Abstract

BackgroundAnimals need to adjust their vigilance strategies when foraging between physically contrasting vegetated and non-vegetated habitats. Vegetated habitats may pose a greater risk for some if vegetation characteristics function as a visual obstruction but benefit others if they serve as protective shelter. Variation in group size, presence of similar species, along with variation in environmental conditions and anthropogenic disturbance can also influence vigilance investment.MethodsIn this study, we quantified the vigilance behaviour of two large-bodied, sympatric migratory curlew species—Far Eastern Curlew (Numenius madagascariensis) and Eurasian Curlew (N. arquata)—in vegetated Suaeda salsa saltmarsh and non-vegetated mudflat habitat in Liaohekou National Nature Reserve, China. We used linear mixed models to examine the effects of habitat type, season, tide time, flock size (conspecific and heterospecific), and human disturbance on curlew vigilance investment.ResultsBoth species spent a higher percentage of time under visual obstruction in S. salsa habitat compared to mudflat habitat but in response, only Far Eastern Curlew increased their percentage of vigilance time, indicating that visual obstruction in this habitat is only a concern for this species. There was no evidence that S. salsa vegetation served as a form of cryptic background colouration since neither species decreased their vigilance effect in S. salsa habitat in spring compared to the autumn migration season. The effect of curlew social environment (i.e. flock size) was habitat dependent since percentage of vigilance time by curlews in saltmarsh increased with both the number of individual curlews and number of other birds present, but not in mudflat habitat.ConclusionsWe conclude that both migratory curlew species exhibit a flexible vigilance adjustment strategy to cope with the different environmental and social conditions of adjacent and sharply contrasting coastal habitats, and that the trade-off between the risks of foraging and the abundance of prey may be a relatively common phenomenon in these and other shorebird populations.

Highlights

  • Animals need to adjust their vigilance strategies when foraging between physically contrasting vegetated and non-vegetated habitats

  • Human disturbance and social environment Individual of both curlew species spent a significantly higher percentage of time under visual obstruction in the S. salsa saltmarsh compared with the adjacent mudflat in spring (FEC: z = − 3.77, P < 0.001; EC: z = − 5.32, P < 0.001) and autumn (FEC: z = − 7.15, P < 0.001; EC: z = − 5.01, P < 0.001)

  • There was no significant difference in the number of individual curlews around the focal individuals between saltmarsh (1.25 ± 0.17, n = 129) and mudflat habitats (1.60 ± 0.18, n = 169; t = 1.02, df = 296, Fig. 2 Difference in the percentage time spent under visual obstruction ± SE between Far Eastern Curlew (a) and Eurasian Curlew (b) in two different coastal habitats (S. salsa saltmarsh vs. mudflat) and seasons

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Animals need to adjust their vigilance strategies when foraging between physically contrasting vegetated and non-vegetated habitats. Vegetated habitats may pose a greater risk for some if vegetation characteristics function as a visual obstruction but benefit others if they serve as protective shelter. Vulnerable non-cryptic prey species can adapt by adjusting. Variation in vegetation characteristics can have a functional effect on an animal’s vigilance, serving either as a form of “protection” by lowering the investment on vigilance behaviour, or as a “visual obstruction” requiring an increase in vigilance effort. The exact effect of vegetation on vigilance behaviour, may vary among different seasons when local environmental conditions change, or even vary between differently and sharply contrasting adjacent habitat types within the same landscape of the same season (Lazarus and Symonds 1992; Camp et al 2012). Vigilance responses are likely to differ between species, due to differences in their foraging ecology, dietary preferences, and prey availability (Li et al 2017)

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call