Flyway connectivity and exchange primarily driven by moult migration in geese.

Dynamic Brownian bridges GPS tracking Greater white-fronted goose Long-distance moult migration Migratory connectivity Population exchange Population overlap Taimyr peninsula

Journal

Movement ecology
ISSN: 2051-3933
Titre abrégé: Mov Ecol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101635009

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2019
Historique:
received: 16 10 2018
accepted: 10 01 2019
entrez: 9 2 2019
pubmed: 9 2 2019
medline: 9 2 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

For the conservation and management of migratory species that strongly decrease or increase due to anthropological impacts, a clear delineation of populations and quantification of possible mixing (migratory connectivity) is crucial. Usually, population exchange in migratory species is only studied in breeding or wintering sites, but we considered the whole annual cycle in order to determine important stages and sites for population mixing in an Arctic migrant. We used 91 high resolution GPS tracks of Western Palearctic greater white-fronted geese ( Utilisation areas of the two populations overlapped only somewhat during spring and autumn migration stopovers, but much during moult. During this stage, non-breeders and failed breeders of the North Sea population intermixed with geese from the Pannonic population in the Pyasina delta on Taimyr peninsula. The timing of use of overlap areas was highly consistent between populations, making exchange possible. Two of our tracked geese switched from the North Sea population flyway to the Pannonic flyway during moult on Taimyr peninsula or early during the subsequent autumn migration. Because we could follow one of them during the next year, where it stayed in the Pannonic flyway, we suggest that the exchange was long-term or permanent. We have identified long-distance moult migration of failed or non-breeders as a key phenomenon creating overlap between two flyway populations of geese. This supports the notion of previously suggested population exchange and migratory connectivity, but outside of classically suggested wintering or breeding sites. Our results call for consideration of moult migration and population exchange in conservation and management of our greater white-fronted geese as well as other waterfowl populations.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
For the conservation and management of migratory species that strongly decrease or increase due to anthropological impacts, a clear delineation of populations and quantification of possible mixing (migratory connectivity) is crucial. Usually, population exchange in migratory species is only studied in breeding or wintering sites, but we considered the whole annual cycle in order to determine important stages and sites for population mixing in an Arctic migrant.
METHODS METHODS
We used 91 high resolution GPS tracks of Western Palearctic greater white-fronted geese (
RESULTS RESULTS
Utilisation areas of the two populations overlapped only somewhat during spring and autumn migration stopovers, but much during moult. During this stage, non-breeders and failed breeders of the North Sea population intermixed with geese from the Pannonic population in the Pyasina delta on Taimyr peninsula. The timing of use of overlap areas was highly consistent between populations, making exchange possible. Two of our tracked geese switched from the North Sea population flyway to the Pannonic flyway during moult on Taimyr peninsula or early during the subsequent autumn migration. Because we could follow one of them during the next year, where it stayed in the Pannonic flyway, we suggest that the exchange was long-term or permanent.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
We have identified long-distance moult migration of failed or non-breeders as a key phenomenon creating overlap between two flyway populations of geese. This supports the notion of previously suggested population exchange and migratory connectivity, but outside of classically suggested wintering or breeding sites. Our results call for consideration of moult migration and population exchange in conservation and management of our greater white-fronted geese as well as other waterfowl populations.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30733867
doi: 10.1186/s40462-019-0148-6
pii: 148
pmc: PMC6354378
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

3

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Approval for handling the geese was obtained in the Netherlands from the Animal Welfare Committee of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (DEC NIOO13.14), in Hungary from the Hunting and Fishing Department of Zala County Government Office (XX-H-004/1386–2/2012) and the Hunting and Fishing Department of Bács-Kiskun County Government Office (BKH/001/1135–2/2016) and in northern Germany (Lower Saxony) from the Lower Saxony State Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety (LAVES AZ 33.19–42,502–04-15/1956 dated 15.9.2015).Not applicable.The authors declare that they have no competing interests.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Références

Ecol Evol. 2018 Oct 24;8(22):10662-10672
pubmed: 30519396
Ambio. 2017 Mar;46(Suppl 2):262-274
pubmed: 28215008
PLoS Biol. 2008 Jul 29;6(7):e188
pubmed: 18666834
Science. 2013 Aug 30;341(6149):999-1002
pubmed: 23990559
Ambio. 2017 Mar;46(Suppl 2):328-338
pubmed: 28215010
Mov Ecol. 2019 Jan 31;7:3
pubmed: 30733867
J Anim Ecol. 2012 Jul;81(4):738-46
pubmed: 22348740
Ecol Evol. 2018 Jul 30;8(16):8490-8507
pubmed: 30250718
J Anim Ecol. 2017 May;86(3):662-673
pubmed: 28093769
Ecol Evol. 2017 Mar 22;7(9):2956-2968
pubmed: 28479995
Mol Ecol. 2005 Jan;14(1):171-8
pubmed: 15643960
PeerJ. 2018 Feb 20;6:e4353
pubmed: 29479493
Proc Biol Sci. 2012 Mar 7;279(1730):876-83
pubmed: 21865256
J Anim Ecol. 2016 Mar;85(2):467-75
pubmed: 26717445
Proc Biol Sci. 2014 Jan 15;281(1778):20132897
pubmed: 24430850
J Anim Ecol. 2009 Jan;78(1):63-72
pubmed: 19120596
Ambio. 2017 Mar;46(Suppl 2):188-197
pubmed: 28215009
Science. 2015 Jun 12;348(6240):aaa2478
pubmed: 26068858

Auteurs

A Kölzsch (A)

1Department of Migration and Immuno-Ecology, Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, Am Obstberg 1, 78315 Radolfzell, Germany.
2Department of Biology, University of Konstanz, Universitätsstraße 10, 78464 Konstanz, Germany.
Institute for Wetlands and Waterbird Research e.V, Am Steigbügel 13, 27283 Verden (Aller), Germany.

G J D M Müskens (GJDM)

4Team Animal Ecology, Wageningen Environmental Research, Wageningen University & Research, Droevendaalsesteeg 3-3A, 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands.

P Szinai (P)

Balaton-felvidéki National Park Directorate, Kossuth utca 16, Csopak, 8229 Hungary.
6Bird Ringing and Migration Study Group of BirdLife Hungary, Koltő utca 21, Budapest, 1121 Hungary.

S Moonen (S)

7Institute of Avian Research, An der Vogelwarte 21, 26386 Wilhelmshaven, Germany.

P Glazov (P)

8Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Staromonetnyi per. 29, 119017 Moscow, Russia.

H Kruckenberg (H)

Institute for Wetlands and Waterbird Research e.V, Am Steigbügel 13, 27283 Verden (Aller), Germany.

M Wikelski (M)

1Department of Migration and Immuno-Ecology, Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, Am Obstberg 1, 78315 Radolfzell, Germany.
2Department of Biology, University of Konstanz, Universitätsstraße 10, 78464 Konstanz, Germany.

B A Nolet (BA)

9Department of Animal Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW), Droevendaalsesteeg 10, 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands.
10Department of Theoretical and Computational Ecology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Classifications MeSH