4.5 Article

Breeding dispersal in a heterogeneous landscape: the influence of habitat and nesting success in greater snow geese

Journal

OECOLOGIA
Volume 155, Issue 1, Pages 33-41

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00442-007-0860-6

Keywords

capture-recapture models; breeding dispersal; habitat use; nest-site fidelity

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite numerous studies on breeding dispersal, it is still unclear how habitat heterogeneity and previous nesting success interact to determine nest-site fidelity at various spatial scales. In this context, we investigated factors affecting breeding dispersal in greater snow geese (Anser caerulescens atlanticus), an Arctic breeding species nesting in two contrasting habitats (wetlands and mesic tundra) with variable pattern of snowmelt at the time of settlement in spring. From 1994 to 2005, we monitored the nesting success and breeding dispersal of individually marked females. We found that snow geese showed a moderate amount of nest-site fidelity and considerable individual variability in dispersal distance over consecutive nesting attempts. This variability can be partly accounted for by the annual timing of snowmelt. Despite this environmental constraint, habitat differences at the colony level consistently affected nesting success and settlement patterns. Females nesting in wetlands had higher nesting success than those nesting in mesic tundra. Moreover, geese responded adaptively to spatial heterogeneity by showing fidelity to their nesting habitat, independently of snowmelt pattern. From year to year, geese were more likely to move from mesic to high-quality wetland habitat, regardless of previous nesting success and without cost on their subsequent nesting performance. The unpredictability of snowmelt and the low cost of changing site apparently favour breeding-site dispersal although habitat quality promotes fidelity at the scale of habitat patches.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available