Large grazing birds and agriculture—predicting field use of common cranes and implications for crop damage prevention

Nilsson, Lovisa; Bunnefeld, Nils; Persson, Jens; Månsson, Johan

doi:10.1016/j.agee.2015.12.021

Cited by 53 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Yet, in line with predictions, our findings indicated that cranes were gradually becoming more risk averse, selecting for high quality foraging sites located further away from human disturbance with increasing distance to roost. Our findings correspond with previous studies showing a decreasing probability of crane presence with distance to roost site (Bautista et al 1995, Nilsson et al 2016, presumably because cranes strive to reduce energetic costs of movement (Gils and Tijsen 2007, Elliott et al 2009, Rozen-Rechels et al 2015. The decreasing strength of selection for food availability with distance to the central place is more intricate to explain.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…oat and rye). Similar selection for barley and wheat has been shown in other areas, although selection patterns differ due to local differences in quality and availability of crops (Sugden et al 1988, Nilsson et al 2016. Corn and sunflower stubble fields are often selected over barley and wheat in areas where such crops are cultivated (Lovvorn andKirkpatrick 1982, Alonso et al 1983), which may restrict generalization between staging sites.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…By detailed measures of food availability and tracking data we were able to test central place foraging theory for cranes in a human-dominated agricultural landscape. Our findings highlight that arable lands should not be viewed as homogenous feeding areas for cranes but rather as heterogeneous mosaics of fields where the foraging pattern is influenced by distance to roost site, crop stage (Nilsson et al 2016), food availability and human disturbance. How different species Figure 2.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…This assumption may be violated in agricultural landscapes especially during the autumn harvesting period because of high unpredictability in food availability due to crop characteristics and farming practices (e.g. harvesting and tilling) causing food availability to vary from day to day within and between fields and in the landscape (Chudzińska et al 2015, Nilsson et al 2016. Moreover, since cranes repeatedly depart and arrive to roost sites, we suggest that they get a better overview of the surrounding landscape especially close to roosts that also facilitate more informed decisions about foraging sites.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, all these factors need to be considered to thoroughly understand habitat requirements, species distribution and potential negative effects on fitness (Lima and Dill 1990, Bechet et al 2004, Wang et al 2011. Such understanding is also important for decisions regarding management and conservation strategies, for example predicting resource requirement of the species, spatial distribution of wildlife damage to human livelihoods and how to optimize the use of damage preventive measures (Sutherland et al 2004, Nilsson et al 2016.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Central place foraging in a human‐dominated landscape: how do common cranes select feeding sites?

Nilsson

Persson

Månsson

2020

Journal of Avian Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human infrastructure and disturbance play an important role when animals select resources in human‐modified landscapes. Theory predicts that animals trade food intake against costs of movement or disturbance to optimize net energy gain and fitness, but other necessary resources may also constrain the decisions, e.g. when animals repeatedly need to return to a central location, such as a nest, waterhole or night roost. Central place foraging theory states that the probability of occurrence of an animal decreases with the distance to the central location while selectivity for food items or foraging sites providing high net energy gain should increase with distance. We studied foraging patterns of common cranes Grus grus feeding in an agricultural landscape adjacent to a wetland to which they return for night roost. We used availability of spilled grains on harvested fields and distance to human settlement as proxy for site quality (i.e. increased likelihood of increased net energy gain with increased food availability and less disturbance). As predicted by theory, our results clearly show that cranes were more likely (more than twice as high resource selection function scores) to select foraging sites close to roosts. However, contrary to predictions, the selection of high quality sites in terms of high food availability decreased with distance to roost sites. Nevertheless, our results indicate that cranes were more likely to select sites with low risk of human disturbance far from roost sites, and were more tolerant to disturbance close to roost sites. How different species respond to the local and environmental conditions will increase the understanding of the species’ resource requirement, and also where in the landscape to prioritize conservation or management actions (e.g. mitigation of human disturbance and crop damage prevention to sustain agricultural production).

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Central place foraging in a human‐dominated landscape: how do common cranes select feeding sites?

Nilsson

Persson

Månsson

2020

Journal of Avian Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Selection of a diversionary field and other habitats by large grazing birds in a landscape managed for agriculture and wetland biodiversity

Nilsson,

Månsson,

Elmberg

et al. 2024

Ecol Sol and Evidence

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several populations of cranes, geese, and swans are thriving and increasing in modern agricultural landscapes. Abundant populations are causing conservation conflicts, as they may affect agricultural production and biodiversity negatively. Management strategies involving provisioning of attractive diversionary fields where birds are tolerated can be used to reduce negative impact to growing crops. To improve such strategies, knowledge of how the birds interact with the landscape and respond to current management interventions is key. We used GPS locations from tagged common cranes (Grus grus) and greylag geese (Anser anser) to assess how they use and select differentially managed habitats, such as diversionary fields to decrease impact on agriculture and wetlands protected for biodiversity conservation. Our findings show a high probability of presence of common cranes and greylag geese in the protected area and in the diversionary field, but also on arable fields, potentially causing negative impact on agricultural production and wetland biodiversity. We outline recommendations for how to improve the practice of diversionary fields and complementary management to reduce risk of negative impact of large grazing birds in landscapes tailored for both conservation and conventional agriculture.

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

Large grazing birds and agriculture—predicting field use of common cranes and implications for crop damage prevention

Cited by 53 publications

References 52 publications

Central place foraging in a human‐dominated landscape: how do common cranes select feeding sites?

Central place foraging in a human‐dominated landscape: how do common cranes select feeding sites?

Selection of a diversionary field and other habitats by large grazing birds in a landscape managed for agriculture and wetland biodiversity

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About