Contrasting effects of shooting disturbance on the movement and behavior of sympatric wildfowl species

Abstract

Human−wildlife conflict is a global conservation issue, necessitating effective mitigation strategies. Hunting is a common management approach to reduce conflict, but the indirect consequences are often overlooked. Chronic hunting‐related disturbance can reduce fitness and redistribute species. In recent decades, goose−agricultural conflict has intensified due to increasing abundance and shifts towards agricultural foraging. On Islay, Scotland, escalating conflict culminated in shooting Greenland barnacle geese Branta leucopsis to reduce damage to agricultural grassland. In this study, we contrast the impact of shooting disturbance on the movement, behavior, energy expenditure and habitat selection of the target species (Greenland barnacle goose) and a vulnerable nontarget species (Greenland white‐fronted goose, Anser albifrons flavirostris) using biologging devices (target species: n = 33; nontarget species: n = 94). Both species were displaced by shooting, and greater distances were subsequently traveled by the target species (1.71 km when directly targeted). When disturbed at any distance, total daily movement increased significantly by 1.18 km for the target species but not for the nontarget species. The target species exhibited no accompanying change in diurnal energy expenditure (measured via accelerometery) but foraged in improved grasslands further from roads after shooting disturbance, where disturbance from all sources was likely lower. The significant increases in movement and changes in foraging site selection of the target species could reduce fitness but given the infrequency of shooting disturbances (0.09 per day) there is likely capacity for compensatory feeding to recoup energetic losses. The nontarget species expectedly showed no significant change in energy expenditure, behavior or habitat selection following shooting disturbance, suggesting mitigation strategies have been effective at minimizing fitness impacts. Refuge areas with a 3.5 km diameter (three times the maximum distance from shooting that displacement was detectable) could provide undisturbed foraging for the target species, minimizing compensatory feeding and further agricultural damage. Wildlife managers should, where possible, consider the fitness implications of shooting disturbance, and whether compensatory feeding and redistribution could hamper conflict mitigation. Management strategies should also include species‐specific monitoring and mitigation as we have demonstrated differing responses potentially due to imposed mitigation but also differing species ecology and “landscapes of fear.”