East Asian migratory waterfowl have greatly declined since the 1950s, especially the populations that winter in China. Conservation is severely hampered by the lack of primary information about migration patterns and stopover sites. This study utilizes satellite tracking techniques and advanced spatial analyses to investigate spring migration of the greater white‐fronted goose (Anser albifrons) and tundra bean goose (Anser serrirostris) wintering along the Yangtze River Floodplain. Based on 24 tracks obtained from 21 individuals during the spring of 2015 and 2016, we found that the Northeast China Plain is far‐out the most intensively used stopover site during migration, with geese staying for over 1 month. This region has also been intensely developed for agriculture, suggesting a causal link to the decline in East Asian waterfowl wintering in China. The protection of waterbodies used as roosting area, especially those surrounded by intensive foraging land, is critical for waterfowl survival. Over 90% of the core area used during spring migration is not protected. We suggest that future ground surveys should target these areas to confirm their relevance for migratory waterfowl at the population level, and core roosting area at critical spring‐staging sites should be integrated in the network of protected areas along the flyway. Moreover, the potential bird–human conflict in core stopover area needs to be further studied. Our study illustrates how satellite tracking combined with spatial analyses can provide crucial insights necessary to improve the conservation of declining Migratory species.

Migratory birds rely on a habitat network along their migration routes by temporarily occupying stopover sites between breeding and non‐breeding grounds. Removal or degradation of stopover sites in a network might impede movement and thereby reduce migration success and survival. The extent to which the breakdown of migration networks, due to changes in land use, impacts the population sizes of migratory birds is poorly understood. We measured the functional connectivity of migration networks of waterfowl species that migrate over the East Asian‐Australasian Flyway from 1992 to 2015. We analysed the relationship between changes in non‐breeding population sizes and changes in functional connectivity, while taking into account other commonly considered species traits, using a phylogenetic linear mixed model. We found that population sizes significantly declined with a reduction in the functional connectivity of migration networks; no other variables were important. We conclude that the current decrease in functional connectivity, due to habitat loss and degradation in migration networks, can negatively and crucially impact population sizes of migratory birds. Our findings provide new insights into the underlying mechanisms that affect population trends of migratory birds under environmental changes. Establishment of international agreements leading to the creation of systematic conservation networks associated with migratory species’ distributions and stopover sites may safeguard migratory bird populations.

Habitat loss can trigger migration network collapse by isolating migratory bird breeding grounds from nonbreeding grounds. Theoretically, habitat loss can have vastly different impacts depending on the site's importance within the migratory corridor. However, migration‐network connectivity and the impacts of site loss are not completely understood. We used GPS tracking data on 4 bird species in the Asian flyways to construct migration networks and proposed a framework for assessing network connectivity for migratory species. We used a node‐removal process to identify stopover sites with the highest impact on connectivity. In general, migration networks with fewer stopover sites were more vulnerable to habitat loss. Node removal in order from the highest to lowest degree of habitat loss yielded an increase of network resistance similar to random removal. In contrast, resistance increased more rapidly when removing nodes in order from the highest to lowest betweenness value (quantified by the number of shortest paths passing through the specific node). We quantified the risk of migration network collapse and identified crucial sites by first selecting sites with large contributions to network connectivity and then identifying which of those sites were likely to be removed from the network (i.e., sites with habitat loss). Among these crucial sites, 42% were not designated as protected areas. Setting priorities for site protection should account for a site's position in the migration network, rather than only site‐specific characteristics. Our framework for assessing migration‐network connectivity enables site prioritization for conservation of migratory species.