In this chapter, we examine aspects of distribution and population in the Little Owl for its global range which covers 78 countries. Recent publications give an overview of population numbers and short- and long-term breeding population and breeding distribution trends for the EU28 and for continental Europe. The European Union (EU28) Red List assessments are based principally on the official data reported by EU Member States to the European Commission under Article 12 of the Birds Directive. In addition, population status and trends are assessed at the EU level. Data outside the European continent are obtained from individual publications. In very general terms, all cumulative data suggests that the global distribution of the Little Owl has increased in 12 countries, decreased in 10, remained unchanged in 25 or was insufficient for determination in 31 countries. For population numbers, the data suggests that the number of owls increased in 12 countries, decreased in 10, remained unchanged in 23 or was insufficient for determination in 33 countries. The global distribution and some limiting factors like latitude and elevation, are mapped, as well as European population numbers and short- and long-term trends. For each country we focus on the population estimates for currently existing populations and present distribution maps when available.

In this chapter we review the parameters that are of importance for the species, its prey species and its predators. The favored habitat for the Little Owl varies from the natural landscapes of steppe and arid deserts to anthropogenic areas. The common features are open areas with low grass, perches and cavities in the ground, rocks, trees or buildings. The species avoids forests, fallow land and large parcels of arable land. A mosaic effect seems to be important for the species, due to the use of habitat edges, in particular for the richness in prey found there. The relations between the landscape factors will determine local owl densities and demographics. All quantitative studies available were done on anthropogenic habitats. Of natural habitats, only qualitative descriptions were available. We first discuss natural habitats in general terms, then we give an overview of different types of occupied anthropogenic habitats, followed by the actual preference of the species toward certain habitat parameters. The latter studies entail both occupied and unoccupied habitats, while habitat typology studies consider only occupied habitats.

Different owl species and subspecies were defined in the early days of taxonomy uniquely based upon morphological features like size and color in specific geographical regions across the world. Recently, more differentiators are taken into account to define new species to avoid upgrading them from a subspecies based upon limited aspects. We consider the biological species concept that takes biological characteristics into account, morphological concept studies, especially morphometrics and coloration of the bird, the phylogenetic concept, using mitochondrial DNA studies to establish a lineage that eventually leads to a common ancestor, complemented by fossil evidence for the evolution of species. Vocalizations of Little Owls across the range are increasingly documented and taken into account as well. The last approach considers the geographical distribution and the use of validated, geocoded, high-quality photographic input. In this chapter we present the current fossil evidence for ancestors of the species. We describe the historical context in which subspecies have been defined. We illustrate the way the subspecies were described, for which we now have evidence for their relevance. We consider 14 subspecies of Little Owl for which we have found substantial evidence. This means that we have one more subspecies.

In this book we synthesize the substantial literature and knowledge base on the Little Owl Athene noctua and detail the current understanding of its range-wide ecology, genetics and subspecies, its population status by country, and offer a conservation management strategy and outline a monitoring program for its conservation.

In early human societies, community norms specified where and how living resources should be used within sacred groves and in exploited places. Many rulers of ancient and medieval societies issued decrees reserving game and other wild resources for royalty and limiting peasant uses. Colonial rulers criminalized Indigenous uses of wild species and privatized and commercialized landscapes. Intensive exploitation led to the depletion and extinction of many species and laid the foundation for formal conservation. Concern about deforestation in colonial India led to early forest reserves. The utilitarian disciplines of wildlife management, forestry, range management, and soil science arose in response to threats to living natural resources due to conquest, including intensive exploitation, habitat alteration, and the introduction of non-native species. These disciplines focus on the exploitation of economically valuable species to protect a long-term supply. Early forest reserves in the USA were set aside to regulate the use of forest resources.

A non-equilibrium perspective sheds light on why conventional conservation may fail to achieve its objectives. The human history of societies and the evolutionary history of species have shaped adaptations to disturbance regimes and the potential for resilience or irreversible tipping points in the face of change. Understanding the effects of disturbances such as storms, floods, and fires on post-disturbance recruitment can inform decisions about how key processes, structures, and interactions affect heterogeneity, diversity, and resilience over a range of spatial and temporal scales. Retention of structural legacies (dead and dying trees), mutualistic interactions (microbiotic soil crusts, mycorrhizal fungi), and key wild species (beavers) can promote biodiversity and carbon storage. Management of fire regimes, hydrological processes, and agricultural systems can promote carbon storage. However, difficult decisions about tradeoffs remain.

Utilitarian conservation focuses on a few ecological processes: population regulation in resource-limited systems, succession, predation, and competition. This approach assumes that nature tends toward equilibrium. According to this balance-of-nature mindset, populations are regulated by density-dependent processes. Exponential population growth can generate high numbers quickly, but competition for limiting resources generally keeps populations near the carrying capacity of their environment. In the absence of predation, however, populations may erupt, deplete their food supply, and crash. Similarly, plant associations go through predictable sequences of seral stages culminating in stable climatic climaxes that are able to reproduce themselves indefinitely unless in the absence of disturbances such as fire. Plant associations are groups of interdependent species that all react in the same way to their environment. Utilitarian conservation focuses on keeping populations of economically valuable species such as game animals and commercially harvested trees in balance with their environment.