Wellbrock, Arndt
2 results
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
- Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Publication Access status: Open Access , "Same procedure as last year?" Repeatedly tracked swifts show individual consistency in migration pattern in successive yearsIndividual migration pattern during non-breeding season is still a black box in many migratory birds. However, knowledge on both individual level and population level in migration and overwintering is fundamental to understand the life cycle of these birds and the constraints affecting them. We showed in a highly aerial migrant, the common swift Apus apus, that repeatedly tracked birds breeding at one site in Germany used the same individual-specific migration routes and wintering areas in subsequent years. In contrast, different individuals from the same breeding colony showed diverse movement patterns during non-breeding season suggesting that several suitable areas for overwintering coexist. We found lower variation in timing of autumn and spring migration within than between individuals. Our findings provide first indication of individual consistency but between-individual variation in migration pattern in a small non-passerine bird revealed by geolocators. This supports that swifts have diverse but individual-specific ‘step-by-step’ migration patterns revealing high flexibility through individual strategies.Source Type:Article405 187 - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Publication Access status: Open Access , No “carry-over” effects of tracking devices on return rate and parameters determining reproductive success in once and repeatedly tagged common swifts (Apus apus), a long-distance migratory bird(2022); Background: To understand life-history strategies in migratory bird species, we should focus on migration behaviour and possible carry-over effects on both population and individual level. Tracking devices are useful tools to directly investigate migration behaviour. With increased use of tracking devices, questions arise towards animal welfare and possible negative effects of logger on birds. Several studies were conducted to address this question in birds that were tagged and tracked for one complete non-breeding season including migration but with mixed results. To detect individual-based decisions regarding migration strategy, we need to track the same individuals several times. So far, there are no studies investigating effects of repeatedly tagging on reproduction and life-history traits in individual migratory birds, especially in small birds. Methods: We used long-term data of 85 tagged common swifts (Apus apus), a long-distance migratory bird, of a breeding colony in Germany to test whether carrying a geolocator or GPS logger once or repeatedly during nonbreeding season affected return rate, apparent survival, and parameters determining reproductive success. Additionally, we checked for individual differences in arrival date and breeding parameters when the same individuals were tagged and when they were not tagged in different years. Further, we calculated the individual repeatability in arrival at the breeding colony and date of egg laying in repeatedly tagged swifts. Results: Once and repeatedly tagged birds returned to the colony at a similar rate as non-logger birds and arrived earlier than non-logger birds. We found no effect of logger-type on return rate in logger birds. We detected no differences in apparent survival, time lag to clutch initiation, date of clutch initiation, clutch size, number of chicks and fledglings between logger and non-logger birds. We found neither an effect of loggers nor of logger-types on the arrival date and breeding parameter on individual-level. Arrival date was highly repeatable and date of clutch initiation was moderately repeatable within repeatedly tagged individuals.Source Type:Article362 65
