4.7 Article

Causes of admission, length of stay and outcomes for common kestrels in rehabilitation centres in the Czech Republic

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-96688-8

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. ITA VFU Brno [FVHE/Vecerek/ITA2020]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rehabilitation centres in the Czech Republic have seen an increasing trend in admitted common kestrels, with subadults and those injured by power lines being the most common. Unfortunately, a high percentage of kestrels admitted to rehabilitation centres do not survive or have to be euthanized, highlighting the importance of protecting their natural habitats and preventing unnecessary capture.
Rehabilitation centres help injured animals to recover and return back to the wild. This study aimed to analyse trends in intake and outcomes for the common kestrels (Falco tinnunculus) admitted into rehabilitation centres in the Czech Republic. From 2010 to 2019, a total of 12,923 kestrels were admitted to 34 rehabilitation centres with an increasing trend (rSp = 0.7697, P < 0.01) being found during the monitored period. Subadult kestrels (34.70%) and kestrels injured by power lines (26.57%) were most often admitted. Most kestrels in the rehabilitation centres died or had to be euthanized (81.66%), only 15.90% of the birds could be released back into the wild. The median length of stay in rehabilitation centres for kestrels that were subsequently released was 35 days. Considering survival rates, the most critical threat to kestrels was poisoning (100% of the cases resulted in death) but mortality of the kestrels admitted for most other reasons also exceeded 80%. Given the low success rate of the care of kestrels in rehabilitation centres and the relatively small proportion returned to the wild, it is essential to eliminate the causes leading to their admission, that is, to protect their natural habitats and to prevent unnecessary capture.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available