Behavioral responses of Canada geese to winter harassment in the context of human‐wildlife conflicts

Askren, Ryan J.; Eichholz, Mike W.; Sharp, Catherine; Washburn, Brian E.; Beckerman, Scott F.; Pullins, Craig K.; Fournier, Auriel M. V.; VonBank, Jay A.; Weegman, Mitch D.; Hagy, Heath M.; Ward, Michael P.

doi:10.1002/wsb.1384

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We used hourly location data collected from the date of deployment through the end of February for our analysis. We excluded locations occurring outside the 50‐km buffer, locations taken during flight (>13.78 km/hr; McDuie et al 2019), and locations with a horizontal dilution of precision of >6 to maintain locational accuracy (Askren et al 2022, Sorais et al 2023). We eliminated the first 24 hours of location data from each mallard after release to allow for an initial transmitter acclimation period.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Not all sanctuaries are created equal: variation in protected area selection by wintering mallards

Dittmer,

Askren,

Hagy

et al. 2023

J Wildl Manag

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public lands managed for wildlife frequently provide various forms of sanctuary to increase residency times and allow access to energetic and other habitat resources for waterfowl. The influence of sanctuary type and disturbance regime on resource use and fine‐scale movements of waterfowl has not been investigated extensively using currently available transmitter technologies. We examined mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) use of various types of waterfowl sanctuary and non‐sanctuary areas in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley region of eastern Arkansas, USA, during winters of 2019–2021. We deployed 105 global positioning system transmitters on mallards at 4 closed‐access spatial sanctuaries on or adjacent to Dale Bumpers White River National Wildlife Refuge. We used hourly transmitter locations to examine mallard use of public sanctuary areas, public hunt areas, and private lands using integrated step selection analysis. Public sanctuary areas provided varying levels of protected status, public hunt areas allowed for varying levels of hunting intensity by duck hunters, and private lands were open to waterfowl hunting and other forms of private uses but may or may not have been hunted at any specific frequency. Mallards selected spatial sanctuary and avoided public hunt areas, other sanctuary types, and private lands during the day. In contrast, mallards selected for private lands over spatial sanctuary at night. Mallards tended to avoid areas that allowed duck hunting or used them during the night when risk of harvest mortality was removed. After the hunting season closed, mallards began using areas that previously allowed duck hunting during the day, suggesting that risk was the primary factor influencing site use. Moreover, mallards were 1.6 times more likely to use public daily hunt areas and 2.1 times more likely to use private lands potentially open to hunting during the day than spatial sanctuary 2 weeks after the close of duck hunting season in February. Spatial sanctuaries appear more effective in influencing mallard use than temporal sanctuaries or inviolate sanctuaries, which are commonly used by state and federal agencies. Partial daily, daily, or activity‐specific (e.g., no hunting past noon, no hunting 3 days/week, no waterfowl hunting) closures to encourage mallard use of temporal sanctuaries do not appear to reduce the perceived harvest‐related risk to mallards enough for them to view these areas as accessible or significantly increase their use.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Not all sanctuaries are created equal: variation in protected area selection by wintering mallards

Dittmer,

Askren,

Hagy

et al. 2023

J Wildl Manag

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hence, researchers often rely on remote sensing methods, such as camera traps (Ball et al, 2022;Carswell et al, 2021). While GPS transmitters have been used to study the movements of large waders (Anatidae) in proximity to airfields (Askren et al, 2019;Lehrke et al, 2017), here we present the first known study to track the movements of a terrestrial mammal, the Irish hare (Lepus timidus hibernicus), within an airfield environment. By tracking the movements of a resident population of Irish hare at Dublin International Airport, we aim to (i) understand the frequency in which hares engage with tarmacked areas at the airfield, (ii) identify temporal patterns to tarmacked area interactions, and (iii) identify the size and habitat composition of Irish hare home ranges at Dublin Airport.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dublin Hareport: The movement ecology and airfield interactions of resident, airside hares, at an international airport

Ball,

Caravaggi,

Keogh

et al. 2024

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding how animals move and use space within an environment is vital for the development and implementation of effective management actions. Within airfield environments, animal movement can present a substantial risk to aircraft, resulting in wildlife‐aircraft collisions (strikes) if animals enter into the manoeuvring areas of the airfield, namely the runways, taxiways and areas that connect the two (hereafter collectively referred to as ‘tarmacked areas’). However, reliable ecological data to inform management decisions can be difficult to obtain in such environments, due to access restrictions. Here, we present the first GPS data describing the movement ecology and spatial use of mammals on an airfield – Irish hare (Lepus timidus hibernicus), at Dublin International Airport – through the deployment of five GPS collars. A total of 4571 tarmacked area interactions were recorded between December 2021 and August 2022, with all five hares engaging with tarmacked areas. Between December and August, the highest number of interactions were recorded for the month of April (n = 1073), followed by March (n = 703). There was a mean of 4.3 (range: 0–65) interactions with tarmacked areas, per hare, per day throughout the study period. Hares most frequently engaged with tarmacked areas between 05:00 and 07:59, with some seasonal variation. The greatest cumulative distance moved per month was observed in May (505 km) and April (503 km). We identified that the average home range size of collared hares was 2.8 km2 (±SD 0.1 km2), based on 95% Kernel Utilisation Distribution. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the hares incorporate tarmacked area habitat types into their home ranges with up to 13% of one individual's movements incorporating these areas. Our study demonstrates the suitability of GPS tracking devices for studying the movement ecology of high‐risk mammal species at airfields in order to inform airside management practices.

show abstract

Individual responses of GPS‐tagged geese scared off crops by drones or walking humans

Månsson,

Teräväinen,

Andrén

et al. 2024

Ecol Sol and Evidence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scaring of wildlife is commonly used in attempts to reduce crop damage in agricultural landscapes, but relatively few studies exist on its actual effect. We tracked GPS‐tagged greylag geese (Anser anser) in south‐central Sweden, before and after scaring by approaching them either by walking or by drone. On the field level, we studied the scaring effect by estimating return rate to the field where scared. On the landscape level, we tested if geese were less prone to use agricultural fields after being scared. Geese immediately left the field when scared and 5 min later they were on average 990 m (±56 SE) from the scaring position. The proportion of GPS positions near the scaring position decreased significantly for at least 4 h after scaring. Geese showed a significant shift from agricultural fields to wetland habitats the first 4 h after scaring. However, the effect of scaring soon levelled off; after 24 h the field where scaring had occurred was used to the same extent as any other field in the landscape, and agricultural fields were used to the same extent by scared and undisturbed geese. We did not find any differences in response depending on scaring technique. The probability to return and use agricultural fields after scaring was higher for geese scared in the morning compared to in the afternoon. Moreover, the probability to return and use of agricultural fields were higher in spring than in other seasons. Practical implication. We found that scared geese tend to visit agricultural fields soon after scaring and that scaring alone tends ‘to move the problem around’. This suggests that scaring needs to be repeated across the landscape, but also that accommodation fields where geese do not cause damage may be needed to keep geese off conventional fields. However, our study presents a glimpse of promise as the rather simple drone used covers large areas quickly and minimizes walking in growing crops. With technological advancement and possible autonomous techniques, drones may be capable of providing repeated scaring over large areas in the future.

show abstract

Behavioral responses of Canada geese to winter harassment in the context of human‐wildlife conflicts

Cited by 5 publications

References 45 publications

Not all sanctuaries are created equal: variation in protected area selection by wintering mallards

Not all sanctuaries are created equal: variation in protected area selection by wintering mallards

Dublin Hareport: The movement ecology and airfield interactions of resident, airside hares, at an international airport

Individual responses of GPS‐tagged geese scared off crops by drones or walking humans

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About