Habitat alteration and fecal deposition by geese alter tundra invertebrate communities: Implications for diets of sympatric birds.

Over the last 60 years, Arctic goose populations have increased while many sympatric tundra nesting bird populations have declined. Hyperabundant geese have well-documented effects on tundra habitats, which can alter habitat use by sympatric bird species. These habitat changes may also alter invertebrate communities and abundances, with potentially important, but as of yet, undocumented effects on insectivorous birds such as shorebirds. Here, we determined the effects of goose-induced habitat alteration on invertebrate communities and relate the observed changes to shorebird diet. At sites and habitat types representing a gradient of goose influence, we identified goose-related changes in ground cover and linked these factors to variation in invertebrate communities. We then used DNA metabarcoding to characterize the diet of six shorebird species across sites and identify inter-site variation in abundance, biomass, and timing of emergence of dominant shorebird prey items. Invertebrate diversity and richness did not vary either among sites or habitat types. However, for prey items identified as part of the shorebird diet, we found significantly higher abundances and biomasses at a moderately goose-influenced site than at either low or high goose-influenced sites. Biomass of Tipulidae, the dominant prey taxon for shorebirds at the study sites, was 7.5 times higher at the moderately goose-influenced site compared to the site where goose influence was minor. We attribute this enhancement of prey biomass to both the fertilizing effect of goose fecal pellets and the moderate grazing pressure. Many studies have documented adverse effects of overabundant geese, but here we show that a moderate degree of goose grazing can lead to enhanced biomass of invertebrates, with the potential for improved shorebird foraging success and chick growth. These benefits, however, might be outweighed by negative effects of goose-induced habitat alteration and predation pressure.

Introduction

Worldwide, many populations of Arctic-breeding shorebirds are declining [1, 2]. In North America, disproportionate declines are occurring in Eastern and Central Arctic regions [3-5]. While human-induced habitat alteration at non-breeding sites and climate change across their ranges are thought to be the greatest threats for many shorebirds [6, 7], large populations of light geese (Snow Geese, Chen caerulescens and Ross’ Geese, Chen rossii) breeding on or near shorebird breeding habitats could contribute to declines at local or regional scales [8, 9]. Light geese can increase the risk of nest predation for shorebirds by attracting and/or subsidizing generalist predator populations [10-12] and affect their nest site selection by altering habitat [13]. These habitat changes could also influence the diversity or abundance of arthropods, which in turn are prey for the many species of insectivorous birds, such as shorebirds, that breed sympatrically with geese. The nature and importance of these possible cascading effects of goose-induced habitat alteration on invertebrate communities, and thus shorebird prey availability, remain largely unknown.

Goose-induced habitat alteration could influence invertebrate communities in several ways. Changes in habitat complexity, such as vertical structure, and plant biomass through conversion of vegetated wet meadows to exposed sediment [14-16] result in lower abundance and diversity of herbivorous invertebrates or invertebrates that rely on vegetation for breeding and hunting [17, 18]. In coastal wetlands, elevated soil and pond salinity caused by increases in soil temperature and evapotranspiration from loss of vegetative cover [19] could make some habitats inhospitable for heat- and salt-sensitive species [8]. Goose-induced temporal changes in micro-habitat characteristics can also affect the timing and length of emergence for some species [20]. Alternatively, soils enriched through fecal deposition around goose colonies could enhance entire invertebrate communities or the abundances of just a few families [21-23].

Most tundra-breeding birds are insectivorous [24], and for these species, the abundance and diversity of invertebrates has a significant influence on shorebird adults and chicks [25-27]. The timing of chick hatch for insectivorous birds is thought to have evolved to coincide with timing of emergence in invertebrates, and phenological mismatch between these two events is a predicted consequence of climate change [28]. Although recent studies have found variable support for this hypothesis [26, 29–31], the abundance of key prey items is an important determinant of reproductive success, with demonstrated impacts on population dynamics of insectivorous birds [27, 32].

The effects of light geese on nesting shorebirds through top-down changes in predation pressure [10-12], and habitat availability, which, in turn, influence nest site selection [13], are well described. Here, we sought to identify any bottom-up pressures exerted indirectly by geese on insectivorous birds such as shorebirds, through changes in availability of invertebrate prey. Our objectives were to 1) confirm gradients of goose-induced habitat alteration were present at scales relevant to invertebrate communities, 2) examine any such effects of goose-induced habitat alteration on invertebrate communities, 3) determine which taxa of invertebrates are most frequently consumed by tundra-nesting shorebirds by characterizing their diet, and 4) identify any effects of geese on the biomass or timing of emergence of dominant shorebird prey items.

To address these objectives, we conducted research at three study sites situated at increasing distances from a light goose colony in the eastern Canadian Arctic. We predicted that invertebrate community diversity would be lowest at the site with the most pronounced goose-induced habitat alteration and that any goose-related effects on invertebrate diversity would depend on the extent of vegetation loss. We then characterized decline in diversity in response to a reduction in vegetative cover. We used DNA metabarcoding to identify the preferred diet items for shorebirds, and determined how biomass and timing of emergence of dominant prey items varied with distance from the goose colony. We then discuss the potential mechanisms for this variation in invertebrate diversity and abundance, and the consequences for shorebirds breeding in goose-altered environments.

Methods

Study sites

All handling and sampling procedures were approved by Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Animal Care Committee and adhered to Federal and Territorial permits (e.g., NUN-SCI-14-05, WL2016-053). We examined the effects of geese on invertebrates at three sites with different distances from a large Lesser Snow Goose (Chen caerulescens caerulescens) colony in the Qaqsauqtuuq (East Bay) Migratory Bird Sanctuary on Southampton Island, Nunavut (Fig 1). The population of geese within this colony and an adjoining one have nearly doubled from a total of 156,700 breeding birds in 1997 to 289,700 in 2014 [33] (J. Leafloor, unpublished).

Fig 1

Locations of three study sites situated at increasing distances from a mixed lesser snow and Ross’ goose colony on Southampton Island and Coats Island, Nunavut.

The first study site (6 km2) is situated within the goose colony. The second site, East Bay Mainland Shorebird Camp (12 km2) is situated within the sanctuary, ~10km to the east of the goose colony. Although East Bay Mainland is not typically used for breeding by light geese, family groups use the site later in the season for foraging. The third study site, the Coats Island Shorebird Camp (12 km2), is situated on Appatuurjuaq (Coats Island) ~135km south of East Bay Mainland. Light geese do not breed regularly at this study site but it is used for breeding by small numbers of Cackling Geese (Branta hutchinsii), and by staging light geese during migration in late July. Previous studies at these sites have confirmed a gradient of goose effects at larger scales [12, 13], thus, we refer to them here as high (goose colony), moderate (East Bay Mainland), and low (Coats Island) goose influence sites. We carried out fieldwork at the three sites throughout the shorebird breeding season in June and July of 2015–2017.

Habitat characteristics

Because invertebrate communities differ among habitats we conducted habitat surveys near each of the pitfall traps (five traps per habitat type per year) within each of the three study sites. In 2015 and 2016, at each location we identified the dominant broad habitat type (lowland habitats: sedge meadow, scrub willow, and moss carpet; upland habitats: dry heath, gravel ridge, and intertidal), as described by [34] within a 75m2 area surrounding the random point. We then estimated the proportional cover of ground cover types (rock, Dryas sp., lichen, willow, moss, and graminoid), and counted the number of goose fecal pellets (fresh and old) within a 1m2 circle surrounding the random point (see [13]).

Invertebrate communities

To characterize invertebrate communities at each study site, we collected invertebrates with pitfall traps placed randomly within each of the six habitat types (five traps per habitat type). The pitfall traps consisted of yellow plastic cups, with a mouth diameter of 14cm, dug into the ground so that the lip was even with the soil. We then filled each trap with approximately 5cm of diluted propylene glycol and two drops of triton soap to break the surface tension. We reset each pitfall trap about every seven days to total four collection periods throughout the peak of the shorebird breeding season (24 June– 24 July) except when the schedule was interrupted due to inclement weather or the presence of polar bears (Ursus maritimus). To standardize abundance measures we calculated the mean number of invertebrates per day per trap, for each family or other taxonomic groupings. In the field, we drained the traps of all liquids and stored samples in Falcon tubes with 95% ethanol. In the lab, each sample was sorted to family, where possible, using [35]. We also measured the lengths of a subsample of individual invertebrates per site (up to 20), for each family that we identified as shorebird diet items (see below). Using these measurements, we estimated biomass per sampling period using length-mass equations for invertebrate orders and families developed by [36]. When calculating site-specific biomass we multiplied the biomass of invertebrates at each study site by the proportional availability of each habitat type as described by [13].

Shorebird diet

We characterized diets from six tundra-nesting shorebird species that consistently breed at all three sites: Dunlin (Calidris alpina), Semipalmated Sandpiper (Calidris pusilla), White-rumped Sandpiper (Calidris fuscicollis), Red Phalarope (Phalaropus fulicarius), Black-bellied Plover (Pluvialis squatarola), and Ruddy Turnstone (Arenaria interpres). For diet characterization we used DNA metabarcoding, a technique that has proven successful in identifying diets of hummingbirds [37], waterthrushes [38], and swallows [39], but less attention has been paid to its use on shorebirds [40]. We applied this technique to shorebird fecal samples to characterize diet because the method is non-invasive, requires less expertise in identification, and provides a higher taxonomic resolution than observational or gut contents analyses [41]. DNA metabarcoding uses high-throughput sequencing, and matches the identified sequences to a reference database from known species.

To collect shorebird fecal samples, we captured individual shorebirds on their nests throughout the breeding season using bownet traps. We placed each bird in a covered sterilized plastic holding container lined with wax paper for a maximum of five minutes. We released the bird after it defecated and transferred the fecal sample to a microcentrifuge tube using a sterilized plastic spoon. We then stored samples at -20 degrees Celsius in 95% ethanol. After each individual capture, we sterilized the holding container with 70% ethanol and replaced the waxed paper. All fecal samples were processed at the Canadian Centre for DNA Barcoding (CCDB) at the University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, following protocols outlined by [37] and [42]. We used primers designed for arthropods ([43]; with a 157-bp section of the COI barcode region amplified), annelids (161-bp), microalgae (168 -bp), mollusks (161-bp), and amphipods (193-bp). All handling and sampling procedures were approved by Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Animal Care Committee and adhered to Federal and Territorial permits (e.g., NUN-SCI-14-05, WL2016-053).

Statistical methods

Habitat characteristics and invertebrate communities

We used MANOVA to identify differences in proportional ground cover and fecal pellet abundance among study sites, habitat types, and a study site by habitat interaction. To identify differences in invertebrate communities among study sites and habitat types we used PERMANOVA. We included site, habitat type, and a site by habitat interaction as predictors. We then used MANOVA to identify differences in the abundances (log+1 transformed) of the top five most abundant invertebrate families across sites, total diversity (Shannon-Weiner Index), and species richness using site, habitat type, and a site by habitat type interaction as predictors.

To link invertebrate communities with habitat characteristics, we analysed habitat survey data stratified by dominant habitat type with pitfall traps. We then used a Redundancy Analysis (RDA) to identify relationships between continuous environmental variables (goose fecal pellet count, and proportions of rock, Dryas, lichen, moss, willow, and graminoid) and abundance at the family level. To assess the strength of the relationship between environmental variables and invertebrate abundance, we used the significance of the canonical axes and a Monte Carlo test with 999 permutations.

Shorebird diet and prey availability

Shorebird captures were time consuming and nest abundances varied significantly among study sites, which affected our rate of sample collection. Thus, we had too few samples to analyse differences in shorebird diet across the three sites (Black-bellied Plover n = 8; Dunlin n = 6; Red Phalarope n = 23; Ruddy Turnstone n = 9; Semipalmated Sandpiper n = 10; White-rumped Sandpiper n = 24). Instead, we identified the relative use of invertebrate taxa as shorebird prey by calculating the frequency of occurrence of each invertebrate family in each shorebird species’ diet across the three study sites combined. Based on visual inspection of frequency of occurrence, we classified the top five prey items as ‘important’ and conducted more detailed analyses of their biomass and timing of emergence.

To identify differences in prey biomass from the pitfall traps we used a generalized linear model with invertebrate family and site, and an interaction between the two as predictors. For an analysis of emergence timing, we used a generalized additive model with abundance (per collection period, log-transformed) as the response, and study site, prey family, collection period, year, and an interaction between all four as the predictors. All statistical analyses were performed in R Version 3.6.1 [44].

Results

Habitat characteristics varied by study site (Wilks2, 280: 0.72449, p < 0.001), habitat type (Wilks5, 280: 0.10603, p < 0.001), and an interaction between the two (Wilks10, 280: 0.66762, p < 0.001; S1 Table). Fecal pellet counts were lower at the low goose influence site than the other two sites (F2, 280: 9.98, p < 0.001), and highest in moss carpet habitat and lowest in gravel ridge (F5, 280: 5.59, p < 0.001). Rock cover was highest at the moderate goose influence site (F2, 280: 4.66, p < 0.05) and in the gravel ridge habitat type (F5, 280: 63.00, p < 0.001), and lowest at the low goose influence site and in sedge meadow. Lichen (F5, 280: 23.21, p < 0.001) and Dryas sp. coverage (F5, 280: 34.06, p < 0.001) were both highest in dry heath, but lowest in moss carpet and intertidal, respectively. As expected, moss cover was highest in moss carpet and lowest in gravel ridge (F5, 280: 32.12, p < 0.001). Willow cover varied by a site and habitat type interaction (F10, 280: 2.70, p < 0.01). Among study sites (F2, 280: 29.06, p < 0.001), graminoid cover was highest at the low goose site and lowest at the high goose site, particularly within sedge meadow habitat (F5, 280: 38.47, p < 0.001) while the reverse was true in intertidal habitat (F10, 280: 1.99, p < 0.05).

Invertebrate abundances and taxon richness

Over two summers at three study sites we collected a total of 877,678 individual invertebrates comprising 36 taxa. Invertebrate communities differed among study sites (F2, 161 = 26.67, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.14), habitat types (F5, 161 = 22.25, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.28), with a study site by habitat type interaction (F10, 161 = 6.93, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.18). A large number (>700 000) of Collembolans were collected during one sampling period in one trap from the intertidal zone at the low goose influence site, comprising ~93% of all individuals collected during this study and skewing the proportions of all other invertebrates. Excluding Collembola, Sciaridae (27.55%), Linyphiidae (14.13%), Chironomidae (12.14%), Muscidae (9.67%), and Tipulidae (4.54%) comprised the top five invertebrate families (~70% of all individuals) across sites. Most invertebrate individuals captured were adults.

Abundances of the top five invertebrate families varied among sites (Wilks’2, 162: 0.23, p < 0.001), habitat types (Wilks’5, 162: 0.14, p < 0.001), and a site by habitat type interaction (Wilks’10, 162: 0.12, p < 0.001; Table 1). Tipulidae abundance was highest at the moderate goose site in dry heath, moss carpet, scrub willow, and sedge meadow and at the goose colony in gravel ridge and intertidal areas. Chironomidae abundance was consistently highest at the moderate goose site and lowest at the low goose site across habitat types, except for moss carpet where it was highest at the goose colony (Fig 2; S2 Table). Linyphiidae abundance was highest at the goose colony in dry heath, gravel ridge, and moss carpet, and at the moderate goose site in intertidal, scrub willow, and sedge meadow. Muscidae abundance was highest within the goose colony in dry heath, gravel ridge, and moss carpet, and at the moderate goose site in intertidal, scrub willow, and sedge meadow. Sciaridae abundance was highest at the goose colony in dry heath and gravel ridge, at the moderate goose site in intertidal, scrub willow, and sedge meadow, and at the low goose site in moss carpet.

Table 1

Results of post-hoc ANOVAs testing the effects of site, habitat type, and a site by habitat type interaction on the abundances of the dominant five invertebrate families collected in pitfall traps situated at a gradient of goose influence.

Family	Variable	D.F.	F-value	P
Chironomidae	Goose influence	2, 162	13.05	<0.001
	Habitat type	5, 162	3.38	<0.01
	Goose influence x Habitat type	10, 162	3.53	<0.001
Linyphiidae	Goose influence	2, 162	91.72	<0.001
	Habitat type	5, 162	28.23	<0.001
	Goose influence x Habitat type	10, 162	10.70	<0.001
Muscidae	Goose influence	2, 162	70.34	<0.001
	Habitat type	5, 162	15.08	<0.001
	Goose influence x Habitat type	10, 162	5.88	<0.001
Sciaridae	Goose influence	2, 162	49.08	<0.001
	Habitat type	5, 162	23.83	<0.001
	Goose influence x Habitat type	10, 162	15.40	<0.001
Tipulidae	Goose influence	2, 162	25.01	<0.001
	Habitat type	5, 162	6.66	<0.001
	Goose influence x Habitat type	10, 162	4.02	<0.001

Fig 2

Abundance (per trap per day, log transformed) for the five most abundant invertebrate families collected using pitfall traps in six dominant habitat types at three sites representing a gradient of goose influence.

Shannon-Wiener diversity also differed among study sites (F2, 161 = 17.99, p < 0.001), habitat types (F5, 161 = 11.02, p < 0.001), and a study site by habitat type interaction (F10, 161 = 3.07, p < 0.01; Table 2). Similarly, richness differed among study sites (F2, 161 = 19.31, p < 0.001), habitat types (F5, 161 = 13.05, p < 0.001), and a study site by habitat type interaction (F10, 161 = 3.58, p < 0.001; Table 2). Diversity in dry heath, gravel ridge, and moss carpet was lowest at the goose colony and highest at the low goose influence site. In the remaining habitat types, diversity was highest at the moderate goose site and lowest at the low goose site.

Table 2

Shannon diversity and taxa richness of invertebrates across traps and periods but among study sites representing a gradient of goose effects and habitat types (mean ± SE).

Index	Goose influence	Dry Heath	Gravel Ridge	Intertidal	Moss Carpet	Sedge Meadow	Scrub Willow
Shannon	high	1.99 ± 0.08	1.94 ± 0.06	1.91 ± 0.16	2.12 ± 0.05	1.86 ± 0.15	1.98 ± 0.07
	moderate	1.96 ± 0.10	1.79 ± 0.15	1.98 ± 0.09	2.05 ± 0.16	2.10 ± 0.12	2.09 ± 0.09
	low	1.86 ± 0.15	1.73 ± 0.12	1.82 ± 0.20	1.98 ± 0.14	1.89 ± 0.16	1.87 ± 0.15
Richness	high	13.60 ± 0.64	12.10 ± 0.43	11.80 ± 1.04	17.50 ± 0.58	10.80 ± 1.01	13.10 ± 0.50
	moderate	12.80 ± 0.84	9.30 ± 0.86	13.30 ± 0.73	15.56 ± 1.50	16.90 ± 1.23	16.50 ± 0.90
	low	10.80 ± 0.98	8.20 ± 0.63	10.10 ± 1.05	13.70 ± 1.15	11.30 ± 0.92	11.00 ± 0.97

Habitat associations

The RDA revealed relationships between environmental variables and invertebrate communities (F7, 172: 1.91, p < 0.001). Axis 1 explained 39% of the variation in taxon-specific abundance and was driven by a gradient of low (negative scores) to high (positive scores) goose pellets and moss cover (F1, 172: 5.23, p < 0.001; Fig 2). Axis 2 explained 18% of variation and was driven primarily by a gradient of rock (positive scores) to graminoid and moss cover (negative scores; F1, 172: 2.45, p < 0.001).

Of the seven environmental variables, moss (%; F7, 172: 3.21, p < 0.001; Fig 3), graminoid (%; F7, 172: 1.86, p < 0.05), and fecal pellet counts (F7, 172: 3.26, p < 0.001) were significant predictors of variation in invertebrate abundances. Hemiptera, Linyphiidae, and Ichneumonidae abundance were all positively associated with both fecal pellet counts and moss cover. Muscidae were positively associated with goose fecal pellet counts, Carabidae with moss cover, and Lycosidae with graminoid cover.

Fig 3

Ordination plots for redundancy analysis of invertebrate communities across study sites and habitat types.

(top) Ordination showing the average RDA scores for three study sites with varying goose influence and six habitat types. (bottom) Ordination showing the effects of environmental variables on each invertebrate taxon. Goose pellets, moss cover, and graminoid cover were all significant environmental variables.

Shorebird diet, prey availability, and biomass

We analysed a total of 82 fecal samples collected from 6 shorebird species, yielding 316,023 reads. This analysis identified 87 unique prey species from 23 families. Of the sequences from these samples, 92% were identified to the level of order and family, 85% to the level of genus, and 60% to species-level. Of the 93% of Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs) that matched a reference sequence, 100% were identified to the order and family levels, 92% were identified to the genus-level and 65% identified to the species-level.

Red Phalarope diets were the most diverse (34 taxa) while Black-bellied Plover diets were the least (14 taxa). This variation could be the result of variation in sample sizes among shorebird species and so should be interpreted with caution. Across all shorebird species Tipulidae (occurring in 72% of samples), Chironomidae (33%), Muscidae (22%), Dytiscidae (20%), and Carabidae (19%) were the most frequently occurring invertebrates in fecal samples. The frequency of prey occurrence also varied among shorebird species, but Tipulidae was present in the diet of all species (Fig 4).

Fig 4

Frequency of occurrence of invertebrate families identified in fecal samples of each shorebird species using DNA metabarcoding.

For these five primary shorebird prey families, the biomass captured in pitfall traps was greatest for Tipulidae (480.8mg trap-1day-1) and least for Dytiscidae (15.5; F4, 128: 44.13, p < 0.001; Fig 5). Total trap biomass of dominant prey items was greatest at the moderate goose site (437.8mg trap-1day-1) and least at the low goose site (198.7mg trap-1day-1; F2, 128: 8.61, p < 0.001). Biomass also varied by a taxon by site interaction (F8, 128: 3.42, p < 0.01). Prey item emergence over the four sampling periods varied among sites and families as indicated by three-way interaction between all three (F16, 1341: 2.00, p < 0.05; Fig 6). The four-way interaction including year was not significant (p > 0.05).

Fig 5

Estimated biomass (mean ± S.D.) corrected for proportional availability of habitat types of five dominant shorebird prey items among study sites representing a gradient of goose influence.

Fig 6

Abundance of dominant invertebrate prey items among study sites and sample periods along with emergence trends from GAMs.

Sample collection period dates varied due to environmental factors but typically ranged from 23-Jun to 29-Jun (period 1), 29-Jun to 06-Jul (period 2), 06-Jul to 13-Jul (period 3), and 13-Jul to 21-Jul (period 4).

Discussion

Our study identified effects of goose-induced habitat alteration on invertebrate communities, which could exert bottom-up pressures on shorebirds. However, contrary to our prediction, invertebrate biomass was higher at the site with moderate goose colony pressure, an effect which may benefit foraging adult shorebirds and their chicks.

During the incubation period, Arctic-breeding light geese are confined to foraging near their nests and within their breeding colony. Once goslings hatch, family groups may move well-beyond the colony creating a gradient in goose habitat effects [13]. At the study sites, goose pellet counts supported results from previous analyses at the sites [13], confirmed varying goose use, and further identified dominant habitat types used by geese. Compared to other habitat types, goose pellet counts and habitat indices varied less among study sites in dry heath and gravel ridge habitats; habitat types not frequently used by geese [13]. Conversely, measures of goose grazing and fecal pellet counts varied significantly among sites in sedge meadow and moss carpet habitats where higher proportions of their dominant forage, graminoids were found. At the high and moderate goose influenced sites, the sedge meadow habitat type also contained lower proportions of graminoids compared to at the low goose influence site, presumably because of grazing pressure [13]. These results are consistent with those of other studies describing goose-induced habitat alteration at multiple scales [45, 46] and have the potential to drive habitat-specific variation in invertebrate communities among sites.

We found invertebrate community composition differed at sites at different distances from the goose colony. Also, unexpectedly, invertebrate abundance was higher at the sites with high and moderate goose influence compared to the site with low goose influence. In lowland habitats (sedge meadow and scrub willow) invertebrate diversity and richness also tended to be highest at the moderately goose influenced site, while in upland habitats (dry heath and gravel ridge), diversity and richness were highest in the goose colony and lowest at where goose influence was low. These results are suggestive of multiple potential mechanisms of influence.

Fecal deposition by light geese has been suggested as a driver of changes in pond nitrogen and phosphorus levels [47-49] that alter food-web dynamics [50, 51] and may be responsible for the enhanced invertebrate biomass at the sites in and near the goose colony. We found that goose fecal pellet counts were a significant predictor of invertebrate abundances, and like patterns in goose pellets, invertebrate abundance was higher at the two study sites on Southampton Island (where geese are abundant). Similar results have been found on Svalbard Island, Norway, where fecal pellet counts can increase phytoplankton, invertebrate taxon richness, and alter species composition [51].

Although we did not measure pond or soil chemistry, fecal pellet densities at the sites in and near the goose colony were over six times higher than at Coats Island, where breeding geese are absent. Furthermore, across Southampton Island (where the goose colony is situated), [52] described a ~2.5-fold increase in total phosphorus of ponds over a 13-year period; this effect was most pronounced in ponds situated within goose colonies.

Fecal deposition at the goose colony could also be subsidizing Muscidae populations. Some Muscidae species may rely on fecal matter for food or laying eggs [53, 54], perhaps explaining our finding that the abundance of individuals within this fly family was nearly seven times higher at and near the goose colony than at the low goose site. The taxonomic resolution of our pitfall traps was, however, too coarse to identify whether some species within this family were favoured, and as such, this hypothesis requires further investigation.

Fecal deposition by geese only partially explains the variation in invertebrate communities. Invertebrate community composition and abundance are often driven by micro-climate characteristics such as temperature which can vary by vegetation type and coverage [55-58]. At the two lowland habitat types (sedge meadow and moss carpet), invertebrate abundances were 2.3 times higher at the moderately influenced site than within the goose colony, while abundances in upland habitat types were approximately equal. At the study sites, geese use the vegetated lowland habitats more than upland habitats, which have less vegetative cover [13]. Therefore, among study site variation in lowland invertebrate communities could be driven by goose-induced alteration of vegetation while upland habitats remain less affected.

We also found invertebrate family-specific habitat associations, which, if a habitat gradient is present could be contributing to driving these trends [59]. For example, the reduction in graminoid cover at both the moderately and highly goose-affected sites may be responsible for the increased abundances of Sciaridae and Chironomidae; families we found were both positively associated with low graminoid cover and goose pellet count, and were 3.7 and 1.9 times higher at the goose influenced sites than at the low goose influenced site. Similarly, Linyphiidae were associated with high fecal pellet counts and moss cover; both indices which were higher at and near the goose colony likely resulting in abundances of four to seven times higher at the goose influenced sites. A goose-driven habitat gradient and family-specific habitat preferences may therefore be further contributing to the variation in invertebrate abundances among sites.

Studies elsewhere have demonstrated that geese are able to alter invertebrate communities at the landscape scale. At a light goose stopover site in Delaware, [18] found invertebrate diversity, taxa richness, and abundance (particularly Chironomidae and Coleoptera) were significantly lower in habitats altered by geese compared to goose-excluded sites. Similarly, near a sub-Arctic light goose breeding site at La Pérouse Bay, [17] found spider abundance and species richness, and beetle abundance five, two, and seven times lower, respectively in significantly goose-altered habitat compared to unaltered sites. In both cases these trends were in part attributed to reductions in important habitat for invertebrates [17, 18] and geese indirectly ingesting invertebrates while grazing [18].

We suggest that at the largest scale (Southampton vs. Coats Island) invertebrate communities are benefiting from fecal deposition by geese, but at a smaller scale (within the colony vs. near the colony), goose-induced habitat alteration, particularly of graminoids and moss, reduces the suitability of habitat for invertebrates such as some Lycosid spiders and some Coleopterans. However, other more complex trophic interactions, which we were unable to test, may still be contributing to these trends. For example, habitat suitability for predatory invertebrates may be limited near the goose colony, potentially resulting in a trophic release and elevated abundances of low trophic level invertebrates. The high densities of shorebirds found nesting at the low goose influence site [13] could also be imposing top-down pressures on their prey, limiting invertebrate abundance. While these hypotheses require further in-depth study, perhaps with exclusion plots, enhanced abundances of invertebrates near the goose colony have the potential to benefit sympatric-nesting shorebirds.

The DNA metabarcoding results revealed specific prey items in shorebird diets, and the proportions of these prey families were broadly similar to their availability, as indicated by pitfall traps. On the breeding grounds, conventional dietary analysis of shorebirds indicates they consume a diversity of prey items [60, 61], but in some cases selectively target specific prey taxa [26]. Across the shorebird species studied here, using DNA metabarcoding, we detected 87 unique prey species but only a few families (Tipulidae, Chironomidae, Muscidae, Dytiscidae, and Carabidae) were consumed most frequently. These results corroborate previous gut analyses of breeding Red Phalarope and Semipalmated Sandpiper and provide the first quantitative analysis of White-rumped Sandpiper diet on the breeding grounds. In Barrow, Alaska, [62] found that Red Phalarope stomachs contained Chironomidae (50%) and Tipulidae larvae (33%), Carabidae (33%) and Plecoptera adults (10%), and low frequencies (<10%) of Muscidae pupae and Culicidae larvae. In Manitoba, adult Semipalmated Sandpiper frequently consumed Chironomidae larvae (60%), Arachnids (20%), and low (<10%) frequencies of Tipulidae, Muscidae, Dytiscidae, and Dolichopodid larvae, with some Dytiscidae adults [61]. Two adult White-rumped Sandpipers in the Canadian Arctic consumed large quantities of cranefly larvae (and one adult), three spiders, and one Carabidae larvae [60].

While a powerful and less invasive technique that requires less time and expertise in species identification than gut analysis, DNA metabarcoding does not provide a proportional consumption of each prey item, prey size, and is unable to differentiate among life stages of a single species [63]. Any differences in the importance of larval vs. adult Tipulidae, or their size, for example are missed. With these caveats in mind, DNA metabarcoding nevertheless provided us with an indication of relative importance of shorebird prey items during the breeding season and an opportunity to examine any variation in biomass or phenology of key prey items in greater detail.

We found significant inter-site variation in the peaks of biomass of specific shorebird prey items. Compared to the low goose site, Tipulidae biomasses and abundance peaks were substantially higher and appeared to occur slightly earlier within and near the goose colony. Chironomidae biomass was nearly 10 times greater at the goose colony and during one peak, abundance was 2.8 times higher at the moderate goose site than at the low goose site. Abundances of Muscidae were also similar among sites at the beginning of the season but at both high and moderate goose sites increased to nearly six times the abundance of the low goose site near the end of the summer. Similar to [8, 20] who found higher Chironomidae biomass and delayed Culicidae emergence in goose-altered ponds compared to unaltered sites, respectively, the trends we report are likely driven by elevated salinity in the goose colony, which may favor large salt-tolerant species and/or affect hydroperiod.

Regardless of the mechanisms, the reported goose-driven trends in prey biomass and phenology may have consequences for shorebirds. Elevated biomass of prey items near goose colonies could result in larger or higher quality eggs and even benefit chick growth rates of some species [25, 26]. Any changes in invertebrate phenology due to climate change [64], however, may result in a mismatch between timing of chick hatch and prey emergence potentially offsetting any positive effects associated with the goose colony for some [26, 30] but not all species [31, 65]. Furthermore, invertebrate emergence cycles vary significantly across broad-geographic scales [66], potentially obscuring any larger trends. We therefore recommend more site-specific studies and further research on goose-related effects on shorebird prey biomass and phenology to identify any potential population-level consequences (whether positive or negative).

Conclusions

Over the last 60 years light goose populations have increased [33, 67] while many sympatric-nesting shorebird populations have declined [1, 2, 4]. Light goose-induced habitat alteration triggers trophic cascades, affecting invertebrate communities, their phenology, and their availability as prey for insectivorous birds. The effects of hyperabundant geese may not all be negative however. In areas with moderate grazing and habitat impacts, fecal pellet deposition may provide nutrients to support a more abundant and diverse invertebrate community. This enhanced prey base could support better adult body condition or higher rates of chick growth. However, the potential benefits of enhanced prey availability may also be offset by a reduced availability of preferred shorebird nesting habitat [13] and elevated risk of nest predation [12] within and near goose colonies. Combined, these complex interactions may be contributing, in part, to the spatial [68] and population-level declines documented in northern-breeding shorebirds [1, 3, 4, 69].

Variation in ground cover types within 1m2 areas situated at random points within six dominant habitat types at three study sites varying in goose influence (mean ± SE).

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Abundances (trap-1 day-1) of the dominant five invertebrate families among study sites varying in goose influence and habitat types (mean ± SE).

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

21 Mar 2022

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Emmanuel Serrano, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

[Support for this research was provided by the Arctic Goose Joint Venture and was funded by scholarships provided to S.A.F. by the National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada, W. Garfield Weston Foundation, and Ontario Graduate Scholarship. The authors would like to thank the community of Salliq (Coral Harbour), Nunavut, and the East Bay and Coats Island field crews for their assistance. We are especially grateful to Elyssa Cameron for sorting and identifying all invertebrates, Willow English for leading sample collection in 2017, and Sean Prosser for analysis of fecal samples. There is no conflict of interest between authors.]

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

[Support for this research was provided by Environment and Climate Change Canada and the Arctic Goose Joint Venture, and was funded by scholarships provided to S.A.F. by the National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada, W. Garfield Weston Foundation, and Ontario Graduate Scholarship.

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.]

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The study by Flemming and collaborators presents data on the impacts of Arctic geese populations on invertebrate communities, and the potential consequences these effects could have on prey availability for sympatric insectivorous birds. Other impacts of Arctic geese on shorebirds have been reported, through shared predators or habitat alteration, but less is known about the indirect effects through food availability to shorebirds. This study addresses this gap by presenting data on invertebrate communities at sites with different goose pressure, complemented with data on DNA metabarcoding of shorebird diet. The manuscript is very well written, but I think some parts need clarification. I have two more general comments and some more specific comments that I hope will be helpful to the authors when revising their manuscript.

General comments

- goose-induced habitat alteration: the study design is based on the three study sites being differently affected by geese. The colony site being the most used, the site near the colony being moderately affected and the site far from the colony being less affected. At each of the sites, sampling was conducted in six habitats, which are also differently used by geese – and surely these habitats occur in different proportions at each site, very likely related to the activities of geese. I feel these differences between the sites supporting this goose-induced habitat alteration, as part of the base for the study design, are not very clearly presented in the manuscript (or at least I found this a little bit confusing, and reacted when reading in the first line of the discussion that the study identified “effects of goose-induced habitat alteration” on invertebrate community composition and abundance).

- site-level averages: I assume that the different habitats were represented at each site differently, but it is not clear if the averages at the site level were calculated taking these differences into account? For example, for the invertebrate samples, five pitfall traps were installed in each habitat at each site, but most likely the six habitat types are not equally represented at each site (especially under the assumption of habitat alteration by geese, at sites with different intensity of use by geese), so averages per site without taking into account the relative abundance of each habitat may lead to very different conclusions.

Specific comments

L29: should this be “At sites and habitat types representing…”? The habitats are also differently used by geese, and otherwise the habitat types come as a surprise when you mention them for the first time in L35.

L37: “goose-influenced”? (same in L38) you use the hyphenated term later (L39)

L45-46: I see why you mention this here, but you did not assess if the effects on prey availability to shorebirds are outweighed by other factors, so this is not really a conclusion of your study. I wonder if a slightly different wording could help to make this clearer? (although I am maybe overthinking this – it just struck me the first time I read it. Feel free to ignore this comment if it does not make sense to you).

L50: remove “of North America”? Repeats the beginning of the sentence.

L81-83: This sentence repeats what was said in L54-56. Leave out?

L90-100: here I found a little bit confusing your description of your sites and the distance to the goose colony. If I understood it correctly, one of your sites is at the colony, another is some distance away and the last one is further away. You assume that the most pronounced goose-induced habitat alteration will be at the colony site, and decrease at the sites that are further away from the colony, right? You could maybe make this clearer in L93, for example, by referring specifically to the colony site when you mention the “site with the most pronounced goose-induced habitat alteration”? As well, in L97, you could directly refer to the sites with different intensity of goose disturbance instead of referring to distance (you use “site” rather than “distance” in your analyses, so I think this could be made clearer here).

L110: would it be possible to include a map showing the locations of the three study sites? In addition, the map could include some information about each of the sites (e.g. habitat type composition, etc)

L120: I know the section includes “shorebird species” in the subheading name, but I feel this information would be better presented together with the shorebird diet later on.

L126: How many locations were drawn randomly at each of the study sites? What was roughly the size of each site (within which the random points were located)? I understand that each of these locations (random sampling points) was characterized by its dominant habitat type, right? Would it be meaningful to then characterize each of the sites based on the relative abundance of the six habitat types? I think this would link better to the assumption of habitat alteration associated with the increased goose disturbance closer to the colony.

L127: were the habitat surveys conducted once or over the three years of the study?

L137: how does the placement of the pitfall traps relate to the habitat surveys described above (if at all)?

L137: I guess the habitat types occurred to different extent at the three sites. Was then this taken into account to estimate prey availability at each site?

L156: comma after reference (37)

L173: do you need to report here any details on data processing for the sequencing data? What software did you use (e.g. R packages)?

L177-178: the differences between sampling points and sites are not part of your research questions (L85-89), although these analyses provide a nice confirmation of goose use of the sites and a description of the habitat types within each site. I wonder however, if these analyses should be presented as supplementary material? The same applies to the corresponding section in the results (L211-225). I feel the differences in ground cover types between habitats/sites are also less relevant to the study, unless you are looking at this as part of the goose habitat alteration process (in which case, this should be clarified, and probably presented as a separate question of your study?). In turn, the fecal pellet counts in the different habitats and sites provide very important confirmatory information for your choice of sites (see my comment below, to Table S1). Maybe this information could be highlighted better in the manuscript?

L180: see my comment above about the average values per site. Following that, I am not sure it makes a lot of sense to include “site” here as a predictor variable (what does this variable really mean in this context?)

L195: please indicate here (or somewhere around L163?) how many samples you had per shorebird species.

L211: weren’t habitat characteristics estimated within a 75m2 area surrounding the random sampling points (L130)?

L226: what is really interesting from this table is the information on fecal pellet counts in the different habitats at the different sites. Shouldn’t this be presented in the main text as a figure, maybe as part of the site description? Were there differences between sites, and between the most used habitats (moss carpet and sedge meadow in GC and EBM)? What are the sample sizes for these comparisons?

L231: maybe re-iterate here that this was over three summers?

L275: I found Figure 1 a little difficult to follow. I think the comparisons between different habitats and sites would be clearer by presenting bars (with the corresponding errors) for each habitat at each site (instead of dots). I wonder also about the boxplots. They are useful to show differences between sites – but were these weighted by the proportion of the different habitat types at each site? Also, it would be good to follow the same order of presentation as in Tables 1 and 2 (first Chironomidae, then Linyphiidae, etc)

L308: the resolution of Figure 2 is really poor!

L334: see comment above – please provide sample sizes in the text when you describe the sampling for shorebird diets.

L353: are the lines between the points really needed?

L365: from the pellet counts (presented in Table S1) it is not very clear that East Bay Mainland had intermediate goose pressure?

L370-375: I think it would be very helpful to have this presented as a figure – as it is presented now, this information in buried in a supplementary table.

L381: “at sites at different distances from the goose colony”?

L384: this is the first time you refer to lowland vs upland habitats. If this is important, it should be introduced earlier.

Reviewer #2: Good work, good materials, good interpretation.

Would be good to Indicate the name of trap. Is it Barber H. Traps for cave-inhabiting insects // J. Elisha Mitchell Sci Soc.- 1931.- V.46.- P.259-266.?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Sonia Rozenfeld

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

14 Apr 2022

See table in Cover Letter for detailed responses.

Comment:

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found..

Response:

Revised as suggested

Comment:

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement

Response:

We have removed the statement of funding in the Acknowledgements. The Acknowledgements should read:

The authors would like to thank the community of Salliq (Coral Harbour), Nunavut, and the East Bay and Coats Island field crews for their assistance. We are especially grateful to Elyssa Cameron for sorting and identifying all invertebrates, Willow English for leading sample collection in 2017, and Sean Prosser for analysis of fecal samples. There is no conflict of interest between authors.

The Funding Statement should read:

Funding for this research was provided by the Arctic Goose Joint Venture, and scholarships provided to S.A.F. by the National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada, W. Garfield Weston Foundation, and Ontario Graduate Scholarship. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Comment:

We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

Response:

We are currently preparing the data for submission to Dryad. In the interest of time we will provide the DOIs during the next submission/acceptance.

Comment:

Goose-induced habitat alteration: the study design is based on the three study sites being differently affected by geese. The colony site being the most used, the site near the colony being moderately affected and the site far from the colony being less affected. At each of the sites, sampling was conducted in six habitats, which are also differently used by geese – and surely these habitats occur in different proportions at each site, very likely related to the activities of geese. I feel these differences between the sites supporting this goose-induced habitat alteration, as part of the base for the study design, are not very clearly presented in the manuscript (or at least I found this a little bit confusing, and reacted when reading in the first line of the discussion that the study identified “effects of goose-induced habitat alteration” on invertebrate community composition and abundance).

Response:

This is an excellent point. This is certainly very nuanced and we have attempted to respond to this in detail in several responses below. You are correct that the proportions of each habitat type are different at each site. This is in fact something that we have already investigated in great detail in a companion paper. Flemming, S.A., Nol, E., Kennedy, L.V., Smith, P.A., 2019. Hyperabundant herbivores limit habitat availability and influence nest site selection of Arctic‐breeding birds. Journal of Applied Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13336. One of the findings in the other paper is that conclusions of this other paper is that the proportion of sedge meadow habitat (a habitat preferred by geese) increases with distance from goose colony. Throughout the manuscript, with focus on the methods section, we have tried to clarify the differences in sites and make reference to the already completed habitat work in our companion paper. We have further clarified some finer points in our responses below. We have greatly appreciate your comments and believe that have significantly improved the take home messages of this manuscript

Comment:

Should this be “At sites and habitat types representing…”? The habitats are also differently used by geese, and otherwise the habitat types come as a surprise when you mention them for the first time in L35.

Response:

Changed as suggested

Comment:

“goose-influenced”? (same in L38) you use the hyphenated term later (L39)

Response:

Changed as suggested

Comment:

I see why you mention this here, but you did not assess if the effects on prey availability to shorebirds are outweighed by other factors, so this is not really a conclusion of your study. I wonder if a slightly different wording could help to make this clearer? (although I am maybe overthinking this – it just struck me the first time I read it. Feel free to ignore this comment if it does not make sense to you).

Response:

Changed to “Chick…growth. These benefits, however, might be outweighed by negative effects of goose-induced habitat alteration and predation pressure.”

Comment:

Remove “of North America”? Repeats the beginning of the sentence.

Response:

Removed

Comment:

This sentence repeats what was said in L54-56. Leave out?

Response:

We very much appreciate your attention detail! We have left this sentence in as we feel it is important to first introduce the general subject and then in the later sentences describe how the effects are already described.

Comment:

Would it be possible to include a map showing the locations of the three study sites? In addition, the map could include some information about each of the sites (e.g. habitat type composition, etc)

Response:

We have included a map of the study areas to help readers visualize the region. Given the scale of the region and the detailed mapping data required to produce this map we feel that including habitat type and composition is beyond the scope of this paper. We hope this satisfies the reviewer's concerns.

Comment:

I know the section includes “shorebird species” in the subheading name, but I feel this information would be better presented together with the shorebird diet later on.

Response:

We very much appreciate this suggestion. We have made the changes and agree that it has greatly improved the flow.

Comment:

How many locations were drawn randomly at each of the study sites? What was roughly the size of each site (within which the random points were located)? I understand that each of these locations (random sampling points) was characterized by its dominant habitat type, right? Would it be meaningful to then characterize each of the sites based on the relative abundance of the six habitat types? I think this would link better to the assumption of habitat alteration associated with the increased goose disturbance closer to the colony.

Response:

Thank you for catching this. We did not adequately explain in our original submission. We have included the sample sizes (5 surveys per habitat type per site per year) and areas in the manuscript. The areas of each of the study sites are as follows: High - 6 km2, Medium - 12 km2, 120, Low - 12 km2.

Comment:

Were the habitat surveys conducted once or over the three years of the study?

Response:

Good point. The habitat surveys were conducted in 2015 and 2016 in the years when invertebrate sampling took place. We have included these dates in the methods section.

Comment:

How does the placement of the pitfall traps relate to the habitat surveys described above (if at all)?

Response:

Excellent point and an oversight on our part. Habitat surveys were conducted at each of the pitfall trap sites and so invertebrate communities should reflect habitat variables in the immediate vicinity. We did not make this clear in our original submission but have clarified now.

Comment:

I guess the habitat types occurred to different extent at the three sites. Was then this taken into account to estimate prey availability at each site?

Response:

See more detailed comment above. As you suggest the biomass from the pitfall traps were multiplied by the proportions of each habitat type. We did not adequately describe this in the original submission but have changed it now.

Comment:

Comma after reference (37)

Response:

Revised as suggested

Comment:

Do you need to report here any details on data processing for the sequencing data? What software did you use (e.g. R packages)?

Response:

Our protocols followed those described by McClenaghan et al. 2019, and so we did not feel it was necessary to repeat the description of the lengthy process and thus refer the reader to this paper. We also cite R Version 10.0 later in the manuscript

Comment:

The differences between sampling points and sites are not part of your research questions (L85-89), although these analyses provide a nice confirmation of goose use of the sites and a description of the habitat types within each site. I wonder however, if these analyses should be presented as supplementary material? The same applies to the corresponding section in the results (L211-225). I feel the differences in ground cover types between habitats/sites are also less relevant to the study, unless you are looking at this as part of the goose habitat alteration process (in which case, this should be clarified, and probably presented as a separate question of your study?). In turn, the fecal pellet counts in the different habitats and sites provide very important confirmatory information for your choice of sites (see my comment below, to Table S1). Maybe this information could be highlighted better in the manuscript?

Response:

Thank you for this comment. It was originally our intention to make the links between habitat effects, invertebrate community, and shorebird prey availability. To make this clearer to the reader we have edited our goals sections to state this more explicitly. It now reads "Our objectives were to 1) confirm gradients of goose-induced habitat alteration were present at scales relevant to invertebrate communities, 2) examine any such effects of goose-induced habitat alteration on invertebrate communities, 3) determine which taxa of invertebrates are most frequently consumed by tundra-nesting shorebirds by characterizing their diet, and 4) identify any effects of geese on the biomass or timing of emergence of dominant shorebird prey items." We hope this satisfies the reviewer's concerns. Regarding the treatment of fecal pellets see response to comment on line 226

Comment:

see my comment above about the average values per site. Following that, I am not sure it makes a lot of sense to include “site” here as a predictor variable (what does this variable really mean in this context?)

Response:

An excellent question and one we have debated for some time. The answer is of course very nuanced. Our hope was to structure the manuscript such that we first investigated habitat alterations specific to invertebrates, then differences in invertebrate abundances which are likely resulting from these habitat differences, and then consider how differences in biomass could affect shorebird diet. It is true that there are differences in the availability of habitats among study sites as you point out. When reporting the abundance estimates we chose not to estimate total abundance per site by multiplying by habitat availability for two reasons. 1) for this section we wanted to focus specifically on invertebrate communities and habitat-specific differences in abundance at a finer scale. 2) in the last section we wanted to focus specifically on how differences affect shorebird prey. Since we believe that total abundance is less important than site-specific biomass to shorebirds we chose to correct the biomass estimates not the abundance estimates. Throughout the manuscript we have revised sections to try to make this clear and have included one sentence stating this explicitly. We hope this satisfies your concerns.

Comment:

Please indicate here (or somewhere around L163?) how many samples you had per shorebird species.

Response:

We have included the sample sizes here for reference.

Comment:

Weren’t habitat characteristics estimated within a 75m2 area surrounding the random sampling points (L130)?

Response:

Thank you for catching this. We have removed the following “within 1m2 areas at random points” which we hope will clarify

Comment:

What is really interesting from this table is the information on fecal pellet counts in the different habitats at the different sites. Shouldn’t this be presented in the main text as a figure, maybe as part of the site description? Were there differences between sites, and between the most used habitats (moss carpet and sedge meadow in GC and EBM)? What are the sample sizes for these comparisons?

Response:

We appreciate this comment. We have in fact already presented these data as part of a larger dataset as well as several similar sets of data such as vegetation height and lateral concealment in a companion paper from the same study sites (see above general response). We therefore felt that it was redundant to include such similar data and results in the main body of the text. However, since these data were a subset of the larger dataset they warranted being included in the supplementary material. We have attempted to draw the reader's attention to the companion paper and explicitly say that this assumption was already satisfied in reference to the companion paper.

Comment:

Maybe re-iterate here that this was over three summers?

Response:

We have clarified that this collection work took place “Over two summers at three study sites”

Comment:

I found Figure 1 a little difficult to follow. I think the comparisons between different habitats and sites would be clearer by presenting bars (with the corresponding errors) for each habitat at each site (instead of dots). I wonder also about the boxplots. They are useful to show differences between sites – but were these weighted by the proportion of the different habitat types at each site? Also, it would be good to follow the same order of presentation as in Tables 1 and 2 (first Chironomidae, then Linyphiidae, etc)

Response:

We appreciate your suggestions on this figure and have considered them all in painstaking detail. We have visualized the figure in several different ways including the one you suggested. While we do admit that the various lines do make the figure somewhat more challenging to read, viewing the trends by habitat and family results in 30 individual plots which present their own challenges with respect to space and interpretation. We find that the figure we present shows variations in site and among habitat types in the most parsimonious way possible. Respectfully we also feel that barplots are rarely the best way to visualize scientific data and have therefore chosen to present the data as a dot plot still. Regarding the weighting of the site averages and use of boxplots, please see our general response and response to comment on line 180 which explains our rationale in more detail. Lastly, you are absolutely right the same order should be followed as in table 1 and 2. We have rectified this and hope this satisfies your concerns.

Comment:

The resolution of Figure 2 is really poor!

Response:

Thank you for pointing this out. We have redone both figures 2 and 5 to make sure they are of higher resolution and quality.

Comment:

See comment above – please provide sample sizes in the text when you describe the sampling for shorebird diets

Response:

See above response

Comment:

Are the lines between the points really needed?

Response:

Thank for you your comment. We agree with your comment and have removed the lines between points.

Comment:

From the pellet counts (presented in Table S1) it is not very clear that East Bay Mainland had intermediate goose pressure?

Response:

Good catch! Our companion paper delves into habitat-related changes at broader scales in much much more detail using a larger data set (of which this is a subset of). In this companion paper there are very clear differences in lateral concealment, vegetation height, and availability of certain habitat types (as you rightly pointed out). To support our assertion we have provided references to this paper further, explicitly stated the link, and softened the language to ensure that we do not mislead the reader.

Comment:

I think it would be very helpful to have this presented as a figure – as it is presented now, this information is buried in a supplementary table.

Response:

See response to comment on line 226

Comment:

“at sites at different distances from the goose colony”?

Response:

Good catch. Thank you for helping us clarify. We have revised.

Comment:

This is the first time you refer to lowland vs upland habitats. If this is important, it should be introduced earlier.

Response:

Good catch. Thank you for helping us clarify. We have revised.

Comment:

This is the first time you refer to lowland vs upland habitats. If this is important, it should be introduced earlier.

Response:

Thank you for pointing this out. We have referenced the lowland and upland habitat types explicitly in the methods section now where we describe the habitats.

Comment:

Would be good to Indicate the name of trap. Is it Barber H. Traps for cave-inhabiting insects // J. Elisha Mitchell Sci Soc.- 1931.- V.46.- P.259-266.?

Response:

While it is interesting to note the first description of these traps we have described our very simple pitfall traps and hope that this description is sufficient.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_PLoSONE.docx

Click here for additional data file.

16 May 2022

30 May 2022

Reviewer #1:

• L135: there are extra commas around intertidal

Response: These have been removed

• L473: “Dytiscidae adults” (c missing in Dytiscidae)

Response: Excellent catch. We have corrected the typo.

• L491: “Similar to…”?

Response: We have added “to” to the sentence so it now reads “Similar to…”

Reviewer #2:

• On line 222 the following statement is present: “All statistical analyses were performed in R Version 10.0 (44)”. However, the current and the lastest version of R is 4.1, version 10 does not exist.

Response: Thank you for catching this. You are of course correct we have made the correction and will look into how this error was made.

1 Jun 2022

Habitat alteration and fecal deposition by geese alter tundra invertebrate communities: Implications for diets of sympatric birds

PONE-D-22-03825R2

Dear Dr. Flemming,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Emmanuel Serrano, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Congratulations!

Reviewers' comments:

24 Jun 2022

PONE-D-22-03825R2

Habitat alteration and fecal deposition by geese alter tundra invertebrate communities: Implications for diets of sympatric birds

Dear Dr. Flemming:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Emmanuel Serrano

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE