| Literature DB >> 34895360 |
Mariëlle L van Toor1, Sergey Kharitonov2, Saulius Švažas3, Mindaugas Dagys3, Erik Kleyheeg4, Gerard Müskens5, Ulf Ottosson6, Ramunas Žydelis7, Jonas Waldenström6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The timing of migration for herbivorous migratory birds is thought to coincide with spring phenology as emerging vegetation supplies them with the resources to fuel migration, and, in species with a capital breeding strategy also provides individuals with energy for use on the breeding grounds. Individuals with very long migration distances might however have to trade off between utilising optimal conditions en route and reaching the breeding grounds early, potentially leading to them overtaking spring on the way. Here, we investigate whether migration distance affects how closely individually tracked Eurasian wigeons follow spring phenology during spring migration.Entities:
Keywords: Arrival timing; Herbivore; Hidden Markov model; Mareca penelope; Migration timing; Telemetry; Thermal growing season
Year: 2021 PMID: 34895360 PMCID: PMC8665524 DOI: 10.1186/s40462-021-00296-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mov Ecol ISSN: 2051-3933 Impact factor: 3.600
Sample sizes for the individuals that were captured and tagged in Lithuania and the Netherlands, broken down by year of capture and sex of individuals
| Year | Deployment date | n individuals | n females | n males | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 2018 | Feb 05 | 20 | 6 | 14 |
| 2019 | Mar 16 | 5 | 5 | 0 | |
| Lithuania | 2018 | Apr 26 | 9 | 3 | 6 |
| 2019 | Mar 29 – 31 | 5 | 0 | 5 | |
| Total tagged | 39 | 14 | 25 | ||
| Available for analysis | 27 | 12 | 15 |
Also included is the sample size with respect to individuals that were available for the modelling of arrival timing. More details on tracking duration and number of locations per individual and year are available in Additional file 1: Table S1
Fig. 1Arrival events at staging sites relative to the Each arrival event is shown as point coloured according to the (scaled) , with arrival events early relative to the shown in orange, and arrivals occurring later relative to the shown in purple. Subsequent arrival events recorded for the same individual and year are connected by lines. Data are shown in interrupted Goode Homolosine projection
Fig. 2Summaries for staging duration, and distance and speed between subsequent staging sites. a shows the time that individuals spent at staging sites in days; b shows geodesic distance between subsequent staging sites in kilometers; and c shows how fast individuals traveled between staging sites, calculated as the distance shown in (b) divided by the time between the last location in one staging site, and the first location recorded in the subsequent staging site
Below we detail the estimates with 95% confidence intervals and model statistic for the fixed effects included in the model for wigeon arrival timing relative to the using
| Estimate | 95% CI | z-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept (Lithuania) | 0.06 | − 0.37 to 0.49 | 0.27 |
| Intercept (Netherlands) | 0.52 | 0.17 to 0.87 | 2.91 |
| Deviation from | − 0.30 | − 0.35 to − 0.25 | − 12.20 |
| Maximum longitude | − 0.48 | − 0.71 to − 0.24 | − 3.96 |
| Max. longitude: distance traveled (Lithuania) | − 0.17 | − 0.33 to − 0.01 | − 2.08 |
| Max. longitude: distance traveled (Netherlands) | − 0.26 | − 0.34 to − 0.19 | − 6.76 |
The fixed effects contributed to a marginal . The response and independent model terms were scaled and centered, and the model was fitted using 208 arrival events for 28 wigeons and 3 years. More details on the conditional model, including the random effect terms and the correlation structure can be found in Additional file 1: Table S2
Below we detail the estimates with 95% confidence intervals and model statistic for the fixed effects included in the model for wigeon arrival timing relative to the using using only the last arrivals for each individual and year
| Estimate | 95% CI | z-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 0.45 | 0.10–0.79 | 2.55 |
| Deviation from | − 0.26 | − 0.56 to 0.04 | − 1.72 |
| Maximum longitude | − 0.59 | − 0.89 to − 0.30 | − 3.91 |
The fixed effects contributed to a marginal . The response and independent model terms were scaled and centered, and the model was fitted using 32 arrival events for 28 wigeons and 3 years
Here we summarise the results for the model for the delay of tagged wigeons relative to ring-marked wigeons
| Estimate | 95% CI | z-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept (Arnhem) | 11.57 | 5.75 to 17.38 | 3.90 |
| London | 11.30 | 5.48 to 17.12 | 3.81 |
| Moscow | 4.64 | − 0.93 to 10.21 | 1.63 |
| Arnhem : Longitude | 1.19 | − 3.76 to 6.13 | 0.47 |
| London : Longitude | 2.51 | − 2.43 to 7.45 | 1.00 |
| Moscow : Longitude | 14.16 | 10.02 to 18.29 | 6.70 |
Listed above are the estimates of for each ringing scheme and the corresponding interaction with longitude, along with 95% confidence intervals and model statistic
Fig. 3Timing of arrival compared to ring recovery data. The scatterplots show how the delay of tagged wigeons relative to ring recovery data changes of longitude. Points represent the measured , the lines and shaded areas show the estimates and 95% CIs for the effect of longitude for the respective ringing scheme. Three three panels show the data and model estimates for the ringing schemes of a Arnhem, b London, and c Moscow, respectively. Vertical lines and labels provide reference longitudes for locations along the migration corridor of tracked wigeons
Fig. 4Wigeon arrival timing relative to the Here we show the interaction effect between maximum longitude and distance traveled on , specifically the effect of maximum longitude for three different values of distance traveled. The lines show the estimate for the effect at the given distance, and the shaded areas reflect the 95% confidence intervals for the estimate. The data used to fit the model are shown as scatterplot. Vertical lines and labels provide reference longitudes for locations along the migration corridor of tracked wigeons