Foraging flight distances of wintering ducks and geese: a review

  • Johnson W
  • Schmidt P
  • Taylor D
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
48Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The distance covered by foraging animals, especially those that radiate from a central area when foraging, may affect ecosystem, community, and population dynamics, and has conservation and landscape planning implications for multiple taxa, including migratory waterfowl. Migrating and wintering waterfowl make regular foraging flights between roosting and feeding areas that can greatly impact energetic resources within the foraging zone near roost sites. We reviewed published studies and gray literature for one-way foraging flight distances (FFDs) of migrating and wintering dabbling ducks and geese. Thirty reviewed studies reported FFDs and several reported values for multiple species or locations. We obtained FFD values for migration (n = 7) and winter (n = 70). We evaluated the effects of body mass, guild, i.e., dabbling duck or goose, and location, i.e., Nearctic or Palearctic, on FFDs. We used the second-order Akaike’s Information Criterion for model selection. We found support for effects of location and guild on FFDs. FFDs of waterfowl wintering in the Nearctic (7.4 ± 6.7 km, mean ± SD; n = 39 values) were longer than in the Palearctic (4.2 ± 3.2 km; n = 31 values). The FFDs of geese (7.8 ± 7.2 km, mean ± SD; n = 24 values) were longer than FFDs of dabbling ducks (5.1 ± 4.4 km, mean ± SD; n = 46 values). We found mixed evidence that distance flown from the roost changed, i.e., increased or decreased, seasonally. Our results can be used to refine estimates of energetic carrying capacity around roosts and in biological and landscape planning efforts.

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Johnson, W. P., Schmidt, P. M., & Taylor, D. P. (2014). Foraging flight distances of wintering ducks and geese: a review. Avian Conservation and Ecology, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ace-00683-090202

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 18

62%

Researcher 9

31%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

3%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

3%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21

62%

Environmental Science 10

29%

Earth and Planetary Sciences 2

6%

Engineering 1

3%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Social Media
Shares, Likes & Comments: 15

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free