcev ter 
157
Acrocephalus 33 (154/155): 145−157, 2012
zagotavljanje stabilnega financiranja. Prihodnja analiza 
EURAPMON-ovih vprašalnikov o obstoječih shemah 
monitoringa bo pokazala pomanjkljivosti v znanju 
in pripravila priporočila za metodologije. Tak prenos 
dobrih praks so nacionalni koordinatorji označili kot 
ključni rezultat mednarodnega sodelovanja.
6. References
BirdLife International (2004): Birds in Europe: 
population estimates, trends and conservation status. 
BirdLife Conservation Series No. 12. – BirdLife 
International, Cambridge.
Burfield, I. (2008): The Conservation Status and Trends of 
Raptors and Owls in Europe. – Ambio 37 (6): 401–407.
Carothers, J.H. & Jaksic, F.M. (1984): Time as a niche 
difference: the role of interspecific competition. – Oikos 
42: 403–406.
Duke, G. (2008): The EU environmental policy context for 
monitoring for and with raptors in Europe. – Ambio 37 
(6): 397–400.
EURAPMON (2012): Research and Monitoring for and 
with Raptors in Europe. Brochure. – European Science 
Foundation, Strasbourg Cedex. (available at http://www.
eurapmon.net)
EURAPMON (2013): Workshop – inventory of existing 
raptor monitoring in Europe. Final Report to ESF. 
(available at http://www.eurapmon.net/sites/default/
files/pdf-s/eurapmon_workshop_murcia_report_final.
pdf )
Gómez-Ramírez, P., Shore, R.F., van den Brink, N.W., 
van Hattum, B., Bustnes, J.O., Duke, G., Fritsch, 
C., García-Fernández, A.J., Helander, B.O., Jaspers, 
V., Krone, O., Martínez-López, E., Mateo, R., 
Movalli, P. & Sonne, C. (submitted): The first inventory 
of existing raptor contaminant monitoring activities in 
Europe. – Environment International.
Hardey, J., Crick, H., Wernham, C., Riley, H., 
Etheridge, B. & Thompson, D. (2009): Raptors, a Field 
Guide for Surveys and Monitoring. Second Edition. – 
The Stationery Office, Edinburgh.
Hartert, E. (1921): Birds of Palearctic Fauna. Part II. – 
Verlag von R. Friedländer & Sohn, London.
Helander, B., Bignert, A. & Asplund, L. (2008): Using 
Raptors as Environmental Sentinels: Monitoring the 
White-tailed Sea Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla in Sweden. – 
Ambio 37 (6): 425–431.
Kotrošan, D. & Hatibović E. (2012): Raptors in Bosnia 
and Herzegovina – status and perspectives for monitoring 
development. – Acrocephalus 33 (154/155): 173–179.
Kovács, A., Mammen, U. & Wernham, C. (2008): 
European monitoring for Raptors and Owls: State of the 
Art and Future Needs. – Ambio 37 (6): 401–409.
Linnaeus, C. (1758): [Systema Naturae. Tomus I. Editio 
decima, reformata.] – Impensis Driect. Laurentii Salvii, 
Holmiae. (in Latin)
Mikkola H. (1983): Owls of Europe. – T & A D Poyser, 
London.
Movalli, P., Duke, G. & Osborn, D. (2008): Introduction 
to monitoring for and with raptors. – Ambio 37 (6): 
395–396.
PECBMS (2009): The State of Europe’s Common Birds 
2008. – CSO/RSPB, Prague.
Root, R. (1967): The niche exploitation pattern of the 
blue-grey gnatcatcher. – Ecological Monographs 37 (3): 
317–350.
Ružić, M., Radaković, M., Veselinović, D., Rudić, B., 
Kulić, S., Vučićević, I., Demajo, M., Nagulov, S., 
Golubović, A. & Miljković, N. (2010): [Long-eared 
Owl Asio otus winter roosts in Central Serbia 2006–
2011: distribution, numbers and roost site preferences.] 
– Ciconia 19: 97–109. (in Serbian, English summary)
Saurola, P. (2008): Monitoring birds of prey in Finland: 
a summary of methods, trends and statistical power. – 
Ambio 37 (6): 413–419.
Sergio, F. & Hiraldo, F. (2008): Intraguild predation in 
raptor assemblages: a review. – Ibis 150, Suppl. 1: 132–
145.
Sergio, F., Marchesi, L. & Pedrini, P. (2003): Spatial 
refugia and the coexistence of a diurnal raptor with its 
intraguild owl predator. – Journal of Animal Ecology 72 
(2): 232–245.
Sergio, F., Newton, I. & Marchesi, L. (2005): Top 
predators and biodiversity. – Nature 436: 192.
Vrezec, A. & Tome, D. (2004): Altitudinal segregation 
between Ural Owl Strix uralensis and Tawny Owl S. 
aluco: evidence for competitive exclusion in raptorial 
birds. – Bird Study 51 (3): 264–269.
Arrived / Prispelo: 14. 6. 2013
Accepted / Sprejeto: 1. 7. 2013