Advertisement

Ambio

, Volume 45, Issue 7, pp 841–851 | Cite as

AvianBuffer: An interactive tool for characterising and managing wildlife fear responses

  • Patrick-Jean Guay
  • Wouter F. D. van Dongen
  • Randall W. Robinson
  • Daniel T. Blumstein
  • Michael A. Weston
Perspective

Abstract

The characterisation and management of deleterious processes affecting wildlife are ideally based on sound scientific information. However, relevant information is often absent, or difficult to access or contextualise for specific management purposes. We describe ‘AvianBuffer’, an interactive online tool enabling the estimation of distances at which Australian birds respond fearfully to humans. Users can input species assemblages and determine a ‘separation distance’ above which the assemblage is predicted to not flee humans. They can also nominate the diversity they wish to minimise disturbance to, or a specific separation distance to obtain an estimate of the diversity that will remain undisturbed. The dataset is based upon flight-initiation distances (FIDs) from 251 Australian bird species (n = 9190 FIDs) and a range of human-associated stimuli. The tool will be of interest to a wide audience including conservation managers, pest managers, policy makers, land-use planners, education and public outreach officers, animal welfare proponents and wildlife ecologists. We discuss possible applications of the data, including the construction of buffers, development of codes of conduct, environmental impact assessments and public outreach. This tool will help balance the growing need for biodiversity conservation in areas where humans can experience nature. The online resource will be expanded in future iterations to include an international database of FIDs of both avian and non-avian species.

Keywords

Buffers Co-existence Flight-initiation distance Human-wildlife conflict Wildlife management 

Notes

Acknowledgments

FIDs need to be collected under animal ethics and other permissions in Australia, and all our FID data were collected with appropriate permissions. Disclaimers on the use of the tool are provided therein. While the tool is provided free to any practitioner managing wildlife, commercial users are requested to contact the authors. We thank the many field volunteers who have collected data that have contributed to this online tool. The tool was funded by the Helen Macpherson Smith Trust and Victoria University.

Supplementary material

13280_2016_779_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (632 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 581 kb)

References

  1. Antos, M.J., G.C. Ehmke, C.L. Tzaros, and M.A. Weston. 2007. Unauthorised human use of an urban coastal wetland sanctuary: Current and future patterns. Landscape and Urban Planning 80: 173–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baudains, T.P., and P. Lloyd. 2007. Habituation and habitat changes can moderate the impacts of human disturbance on shorebird breeding performance. Animal Conservation 10: 400–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blumstein, D.T. 2003. Flight-initiation distance in birds is dependent on intruder starting distance. Journal of Wildlife Management 67: 852–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blumstein, D.T. 2006. Developing an evolutionary ecology of fear: How life history and natural history traits affect disturbance tolerance in birds. Animal Behaviour 71: 389–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blumstein, D.T., E. Fernández-Juricic, P.A. Zollner, and S.C. Garity. 2005. Inter-specific variation in avian responses to human disturbance. Journal of Applied Ecology 42: 943–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bomford, M., and R. Sinclair. 2002. Australian research on bird pests: Impact, management and future directions. Emu 102: 29–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burger, J., and M. Gochfeld. 1981. Discrimination of the threat of direct versus tangential approach to the nest by incubating herring and great black-backed gulls. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 95: 676–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burger, J., and M. Gochfeld. 1991. Human distant and birds: Tolerance and response distances of resident and migrant species in India. Environmental Conservation 18: 158–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cooper, W.E., and D.T. Blumstein. 2015. Escape behaviour: Importance, scope, and variables. In Escaping from predators. An integrative view of escape decisions, ed. W.E. Cooper, and D.T. Blumstein, 3–14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dunn, A.M., and M.A. Weston. 2008. A review of terrestrial bird atlases of the world and their application. Emu 108: 42–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dwyer, C.M. 2004. How has the risk of predation shaped the behavioural responses of sheep to fear and distress? Animal Welfare 13: 269–281.Google Scholar
  12. Fernández-Juricic, E., M.D. Jimenez, and E. Lucas. 2001. Alert distance as an alternative measure of bird tolerance to human disturbance: Implications for park design. Environmental Conservation 28: 263–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fernández-Juricic, E., M.P. Venier, D. Renison, and D.T. Blumstein. 2005. Sensitivity of wildlife to spatial patterns of recreationist behavior: A critical assessment of minimum approaching distances and buffer areas for grassland birds. Biological Conservation 125: 225–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frid, A., and L.M. Dill. 2002. Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. Conservation Ecology 6: 11.Google Scholar
  15. Garamszegi, L.Z., J.C. Mueller, G. Marko, E. Szasz, S. Zsebok, G. Herczeg, M. Eens, and J. Torok. 2014. The relationship between DRD4 polymorphisms and phenotypic correlations of behaviors in the collared flycatcher. Ecology and Evolution 4: 1466–1479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garnett, S.T., D.E. Duursma, G. Ehmke, P.-J. Guay, A. Stewart, J.K. Szabo, M.A. Weston, S. Bennett, et al. 2015. Biological, ecological, conservation and legal information for all species and subspecies of Australian bird. Scientific Data 2: 150061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gilroy, J.J., and W.J. Sutherland. 2007. Beyond ecological traps: Perceptual errors and undervalued resources. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 22: 351–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glover, H.K., M.A. Weston, G.S. Maguire, K.K. Miller, and B.A. Christie. 2011. Towards ecologically meaningful and socially acceptable buffers: Response distances of shorebirds in Victoria, Australia, to human disturbance. Landscape and Urban Planning 103: 326–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glover, H., P.-J. Guay, and M.A. Weston. 2015. Up the creek with a paddle; avian flight distances from canoes versus walkers. Wetlands Ecology and Management 23: 315–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Guay, P.-J., E.M. McLeod, R. Cross, A.J. Formby, S.P. Maldonado, R.E. Stafford-Bell, Z.N. St-James-Turner, R.W. Robinson, et al. 2013a. Observer effects occur when estimating alert but not flight-initiation distances. Wildlife Research 40: 289–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guay, P.-J., M.A. Weston, M.R.E. Symonds, and H.K. Glover. 2013b. Brains and bravery: Little evidence of a relationship between brain size and flightiness in shorebirds. Austral Ecology 38: 516–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guay, P.-J., R.D.A. Lorenz, R.W. Robinson, M.R.E. Symonds, and M.A. Weston. 2013c. Distance from water, sex and approach direction influence flight distances among habituated black swans. Ethology 119: 552–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Guay, P.-J., E.M. McLeod, A.J. Taysom, and M.A. Weston. 2014. Are vehicles ‘mobile bird hides’? A test of the ‘cars cause less disturbance’ hypothesis. Victorian Naturalist 131: 150–155.Google Scholar
  24. Gutzwiller, K.J., and H.A. Marcum. 1993. Avian responses to observer clothing color: Caveats from winter point counts. Wilson Bulletin 105: 628–636.Google Scholar
  25. Hill, D., D. Hockin, D. Price, G. Tucker, R. Morris, and J. Treweek. 1997. Bird disturbance: Improving the quality and utility of disturbance research. Journal of Applied Ecology 34: 275–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Holmes, N., M. Giese, and L.K. Kriwoken. 2005. Testing the minimum approach distance guidelines for incubating Royal penguins Eudyptes schlegeli. Biological Conservation 126: 339–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Holmes, N.T. 2006. The importance of long-term data sets in science and river management. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 16: 329–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johannes, R.E. 1998. The case for data-less marine resource management: Examples from tropical nearshore finfisheries. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 13: 243–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jones, D. 2011. An appetite for connection: Why we need to understand the effect and value of feeding wild birds. Emu 111: i–vii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Karp, D.S., and T.L. Root. 2009. Sound the stressor: How hoatzins (Opisthocomus hoazin) react to ecotourist conversation. Biodiversity and Conservation 18: 3733–3742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kitchen, K., A. Lill, and M. Price. 2010. Tolerance of human disturbance by urban magpie-larks. Australian Field Ornithology 27: 1–9.Google Scholar
  32. Lessells, C.M., and P.T. Boag. 1987. Unrepeatable repeatabilities—A common mistake. The Auk 104: 116–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Madden, F. 2004. Creating coexistence between humans and wildlife: Global perspectives on local efforts to address human–wildlife conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 9: 247–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Magle, S., J. Zhu, and K.R. Crooks. 2005. Behavioral responses to repeated human intrusion by black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus). Journal of Mammalogy 86: 524–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Markovchick-Nicholls, L., H.M. Regan, D.H. Deutschman, A. Widyanata, B. Martin, L. Noreke, and T. Ann Hunt. 2008. Relationships between human disturbance and wildlife land use in urban habitat fragments. Conservation Biology 22: 99–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McCleery, R.A. 2009. Changes in fox squirrel anti-predator behaviors across the urban-rural gradient. Landscape Ecology 24: 483–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McLeod, E.M., P.-J. Guay, A.J. Taysom, R.W. Robinson, and M.A. Weston. 2013. Buses, cars, bicycles and walkers: The influence of the type of human transport on the flight responses of waterbirds. PLoS One 8: e82008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Møller, A.P. 2008. Flight distance of urban birds, predation, and selection for urban life. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 63: 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Møller, A.P. 2014. Life history, predation and flight initiation distance in a migratory bird. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 27: 1105–1113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Møller, A.P., D.S. Samia, M.A. Weston, P.-J. Guay, and D.T. Blumstein. 2014. American exceptionalism: Population trends and flight initiation distances in birds from three continents. PLoS ONE 9: e107883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Revell, L.J. 2014. Ancestral character estimation under the threshold model from quantitative genetics. Evolution 68: 743–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rodgers, J.A., and S.T. Schwikert. 2002. Buffer-zone distances to protect foraging and loafing waterbirds from disturbance by personal watercraft and outboard-powered boats. Conservation Biology 16: 216–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rodgers, J.A., and H.T. Smith. 1995. Set-back distances to protect nesting bird colonies from human disturbance in Florida. Conservation Biology 9: 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Roux, D.J., K.H. Rogers, H.C. Biggs, P.J. Ashton, and A. Sergeant. 2006. Bridging the science–management divide: Moving from unidirectional knowledge transfer to knowledge interfacing and sharing. Ecology and Society 11: 4.Google Scholar
  45. Samia, D.S.M., S. Nakagawa, F. Nomura, T.F. Rangel, and D.T. Blumstein. 2015. Increased tolerance to humans among disturbed wildlife. Nature Communications 6: 8877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schlacher, T.A., M.A. Weston, D. Lynn, and R.M. Connolly. 2013. Setback distances as a conservation tool in wildlife-human interactions: Testing their efficacy for birds affected by vehicles on open-coast sandy beaches. PLoS ONE 8: e71200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sol, D., O. Lapiedra, and C. Gonzalez-Lagos. 2013. Behavioural adjustments for a life in the city. Animal Behaviour 85: 1101–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stankowich, T., and D.T. Blumstein. 2005. Fear in animals: A meta-analysis and review of risk assessment. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 272: 2627–2634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. van Dongen, W.F.D., E.M. McLeod, R.A. Mulder, M.A. Weston, and P.J. Guay. 2015a. The height of approaching humans does not affect flight-initiation distance. Bird Study 62: 285–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. van Dongen, W.F.D., R.W. Robinson, M.A. Weston, R.A. Mulder, and P.J. Guay. 2015b. Variation at the DRD4 locus is associated with wariness and local site selection in urban black swans. BMC Evolutionary Biology 15: 253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Weston, M.A., M.J. Antos, and H.K. Glover. 2009. Birds, buffers and bicycles: A review and case study of wetland buffers. Victorian Naturalist 126: 79–86.Google Scholar
  52. Weston, M.A., G. Ehmke, and G.S. Maguire. 2011. Nest return times in response to static versus mobile human disturbance. Journal of Wildlife Management 75: 252–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Weston, M.A., E.M. McLeod, D.T. Blumstein, and P.-J. Guay. 2012. A review of flight-initiation distances and their application to managing disturbance to Australian birds. Emu 112: 269–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick-Jean Guay
    • 1
  • Wouter F. D. van Dongen
    • 1
  • Randall W. Robinson
    • 1
  • Daniel T. Blumstein
    • 2
  • Michael A. Weston
    • 3
  1. 1.Applied Ecology Research Group and Institute for Sustainability and Innovation, College of Engineering and ScienceVictoria UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, Engineering and the Built EnvironmentDeakin UniversityBurwoodAustralia

Personalised recommendations