{"title":"Movement Behavior of Radio-Tagged European Starlings in Urban, Rural, and Exurban Landscapes","authors":"Page E. Klug, H. Homan","doi":"10.26077/3145-950D","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since their intentional introduction into the United States in the 1800s, European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) have become the fourth most common bird species and a nuisance bird pest in both urban and rural areas. Managers require better information about starling movement and habit-use patterns to effectively manage starling populations and the damage they cause. Thus, we revisited 6 radio-telemetry studies conducted during fall or winter between 2005 and 2010 to compare starling movements (n = 63 birds) and habitat use in 3 landscapes. Switching of roosting and foraging sites in habitat-sparse rural landscapes caused daytime (0900–1500 hours) radio fixes to be on average 2.6 to 6.3 times further from capture sites than either urban or exurban landscapes (P < 0.001). Roosts in urban city centers were smaller (<30,000 birds, minor roosts) than major roosts (>100,000 birds) 6–13 km away in industrial zones. Radio-tagged birds from city-center roosts occasionally switched to the outlying major roosts. A multitrack railroad overpass and a treed buffer zone were used as major roosts in urban landscapes. Birds traveling to roosts from primary foraging sites in exurban and rural landscapes would often pass over closer-lying minor roosts to reach major roosts in stands of emergent vegetation in large wetlands. Daytime minimum convex polygons ranged from 101–229 km2 (x̄ = 154 km2). Anthropogenic food resources (e.g., concentrated animal feeding operations, shipping yards, landfills, and abattoirs) were primary foraging sites. Wildlife resource managers can use this information to predict potential roosting and foraging sites and average areas to monitor when implementing programs in different landscapes. In addition to tracking roosting flights, we recommend viewing high-resolution aerial images to identify potential roosting and foraging habitats before implementing lethal culls (e.g., toxicant baiting).","PeriodicalId":13095,"journal":{"name":"Human–Wildlife Interactions","volume":"11 1","pages":"10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human–Wildlife Interactions","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26077/3145-950D","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Abstract
Since their intentional introduction into the United States in the 1800s, European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) have become the fourth most common bird species and a nuisance bird pest in both urban and rural areas. Managers require better information about starling movement and habit-use patterns to effectively manage starling populations and the damage they cause. Thus, we revisited 6 radio-telemetry studies conducted during fall or winter between 2005 and 2010 to compare starling movements (n = 63 birds) and habitat use in 3 landscapes. Switching of roosting and foraging sites in habitat-sparse rural landscapes caused daytime (0900–1500 hours) radio fixes to be on average 2.6 to 6.3 times further from capture sites than either urban or exurban landscapes (P < 0.001). Roosts in urban city centers were smaller (<30,000 birds, minor roosts) than major roosts (>100,000 birds) 6–13 km away in industrial zones. Radio-tagged birds from city-center roosts occasionally switched to the outlying major roosts. A multitrack railroad overpass and a treed buffer zone were used as major roosts in urban landscapes. Birds traveling to roosts from primary foraging sites in exurban and rural landscapes would often pass over closer-lying minor roosts to reach major roosts in stands of emergent vegetation in large wetlands. Daytime minimum convex polygons ranged from 101–229 km2 (x̄ = 154 km2). Anthropogenic food resources (e.g., concentrated animal feeding operations, shipping yards, landfills, and abattoirs) were primary foraging sites. Wildlife resource managers can use this information to predict potential roosting and foraging sites and average areas to monitor when implementing programs in different landscapes. In addition to tracking roosting flights, we recommend viewing high-resolution aerial images to identify potential roosting and foraging habitats before implementing lethal culls (e.g., toxicant baiting).
期刊介绍:
Human–Wildlife Interactions (HWI) serves the professional needs of the wildlife biologist and manager in the arena of human–wildlife conflicts/interactions, wildlife damage management, and contemporary wildlife management. The intent of HWI is to publish original contributions on all aspects of contemporary wildlife management and human–wildlife interactions with an emphasis on scientific research and management case studies that identify and report innovative conservation strategies, technologies, tools, and partnerships that can enhance human–wildlife interactions by mitigating human–wildlife conflicts through direct and indirect management of wildlife and increased stakeholder engagement. Our intent is to promote a dialogue among wildlife professionals concerning contemporary management issues. As such, we hope to provide a repository for wildlife management science and case studies that document and share manager experiences and lessons learned.