4.5 Article

Seasonal modulation of flight speed among nocturnal passerine migrants: differences between short- and long-distance migrants

期刊

BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY AND SOCIOBIOLOGY
卷 68, 期 11, 页码 1799-1807

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00265-014-1789-5

关键词

Airspeed; Ground speed; Bird migration; Flight speed; Optimal migration; Passerine; Short-distance migrants; Long-distance migrants; Spring migration; Autumn migration

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Migrating birds are expected to fly at higher airspeeds when minimizing time rather than energy costs of their migratory journeys. Spring migration has often been suggested to be more time selected than autumn migration, because of the advantage of early arrival at breeding sites. We have earlier demonstrated that nocturnal passerine migrants fly at higher airspeeds during spring compared to autumn, supporting time-selected spring migration. In this study, we test the hypothesis that seasonal airspeeds are modulated differently between short- and long-distance migrants, because of a stronger element of time selection for autumn migration over long distances. In support of this hypothesis, we demonstrate that the seasonal difference in airspeed is significantly larger (spring airspeed exceeding autumn airspeed by a factor of 1.16 after correcting for the influence of altitude, wind and climb/descent on airspeed) among short-distance compared to long-distance (factor 1.12) migrants. This result is based on a large sample of tracking radar data from 3 years at Falsterbo, South Sweden. Short-distance migrants also tend to fly with more favourable winds during autumn, indicating relaxed time constraints (being able to afford to wait for favourable winds) compared to long-distance migrants. These results indicate surprisingly fine-tuned seasonal modulation of airspeed and responses to wind, associated with behavioural strategies adapted to different levels of time selection pressures during spring and autumn migration.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据