Staff Publications

  • external user (warningwarning)
  • Log in as
  • language uk
Record number 506650
Title Site-specific flight speeds of nonbreeding Pacific dunlins as a measure of the quality of a foraging habitat
Author(s) Reurink, Florian; Hentze, Nathan; Rourke, Jay; Ydenberg, Ron
Source Behavioral Ecology 27 (2016)3. - ISSN 1045-2249 - p. 803 - 809.
DOI https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arv223
Department(s) Resource Ecology
PE&RC
Publication type Refereed Article in a scientific journal
Publication year 2016
Keyword(s) Dunlin - Foraging theory - Optimal flight speed - Shorebird habitat quality
Abstract

Many studies have investigated how foraging behavior such as prey choice varies with factors such as prey size or density. Models of such relationships can be applied "in reverse" to translate easily observed foraging behaviors into assays of habitat attributes that cannot (easily) be measured directly. One such model analyzes the speed of a forager flying between patches, where it captures prey. Faster flight shortens the travel time and hence elevates the intake rate, but is increasingly expensive. The model shows that the net intake rate is maximized at the point at which the energetic cost of flight is equivalent to the net rate of intake. Easy-to-measure flight speeds can thus be translated into hard-to-measure foraging intake rates using established flight power relationships. We studied nonbreeding Pacific dunlins (Calidris alpina pacifica) at 4 intertidal sites on the Fraser River estuary, British Columbia, Canada. These sites differed sufficiently that we expected food availability and hence the attainable foraging rate to differ. We measured interpatch flight speeds of dunlins foraging along the tideline within each site. The measured ground speed, calculated airspeed, and the statistically derived zero-wind effect airspeed all differed significantly between sites, matching in rank order our expectation of habitat quality based on their physical differences. Intake rate estimates ranged from 4.10 W (best mudflat) to 3.48 W (poorest). We think it unlikely that we would have been able to find such small differences using direct measures of foraging intake.

Comments
There are no comments yet. You can post the first one!
Post a comment
 
Please log in to use this service. Login as Wageningen University & Research user or guest user in upper right hand corner of this page.