Advertisement

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 69, Issue 2, pp 325–334 | Cite as

Where to settle in a rapidly expanding bird colony: a case study on colony expansion in High Arctic breeding geese

  • Helen B. Anderson
  • Jesper Madsen
  • Sarah J. Woodin
  • René van der Wal
Original Paper

Abstract

As colonies fill up with more individuals, areas of preferred nesting habitat can become scarce. Individuals attracted to the colony by the presence of conspecifics may then occupy nest sites with different habitat characteristics to that of established breeders and, as a result, experience lower nesting success. We studied a rapidly growing colony of Svalbard pink-footed geese Anser brachyrhynchus to determine any such changes in nest site characteristics and nesting success of newly used nest locations. Svalbard pink-footed geese are a long-lived migratory species that breeds during the short Arctic summer and whose population has doubled since the early 2000s to c. 80,000. From 2003 to 2012, nest numbers increased over fivefold, from 49 to 226, with the majority (range 57–82 %) established within 30 m of another nest (total range 1–164 m). Most nests, particularly during the early stages of colony growth, shared common features associated with better protection against predation and closer proximity to food resources; two factors thought key in the evolution of colony formation. As nest numbers within the colony increased, new nests occupied locations where visibility from the nest was restricted and foraging areas were further away. Despite these changes in nest site characteristics, the nesting success of geese using new sites was not lower than that of birds using older nests. Hence, we propose that nesting in dense aggregations may offset any effects of suboptimal nest site characteristics on nesting success via the presence of more adults and the resultant increased vigilance towards predators.

Keywords

Nest site characteristics Nesting success Clustering Coloniality Geese 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Juliet Blum, Malcolm Parsons and Troels Hastrup are thanked for their contributions to data collection in the field. We are indebted to Christiaane Hübner for her considerable help before, during and after fieldwork. The Norwegian Polar Institute supplied the vital logistic support and the Governor of Svalbard allowed access to Sassendalen.

Ethical standards

This study complied with the laws of Norway, and all permissions required for this work were granted by the Governor of Svalbard.

References

  1. Anderson DJ, Hodum PJ (1993) Predator behaviour favors clumped nesting in an oceanic seabird. Ecology 78:2462–2464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barta Z, Szép T (1995) Frequency-dependent selection on information-transfer strategies at breeding colonies: a simulation study. Behav Ecol 6:308–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown CR, Stutchbury BJ, Walsh PD (1990) Choice of colony size in birds. Trends Ecol Evol 5:398–403PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cooch EG, Jeffries RL, Rockwell RF, Cooke F (1993) Environmental change and the cost of philopatry: an example in the lesser snow goose. Oecologia 93:128–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cooke F, MacInnes CD, Prevett JP (1975) Gene flow between breeding populations of lesser snow geese. Auk 92:493–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cotter RC (1999) The reproductive biology of rock ptarmigan (Lagopus mutus) in the central Canadian arctic. Arctic 52:23–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Daunt F, Benvenuti S, Harris MP, Dall’Antonia L, Elston DA, Wanless S (2002) Foraging strategies of the black-legged kittiwake Risa tridactyla at a North Sea colony: evidence for a maximum foraging range. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 245:239–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis JB, Kaminski RM, Stephens SE (1998) Wood duck eggshell membranes predict duckling numbers. Wildl Soc B 26:299–301Google Scholar
  9. Dunn PK (2014) tweedie: Tweedie exponential family models. R package version 2.2.1, http://r-project.org/package=tweedie
  10. Elvebakk A (1997) Tundra diversity and ecological characteristics of Svalbard. In: Wielgolaski FE (ed) Ecosystems of the world 3: polar and alpine tundra. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 347–359Google Scholar
  11. Ens BJ, Kersten M, Brenninkmeijer A, Hulscher JB (1992) Territory quality, parental effort and reproductive success of oystercatchers (Haematopus ostralegus). J Anim Ecol 61:703–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Forslund P, Larsson K (1992) Age-related reproductive success in the barnacle goose. J Anim Ecol 61:195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fowler AC, Eadie JM, Ely CR (2004) Relatedness and nesting dispersion within breeding populations of greater white-fronted geese. Condor 106:600–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frafjord K (1990) A study of the pink-footed goose in Gipsdalen, Svalbard, during the pre-breeding and early breeding periods. In: Severinsen T, Hansson R (eds) Environmental Atlas Gipsdalen, Svalbard, vol III, Reports on the Fauna of Gipsdalen. Norsk Polarintitutt, Olso, pp 1–18Google Scholar
  15. Fretwell SD, Lucas HL (1969) On territorial behaviour and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. Part 1 theoretical development. Acta Biotheor 1:16–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harris MP, Wanless S, Barton TR, Elston DA (1997) Nest site characteristics, duration of use and breeding success in the Guillemot Uria aalge. Ibis 139:468–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Inglis IR (1977) The breeding behaviour of the pink-footed goose: behavioural correlates of nesting success. Anim Behav 25:747–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jensen RA, Madsen J, O’Connell M, Wisz MS, Tømmervik H, Mehlum F (2008) Prediction of the distribution of Arctic-nesting pink-footed geese under a warmer climate scenario. Global Chang Biol 14:1–10Google Scholar
  19. Jensen GH, Madsen J, Johnson FA, Tamstorf M (2014) Snow conditions as an estimator of the breeding output in high-Arctic pink-footed geese Anser brachyrhynchus. Polar Biol 37:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jepsen JU, Eide NE, Prestrud P, Jacobsen LB (2002) The importance of prey distribution in habitat use by arctic foxes (Alopex lagopus). Can J Zool 80:418–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnson DH, Shaffer TL (1990) Estimating nest success: when Mayfield wins. Auk 107:595–600Google Scholar
  22. Karagicheva J, Rakhimberdiev E, Dobrynin D, Saveliev A, Rozenfeld S, Pokrovskaya O, Stahl J, Prop J, Litvin K (2011) Individual inter-annual nest-site relocation behaviour drives dynamics of a recently established Barnacle Goose Branta leucopsis colony in sub-arctic Russia. Ibis 153:622–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kokko H, Harris MP, Wanless S (2004) Competition of breeding sites and site-dependent population regulation in a highly colonial seabird, the common guillemot Uria aalge. J Anim Ecol 73:367–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Løvenskiold HL (1964) Avifauna Svalbardensis. Nor Polarinst Skr 129:125–134Google Scholar
  25. MacColl ADC, Piertney SB, Moss R, Lambin X (2000) Spatial arrangement of kin affects recruitment success in young male red grouse. Oikos 90:261–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Madsen J, Williams JH (2012) International species management plan for the Svalbard pink-footed goose Anser brachyrhynchus. AWEA 48:1–51Google Scholar
  27. Madsen J, Bregnballe T, Frikke J, Kristensen JB (1998) Correlates of predator abundance with snow and ice conditions and their role in determining timing of nesting and breeding success in Svalbard light-bellied brent geese Branta bernicla hrota. In: Mehlum F, Black JM, Madsen J (eds) Research on arctic geese, Proceedings of the Svalbard Goose Symposium, Oslo, Norway, 1997. Norsk Polarinstitutt, Oslo, pp 221–234Google Scholar
  28. Madsen J, Tamstorf M, Klaassen M, Eide N, Glahder C, Rigét F, Nyegaard H, Cottaar F (2007) Effects of snow cover on the timing and success of reproduction in high-Arctic pink-footed geese Anser brachyrhynchus. Polar Biol 30:1363–1372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Madsen J, Tombre I, Eide NE (2009) Effects of disturbance on geese in Svalbard: implications for regulating increasing tourism. Polar Res 28:376–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mallik AU, Wdowiak JV, Cooper EJ (2011) Growth and reproductive responses of Cassiope tetragona, a circumpolar evergreen shrub, to experimentally delayed snowmelt. Arct Antarct Alp Res 43:404–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McLaren MA, Alliston G (1985) Effects of snow and ice on waterfowl distribution in the central Canadian arctic islands. Arctic 38:43–52Google Scholar
  32. Mehlum F (1998) Areas in Svalbard important for geese during the pre-breeding, breeding and post-breeding periods. In: Mehlum F, Black JM, Madsen J (eds) Research on arctic geese. Proceedings of the Svalbard Goose Symposium, Oslo, Norway, 1997. Norsk Polarinstitutt, Oslo, pp 41–55Google Scholar
  33. Møller AP (1987) Advantages and disadvantages of coloniality in the swallow, Hirundo rustica. Anim Behav 35:819–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nyholm ES (1965) Ecological observations on the geese of Spitsbergen. Ann Zool Fenn 2:197–207Google Scholar
  35. Petersen MR (1990) Nest-site selection by emperor geese and cackling Canada geese. Wilson Bull 102:413–426Google Scholar
  36. Piertney SB, MacColl ADC, Lambin X, Moss R, Dallas JF (1999) Spatial distribution of genetic relatedness in a moorland population of red grouse (Lagopus lagopus scoticus). Biol J Linn Soc 68:317–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Prestrud P (1992) Food habitats and observations of the hunting behaviour of arctic foxes, Alopex lagopus, in Svalbard. Can Field Nat 106:225–236Google Scholar
  38. Prop J, Oudman T, van Spanje TM, Wolters EH (2013) Patterns of predation of pink-footed goose nests by polar bear. Ornis Nor 36:38–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. R Core Team (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/
  40. Smith PA, Gilchrist HG, Forbes MR, Martin JL, Allard K (2010) Inter-annual variation in the breeding chronology of arctic shorebirds: effects of weather, snow melt and predators. J Avian Biol 41:292–304Google Scholar
  41. Stokes DL, Boersma PD (2000) Nesting density and reproductive success in a colonial seabird, the Magellanic penguin. Ecology 81:2878–2891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. van der Jeugd HP, van der Veen IT, Larsson K (2002) Kin clustering in barnacle geese: familiarity or phenotype matching? Behav Ecol 13:786–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vanderpuye AW, Elvebakk A, Nilsen L (2002) Plant communities along environmental gradients of high-arctic mires in Sassendalen, Svalbard. J Veg Sci 13:875–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Watson A, Moss R, Parr R, Mountford MD, Rothery P (1994) Kin landownership, differential aggression between kin and non-kin, and population fluctuations in red grouse. J Anim Ecol 63:39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wisz MS, Tamstorf MP, Madsen J, Jespersen M (2008) Where might the western Svalbard tundra by vulnerable to pink-footed goose (Anser brachyrhynchus) population expansion? Divers Distrib 14:26–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wittenberger JF, Hunt GL (1985) The adaptive significance of coloniality in birds. In: Farner DS, King JR, Parkes KC (eds) Avian biology 8. Academic, London, pp 1–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helen B. Anderson
    • 1
    • 3
  • Jesper Madsen
    • 2
  • Sarah J. Woodin
    • 1
  • René van der Wal
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK
  2. 2.Department of Bioscience, Arctic Research CentreAarhus UniversityKaløDenmark
  3. 3.Department of Arctic and Marine Biology, Faculty of Biosciences, Fisheries and EconomicsUniversity of TromsøTromsøNorway

Personalised recommendations