Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-495rp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-21T04:54:08.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Foraging ecology and time budgets of non-breeding shorebirds in coastal Cuba

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2014

Erica Nol ,
Kate MacCulloch ,
Lisa Pollock  and
Laura McKinnon
Erica Nol
Affiliation:
Trent University, Department of Biology, Peterborough, ON K9J 7B8, Canada
Kate MacCulloch
Affiliation:
Trent University, Department of Biology, Peterborough, ON K9J 7B8, Canada
Lisa Pollock
Affiliation:
Trent University, Department of Biology, Peterborough, ON K9J 7B8, Canada
Laura McKinnon*
Affiliation:
Trent University, Department of Biology, Peterborough, ON K9J 7B8, Canada
*
1Corresponding author. Email: lauramckinnon@trentu.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

During the non-breeding season, shorebirds, a large and important group of wetland vertebrates, divide their time between foraging, resting and maintenance activities. We examined factors affecting time budgets, foraging techniques and rates, and spacing patterns of 14 to 92 individuals each of 10 shorebird species spending the non-breeding season in Cayo Guillermo, Cuba. We hypothesized that all species would spend the majority of their time foraging. Time spent foraging ranged from 20–85% of total time and was significantly negatively related to average body size. Apparent aggression (e.g. chasing or being chased) occurred in < 10% of individuals in all species and was not related to maximum counts of conspecifics. Aggression was most common in the black-necked stilt but did not vary in frequency as a function of activity. Vigilance varied in occurrence from 0–53% of individuals, but the frequency was not related to maximum counts. Intraspecific distances were generally greater between foraging than non-foraging birds. For most species interspecific distances were similar to intraspecific distances during foraging but greater than intraspecific differences during non-foraging, suggesting some overlap in foraging habitat and niche partitioning during non-foraging. Shorebirds that used primarily tactile techniques foraged closer together than primarily visual foragers. Low rates of aggression, as an index of potential competition, suggest that species-specific energy requirements rather than competitive interactions are the main determinants of foraging behaviour on these tropical non-breeding grounds.

Keywords

Arenaria interpresCalidris spp.Charadrius spp.foraging ratesHimantopus mexicanusLimnodromus griseusnearest-neighbour distancesPluvialis squatarolatime-budgetsTringa spp.
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , July 2014 , pp. 347 - 357
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

LITERATURE CITED

ALTMANN, J. 1974. Observational study of behaviour: sampling methods. Behaviour 49:227–267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
BARBOSA, A. & MORENO, E. 1999. Evolution of foraging strategies in shorebirds: an ecomorphological approach. Auk 116:712–725.Google Scholar
BEAUCHAMP, G. 2007. Competition in foraging flocks of migrating semipalmated sandpipers. Oecologia 154:403–409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
BOETTCHER, R., HAIG, S. M. & BRIDGES, W. C. 1994. Behavioral patterns and nearest-neighbor distances among nonbreeding American Avocets. Condor 96:973–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BURGER, J. & GOCHFELD, M. 1991. Human activity influence and diurnal and nocturnal foraging of sanderlings (Calidris alba). Condor 93:259–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BURGER, J. & TROUT, J. R. 1979. Additional data on body size as a difference related to niche. Condor 81:305–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CATRY, T., ALVES, J. A., GILL, J. A., GUNNARSSON, T. G. & GRANADEIRO, J. P. 2012. Sex promotes spatial and dietary segregation in a migratory shorebird during the non-breeding season. PLOS One 7: e33811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
COOPER, J. M. 1994. Least Sandpiper (Calidris minutilla). Pp. 1–27 in Poole, A. (ed.). The birds of North America, No. 115. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
DODD, S. L. & COLWELL, M. A. 1998. Environmental correlates of diurnal and nocturnal foraging patterns of nonbreeding shorebirds. Wilson Bulletin 110:182–189.Google Scholar
DURELL, S. 2000. Individual feeding specialisation in shorebirds: population consequences and conservation implications. Biological Reviews 75:503–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ELPHICK, C. S. & TIBBITTS, T. L. 1998. Greater Yellowlegs (Tringa malanoleuca). Pp. 1–24 in Poole, A. (ed.). The birds of North America, No. 355. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
FASOLA, M. & BIDDAU, L. 1997. An assemblage of wintering waders in coastal Kenya: activity budget and habitat use. African Journal of Ecology 35:339–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FERNANDEZ, G. & LANK, D. B. 2008. Foraging behavior of non-breeding Western Sandpipers Calidris mauri, as a function of sex, habitat and flocking. Ibis 150:518–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HARRINGTON, B. A. 2001. Red Knot (Calidris canutus). Pp. 1–32 in Poole, A. (ed.). The birds of North America, No. 562. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
HARRINGTON, B. A., BROWN, S. C., CORVEN, J. & BART, J. 2002. Collaborative approaches to the evolution of migration and the development of science-based conservation in shorebirds. Auk 119:914–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HULSCHER, J. B., EXO, K. M. & CLARK, N. A. 1996. Why do Oystercatchers migrate? Pp. 155–185 in Goss-Custard, J. D. (ed.). The Oystercatcher: from individuals to populations. Oxford University Press, New York. 442 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IWAMURA, T., POSSINGHAM, H. P., CHADES, I., MINTON, C., MURRAY, N. J., ROGERS, D. I., TREML, E. A. & FULLER, R. A. 2013. Migratory connectivity magnifies the consequences of habitat loss from sea-level rise for shorebird populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 280:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JACKSON, B. J. S. & JACKSON, J. A. 2000. Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus). Pp. 1–28 in Poole, A. (ed.). The birds of North America, No. 517. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
JEHL, J. R. J., KLIMA, J. & HARRIS, R. E. 2001. Short-billed Dowitcher (Limnodromus griseus). Pp. 1–28 in Poole, A. (ed.). The birds of North America, No. 564. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
KRIJGSVELD, K. L., RICKLEFS, R. E. & VISSER, G. H. 2012. Daily energy expenditure in precocial shorebird chicks: smaller species perform at higher levels. Journal of Ornithology 153:1203–1214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MORRIER, A. & MCNEIL, R. 1991. Time-activity budget of Wilson and Semipalmated Plovers in a tropical environment. Wilson Bulletin 103:598–620.Google Scholar
MYERS, J. P. 1984. Spacing behavior of nonbreeding shorebirds. Pp. 271–322 in Burger, J. & Olla, B. L. (eds.). Behavior of marine animals: shorebird breeding and behavior. Plenum Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
NAVEDO, J. G., SAUMA-CASTILLO, L. & FERNANDEZ, G. 2012. Foraging activity and capture rate of large nearctic shorebirds wintering at a tropical coastal lagoon. Waterbirds 35:301–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NEBEL, S. & YDENBERG, R. 2005. Differential predator escape performance contributes to a latitudinal sex ratio cline in a migratory shorebird. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 59:44–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NETTLESHIP, D. N. 2000. Ruddy Turnstone (Arenaria interpres). Pp. 1–32 in Poole, A. (ed.). The birds of North America, No. 537. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
NOL, E. & BLANKEN, M. S. 1999. Semipalmated Plover (Charadrius semipalmatus). Pp. 1–24 in Poole, A. (ed.). The birds of North America, No. 444. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
OTTEMA, O. H. & SPAANS, A. L. 2008. Challenges and advances in shorebird conservation in the Guianas, with a focus on Suriname. Ornitologia Neotropical 19 (Suppl.): 339–346.Google Scholar
PAULSON, D. R. 1995. Black-bellied Plover. Pp. 1–28 in Poole, A. (ed.). The birds of North America, No. 186. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
PIERSMA, T. & BAKER, A. J. 2000. Life history characteristics and the conservation of migratory shorebirds. Pp. 105–124 in Gosling, L. M. & Sutherland, W. J. (eds.). Behaviour and conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
PUTTICK, G. M. 1984. Foraging and activity patterns in wintering shorebirds. Pp. 203–232 in Burger, J. & Olla, B. L. (eds.). Behavior of marine animals: shorebird breeding behavior and populations. Plenum Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
RADLOFF, F. G. T. & DU TOIT, J. T. 2004. Large predators and their prey in a southern African savanna: a predator's size determines its prey size range. Journal of Animal Ecology 73:410–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ROBERT, M. & MCNEIL, R. 1989. Comparative day and night feeding strategies of shorebirds species in a tropical environment. Ibis 131:69–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ROBINSON, J. A., REED, J. M., SKORUPA, J. P. & ORING, L. W. 1999. Black-necked Stilt (Himantopus mexicanus). Pp. 1–32 in Poole, A. (ed.). The birds of North America, No. 449. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
ROGERS, D. I., PIERSMA, T. & HASSELL, C. J. 2006. Roost availability may constrain shorebird distribution: exploring the energetic costs of roosting and disturbance around a tropical bay. Biological Conservation 133:225–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ROSE, M. & NOL, E. 2010. Foraging behavior of non-breeding Semipalmated Plovers. Waterbirds 33:59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SCHLACHER, T. A., NIELSEN, T. & WESTON, M. A. 2013. Human recreation alters behaviour profiles of non-breeding birds on open-coast sandy shores. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 118:31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SMITH, A. C. & NOL, E. 2000. Winter foraging behavior and prey selection of the Semipalmated Plover in coastal Venezuela. Wilson Bulletin 112:467–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
STINSON, C. H. 1980. Flocking and predator avoidance: models of flocking and observations on the spatial dispersion of foraging winter shorebirds (Charadrii). Oikos 34:35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TIBBITTS, T. L. & MOSKOFF, W. 1999. Lesser Yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes). Pp. 1–28 in Poole, A. (ed.). The birds of North America, No. 472. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
VAN DEN HOUT, P. J., SPAANS, B. & PIERSMA, T. 2008. Differential mortality of wintering shorebirds on the Banc d'Arguin, Mauritania, due to predation by large falcons. Ibis 150:219–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WILSON, D. S. 1975. The adequacy of body size as a niche difference. American Naturalist 109:769–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
YANG, H. Y., CHEN, B., BARTER, M., PIERSMA, T., ZHOU, C. F., LI, F. S. & ZHANG, Z. W. 2011. Impacts of tidal land reclamation in Bohai Bay, China: ongoing losses of critical Yellow Sea waterbird staging and wintering sites. Bird Conservation International 21:241–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar