| Literature DB >> 34930467 |
Nils Linek1,2, Paweł Brzęk3, Phillip Gienapp4, M Teague O'Mara5,6, Ivan Pokrovsky5,7,8, Andreas Schmidt5, J Ryan Shipley5, Jan R E Taylor3, Juha Tiainen9,10, Tamara Volkmer5,11, Martin Wikelski5,11,12, Jesko Partecke13,14.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many birds species range over vast geographic regions and migrate seasonally between their breeding and overwintering sites. Deciding when to depart for migration is one of the most consequential life-history decisions an individual may make. However, it is still not fully understood which environmental cues are used to time the onset of migration and to what extent their relative importance differs across a range of migratory strategies. We focus on departure decisions of a songbird, the Eurasian blackbird Turdus merula, in which selected Russian and Polish populations are full migrants which travel relatively long-distances, whereas Finnish and German populations exhibit partial migration with shorter migration distances.Entities:
Keywords: Control mechanisms; Departure decision; Environmental cues; Songbird migration
Year: 2021 PMID: 34930467 PMCID: PMC8686659 DOI: 10.1186/s40462-021-00298-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mov Ecol ISSN: 2051-3933 Impact factor: 3.600
Fig. 1a Proximate control mechanisms for migration: Two extremes along a continuous gradient. On one side facultative (environmentally induced) and on the other end, obligate migration (intrinsic control mechanisms). b Different migration types (ranging from irruptive to full migration) which are linked to specific proximate control mechanisms (see (a)). c Locations of study sites for Eurasian blackbirds (Turdus merula). While the Spanish population of blackbirds is fully resident, departures from partial (Germany and Finland) and fully (Poland and Russia) migratory populations are used in this study
Fig. 2Timing of autumn migration events across all years for each population. The solid black line marks the population median date for departure, while the dashed lines left and right mark the corresponding first and third quantiles. Day 1 = equals 1st. January
Fig. 3Comparison of day length (a), ambient temperature (b), scaled atmospheric pressure (c), cloud cover (d), tailwind assistance (e) and crosswind (f) at departure nights during autumn migration between blackbird populations. Black solid lines represent the median, boxes represent first and third quartiles, and whiskers describe the 95% confidence intervals. The dashed red line in (c) represents mean atmospheric pressure during the entire departure window, while it marks the absence of tail and crosswinds in (e) and (f). Populations that were identified as different via post hoc tests are joined by brackets noted with the corresponding significant levels (* ≤ 0.05, ** ≤ 0.01, ***≤ 0.001)
Averaged model for the effects of weather variables and population on departure probability of individual blackbirds
| Parameter | Estimate ( | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Day length | − 3.65 ± 1.17 | − 5.95 ± − 1.35 | |
| Residual ambient temperature | − 0.17 ± 0.09 | − 0.34 ± 0.01 | |
| Atmospheric pressure | 0.30 ± 0.12 | 0.06 ± 0.53 | |
| Cloud cover | − 0.42 ± 0.11 | − 0.64 ± − 0.21 | |
| Tailwind assistance | 0.29 ± 0.13 | 0.04 ± 0.53 | |
| Crosswind | 0.59 ± 0.11 | 0.38 ± 0.81 | |
| Population (Finland) × Day length | 0.73 ± 0.54 | − 0.33 ± 1.79 | 0.18 |
| Population (Russia) × Day length | 1.95 ± 0.81 | 0.36 ± 3.54 | |
| Population (Poland) × Day length | 1.82 ± 0.64 | 0.56 ± 3.08 | |
| Population (Finland) × Atmospheric pressure | − 0.27 ± 0.37 | − 0.99 ± 0.45 | 0.46 |
| Population (Russia) × Atmospheric pressure | − 0.36 ± 0.37 | − 1.08 ± 0.36 | 0.33 |
| Population (Poland) × Atmospheric pressure | 1.00 ± 0.40 | 0.21 ± 1.79 | |
| Population (Finland) × Cloud cover | 0.38 ± 0.44 | − 0.48 ± 1.24 | 0.39 |
| Population (Russia) × Cloud cover | − 0.74 ± 0.31 | − 1.33 ± − 0.14 | |
| Population (Poland) × Cloud cover | − 0.29 ± 0.46 | − 1.19 ± 0.60 | 0.52 |
| Population (Finland) × Tailwind assistance | 0.37 ± 0.28 | − 0.17 ± 0.92 | 0.18 |
| Population (Russia) × Tailwind assistance | 1.31 ± 0.44 | 0.44 ± 2.17 | |
| Population (Poland) × Tailwind assistance | 0.11 ± 0.27 | − 0.42 ± 0.64 | 0.68 |
| Population (Finland) × Crosswind | − 0.63 ± 0.25 | − 1.12 ± − 0.14 | |
| Population (Russia) × Crosswind | − 0.29 ± 0.39 | − 1.05 ± 0.47 | 0.45 |
| Population (Poland) × Crosswind | − 1.28 ± 0.30 | − 1.86 ± − 0.69 |
Adjusted Akaike’s Information Criterion (AICc) has been used to determine the final candidate models (Additional file 1: Table S1)
Average model estimates, adjusted standard errors (SE), 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and associated p-values of parameters included in the candidate models. p-values ≤ 0.05 are given in bold font. The reference category for species is the German population