Contrasting effects of shooting disturbance on the movement and behavior of sympatric wildfowl species

IF 4.3 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY
Luke Ozsanlav‐Harris, Aimée L. S. McIntosh, Larry R. Griffin, Geoff M. Hilton, Lei Cao, Jessica M. Shaw, Stuart Bearhop
{"title":"Contrasting effects of shooting disturbance on the movement and behavior of sympatric wildfowl species","authors":"Luke Ozsanlav‐Harris, Aimée L. S. McIntosh, Larry R. Griffin, Geoff M. Hilton, Lei Cao, Jessica M. Shaw, Stuart Bearhop","doi":"10.1002/eap.3032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Human−wildlife conflict is a global conservation issue, necessitating effective mitigation strategies. Hunting is a common management approach to reduce conflict, but the indirect consequences are often overlooked. Chronic hunting‐related disturbance can reduce fitness and redistribute species. In recent decades, goose−agricultural conflict has intensified due to increasing abundance and shifts towards agricultural foraging. On Islay, Scotland, escalating conflict culminated in shooting Greenland barnacle geese <jats:italic>Branta leucopsis</jats:italic> to reduce damage to agricultural grassland. In this study, we contrast the impact of shooting disturbance on the movement, behavior, energy expenditure and habitat selection of the target species (Greenland barnacle goose) and a vulnerable nontarget species (Greenland white‐fronted goose, <jats:italic>Anser albifrons flavirostris</jats:italic>) using biologging devices (target species: <jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 33; nontarget species: <jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 94). Both species were displaced by shooting, and greater distances were subsequently traveled by the target species (1.71 km when directly targeted). When disturbed at any distance, total daily movement increased significantly by 1.18 km for the target species but not for the nontarget species. The target species exhibited no accompanying change in diurnal energy expenditure (measured via accelerometery) but foraged in improved grasslands further from roads after shooting disturbance, where disturbance from all sources was likely lower. The significant increases in movement and changes in foraging site selection of the target species could reduce fitness but given the infrequency of shooting disturbances (0.09 per day) there is likely capacity for compensatory feeding to recoup energetic losses. The nontarget species expectedly showed no significant change in energy expenditure, behavior or habitat selection following shooting disturbance, suggesting mitigation strategies have been effective at minimizing fitness impacts. Refuge areas with a 3.5 km diameter (three times the maximum distance from shooting that displacement was detectable) could provide undisturbed foraging for the target species, minimizing compensatory feeding and further agricultural damage. Wildlife managers should, where possible, consider the fitness implications of shooting disturbance, and whether compensatory feeding and redistribution could hamper conflict mitigation. Management strategies should also include species‐specific monitoring and mitigation as we have demonstrated differing responses potentially due to imposed mitigation but also differing species ecology and “landscapes of fear.”","PeriodicalId":55168,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Applications","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Applications","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.3032","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Human−wildlife conflict is a global conservation issue, necessitating effective mitigation strategies. Hunting is a common management approach to reduce conflict, but the indirect consequences are often overlooked. Chronic hunting‐related disturbance can reduce fitness and redistribute species. In recent decades, goose−agricultural conflict has intensified due to increasing abundance and shifts towards agricultural foraging. On Islay, Scotland, escalating conflict culminated in shooting Greenland barnacle geese Branta leucopsis to reduce damage to agricultural grassland. In this study, we contrast the impact of shooting disturbance on the movement, behavior, energy expenditure and habitat selection of the target species (Greenland barnacle goose) and a vulnerable nontarget species (Greenland white‐fronted goose, Anser albifrons flavirostris) using biologging devices (target species: n = 33; nontarget species: n = 94). Both species were displaced by shooting, and greater distances were subsequently traveled by the target species (1.71 km when directly targeted). When disturbed at any distance, total daily movement increased significantly by 1.18 km for the target species but not for the nontarget species. The target species exhibited no accompanying change in diurnal energy expenditure (measured via accelerometery) but foraged in improved grasslands further from roads after shooting disturbance, where disturbance from all sources was likely lower. The significant increases in movement and changes in foraging site selection of the target species could reduce fitness but given the infrequency of shooting disturbances (0.09 per day) there is likely capacity for compensatory feeding to recoup energetic losses. The nontarget species expectedly showed no significant change in energy expenditure, behavior or habitat selection following shooting disturbance, suggesting mitigation strategies have been effective at minimizing fitness impacts. Refuge areas with a 3.5 km diameter (three times the maximum distance from shooting that displacement was detectable) could provide undisturbed foraging for the target species, minimizing compensatory feeding and further agricultural damage. Wildlife managers should, where possible, consider the fitness implications of shooting disturbance, and whether compensatory feeding and redistribution could hamper conflict mitigation. Management strategies should also include species‐specific monitoring and mitigation as we have demonstrated differing responses potentially due to imposed mitigation but also differing species ecology and “landscapes of fear.”
射击干扰对同域野禽物种运动和行为的不同影响
人类与野生动物的冲突是一个全球性的保护问题,需要采取有效的缓解策略。狩猎是减少冲突的常见管理方法,但其间接后果往往被忽视。与狩猎有关的长期干扰会降低物种的适应性并使其重新分布。近几十年来,由于鹅的数量不断增加并转向农业觅食,鹅与农业的冲突不断加剧。在苏格兰艾莱岛,不断升级的冲突最终导致格陵兰藤壶雁 Branta leucopsis 被射杀,以减少对农用草地的破坏。在这项研究中,我们使用生物探测装置对比了射杀干扰对目标物种(格陵兰藤壶雁)和脆弱的非目标物种(格陵兰白额雁,Anser albifrons flavirostris)的运动、行为、能量消耗和栖息地选择的影响(目标物种:n = 33;非目标物种:n = 94)。这两种鹅都受到了射击的影响,目标鹅的飞行距离更远(直接瞄准目标时为 1.71 公里)。当受到任何距离的干扰时,目标物种的每日总移动距离都会显著增加 1.18 千米,而非目标物种则不会。目标物种的昼间能量消耗(通过加速度计测量)并没有随之发生变化,但在枪击干扰后,目标物种会在离道路更远的改良草地上觅食,而在这些草地上,所有来源的干扰都可能较低。目标物种运动量的大幅增加和觅食地点选择的改变可能会降低其适应能力,但鉴于射击干扰的频率较低(每天 0.09 次),它们可能有能力通过补偿性觅食来弥补能量损失。非目标物种在受到射击干扰后,能量消耗、行为或栖息地选择都没有发生预期的显著变化,这表明缓解策略已有效地将对适应性的影响降至最低。直径为 3.5 千米的保护区(是可检测到位移的最大射击距离的三倍)可为目标物种提供不受干扰的觅食场所,最大限度地减少补偿性觅食和进一步的农业损害。在可能的情况下,野生动物管理者应考虑射击干扰对健康的影响,以及补偿性摄食和重新分布是否会妨碍冲突缓解。管理策略还应包括针对特定物种的监测和缓解措施,因为我们已经证明了不同的反应可能是由于强加的缓解措施造成的,也可能是由于不同的物种生态和 "恐惧景观 "造成的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ecological Applications
Ecological Applications 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
2.00%
发文量
268
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The pages of Ecological Applications are open to research and discussion papers that integrate ecological science and concepts with their application and implications. Of special interest are papers that develop the basic scientific principles on which environmental decision-making should rest, and those that discuss the application of ecological concepts to environmental problem solving, policy, and management. Papers that deal explicitly with policy matters are welcome. Interdisciplinary approaches are encouraged, as are short communications on emerging environmental challenges.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信