Browsing by Author "Conklin JR"
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- ItemAdvancement in long-distance bird migration through individual plasticity in departure(Nature Research, 2021-08-06) Conklin JR; Lisovski S; Battley PGlobally, bird migration is occurring earlier in the year, consistent with climate-related changes in breeding resources. Although often attributed to phenotypic plasticity, there is no clear demonstration of long-term population advancement in avian migration through individual plasticity. Using direct observations of bar-tailed godwits (Limosa lapponica) departing New Zealand on a 16,000-km journey to Alaska, we show that migration advanced by six days during 2008–2020, and that within-individual advancement was sufficient to explain this population-level change. However, in individuals tracked for the entire migration (50 total tracks of 36 individuals), earlier departure did not lead to earlier arrival or breeding in Alaska, due to prolonged stopovers in Asia. Moreover, changes in breeding-site phenology varied across Alaska, but were not reflected in within-population differences in advancement of migratory departure. We demonstrate that plastic responses can drive population-level changes in timing of long-distance migration, but also that behavioral and environmental constraints en route may yet limit adaptive responses to global change.
- ItemEffects of geolocators on hatching success, return rates, breeding movements, and change in body mass in 16 species of Arctic-breeding shorebirds.(2016) Weiser EL; Lanctot RB; Brown SC; Alves JA; Battley PF; Bentzen R; Bêty J; Bishop MA; Boldenow M; Bollache L; Casler B; Christie M; Coleman JT; Conklin JR; English WB; Gates HR; Gilg O; Giroux M-A; Gosbell K; Hassell C; Helmericks J; Johnson A; Katrínardóttir B; Koivula K; Kwon E; Lamarre J-F; Lang J; Lank DB; Lecomte N; Liebezeit J; Loverti V; McKinnon L; Minton C; Mizrahi D; Nol E; Pakanen V-M; Perz J; Porter R; Rausch J; Reneerkens J; Rönkä N; Saalfeld S; Senner N; Sittler B; Smith PA; Sowl K; Taylor A; Ward DH; Yezerinac S; Sandercock BKBACKGROUND: Geolocators are useful for tracking movements of long-distance migrants, but potential negative effects on birds have not been well studied. We tested for effects of geolocators (0.8-2.0 g total, representing 0.1-3.9 % of mean body mass) on 16 species of migratory shorebirds, including five species with 2-4 subspecies each for a total of 23 study taxa. Study species spanned a range of body sizes (26-1091 g) and eight genera, and were tagged at 23 breeding and eight nonbreeding sites. We compared breeding performance and return rates of birds with geolocators to control groups while controlling for potential confounding variables. RESULTS: We detected negative effects of tags for three small-bodied species. Geolocators reduced annual return rates for two of 23 taxa: by 63 % for semipalmated sandpipers and by 43 % for the arcticola subspecies of dunlin. High resighting effort for geolocator birds could have masked additional negative effects. Geolocators were more likely to negatively affect return rates if the total mass of geolocators and color markers was 2.5-5.8 % of body mass than if tags were 0.3-2.3 % of body mass. Carrying a geolocator reduced nest success by 42 % for semipalmated sandpipers and tripled the probability of partial clutch failure in semipalmated and western sandpipers. Geolocators mounted perpendicular to the leg on a flag had stronger negative effects on nest success than geolocators mounted parallel to the leg on a band. However, parallel-band geolocators were more likely to reduce return rates and cause injuries to the leg. No effects of geolocators were found on breeding movements or changes in body mass. Among-site variation in geolocator effect size was high, suggesting that local factors were important. CONCLUSIONS: Negative effects of geolocators occurred only for three of the smallest species in our dataset, but were substantial when present. Future studies could mitigate impacts of tags by reducing protruding parts and minimizing use of additional markers. Investigators could maximize recovery of tags by strategically deploying geolocators on males, previously marked individuals, and successful breeders, though targeting subsets of a population could bias the resulting migratory movement data in some species.
- ItemInteracting Roles of Breeding Geography and Early-Life Settlement in Godwit Migration Timing(Frontiers Media SA, 2020-03-17) Battley PF; Conklin JR; Parody-Merino ÁM; Langlands PA; Southey I; Burns T; Melville DS; Schuckard R; Riegen AC; Potter MAWhile avian migration timing is clearly influenced by both breeding and non-breeding geography, it is challenging to identify the relative and interdependent roles of endogenous programs, early-life experience, and carry-over effects in the development of adult annual schedules. Bar-tailed godwits Limosa lapponica baueri migrate northward from New Zealand toward Asian stopover sites during the boreal spring, with differences in timing between individuals known to relate to their eventual breeding-ground geography in Alaska. Here, we studied the timing of northward migration of individual godwits at three sites spanning 1,100 km of New Zealand’s 1,400-km length. A lack of morphological or genetic structure among sites indicates that the Alaskan breeding population mixes freely across all sites, and larger birds (southern breeders) tended to migrate earlier than smaller birds (northern breeders) at all sites. However, we unexpectedly found that migration timing varied between the sites, with birds from southern New Zealand departing on average 9.4–11 days earlier than birds from more northerly sites, a difference consistent across 4 years of monitoring. There is no obvious adaptive reason for migration timing differences of this magnitude, and it is likely that geographic variation in timing within New Zealand represents a direct response to latitudinal variation in photoperiod. Using resightings of marked birds, we show that immature godwits explore widely around New Zealand before embarking on their first northward migration at age 2–4 years. Thus, the process by which individual migration dates are established appears to involve: (1) settlement by sub-adult godwits at non-breeding sites, to which they are highly faithful as adults; (2) a consequent response to environmental cues (i.e., photoperiod) that sets the local population’s migration window; and (3) endogenous mechanisms, driven by breeding geography, that establish and maintain the well-documented consistent differences between individuals. This implies that behavioral decisions by young godwits have long-lasting impacts on adult annual-cycle schedules, but the factors guiding non-breeding settlement are currently unknown.