Effects of variation in food resources on foraging habitat use by wintering Hooded Cranes (<i>Grus monacha</i>)

Meng Zheng, Lizhi Zhou, Niannian Zhao, Wenbin Xu. 2015: Effects of variation in food resources on foraging habitat use by wintering Hooded Cranes (Grus monacha). Avian Research, 6(1): 11. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-015-0020-3

Citation:

PDF (572 KB)

Effects of variation in food resources on foraging habitat use by wintering Hooded Cranes (Grus monacha)

Meng Zheng^{1, 2, 3},
Lizhi Zhou^{1, 2, 3, ,},
Niannian Zhao⁴,
Wenbin Xu⁴

1.
School of Resources and Environmental Engineering, Anhui University, 111 Jiulong Road, Hefei 230601, China
2.
Institute of Biodiversity and Wetland Ecology, Anhui University, 111 Jiulong Road, Hefei 230601, China
3.
Anhui Biodiversity Information Center, 111 Jiulong Road, Hefei 230601, China
4.
Shengjin Lake National Nature Reserve of Anhui Province, Dongzhi 247200, China

More Information

Corresponding author:
Lizhi Zhou, zhoulz@ahu.edu.cn
Received Date: 30 Sep 2014
Accepted Date: 15 Apr 2015
Available Online: 24 Apr 2022
Publish Date: 30 Jun 2015

Graphical Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Background
The ideal habitat use of waterbirds can be considered to be fixed, but current habitat use depends on environmental conditions, especially those of food characteristics, considered crucial to their use of habitats. Understanding how waterbirds respond to variation in food availability at degraded wetland sites and change their habitat use patterns over spatial and temporal scales should direct future conservation planning. The Objectives of this study were to identify these spatial-temporal foraging habitat use patterns of Hooded Cranes (Grus monacha) and their relationship with food characteristics in the severely degraded wetlands of the Shengjin and Caizi lakes along with the Yangtze River floodplain.
Methods
We investigated the changes in food characteristics, relative abundance and density of Hooded Cranes in various habitat types across three winter periods from November 2012 to April 2013. We examined the effect of these winter periods and habitat types on the pattern of use by the cranes and explored the relationship between these patterns and food characteristics using linear regression.
Results
The food characteristics and habitat use clearly changed over spatial-temporal scales. In the early and mid-winter periods, the most abundant, accessible and frequented food resources were found in paddy fields, while in the late period the more abundant food were available in meadows, which then replaced the paddy fields. There were fewer effects of winter periods, habitat types and their interactions on habitat use patterns except for the effect of habitat types on the relative abundance, determined as a function of food abundance, but independent of food depth and sediment permeability.
Conclusions
In response to the degradation and loss of lake wetlands, the cranes shifted their habitat use patterns by making tradeoffs between food abundance and accessibility over spatial-temporal scales that facilitated their survival in the mosaic of these lake wetlands.
- Hooded Crane (Grus monacha),
- Habitat use,
- Food characteristics,
- Wintering ecology,
- Foraging habitat

FullText(HTML)

Background

Intraspecific and interspecific interactions impact the extent and spatial patterning of animal home ranges (Adams 2001). Animals compete for resources (e.g. food, shelter and mates) and it has long been known (e.g., Brown and Orians 1970; Davies 1978; Newton 1998) that one way to compete is to exclude potential competitors from the area containing resources. Overlap, or otherwise segregation, between bird species (Warning and Benedict 2015; Zhao et al. 2015), and between or within bird populations (Yang et al. 2011; Clay et al. 2016) has been progressively recorded in recent years due to the increased availability of telemetry data (Wang et al. 2010). The increasing popularity of multi-species studies in the context of spatial management (e.g. Lascelles et al. 2016) has enhanced the need to calculate home range overlap for a large number of individuals, populations or species.

Home-range overlap indices have several important applications to wildlife research and management. Overlap indices can be useful for assessing the degree of interaction among individuals as well as site fidelity for a particular individual. In addition, overlap measures may be used to measure the reliability of various home-range estimators (Fieberg and Kochanny 2005). There are several overlap indices available in the literature (Kernohan et al. 2001). The available approaches make use of comparisons between pairs of individuals, populations or species, and return a matrix of pairwise overlaps. The most common and intuitive approach is percent overlap, i.e. the proportion of animal i's home range that is overlapped by animal j's home range (Kernohan et al. 2001). However, when the number of individuals, populations or species to be compared is elevated, an overlarge overlap matrix is difficult to interpret from an ecological viewpoint. For example, with only 10 individuals (populations, or species), a 10 × 10 pairwise overlap matrix is produced, whose ecological interpretation could be not that simple. Researchers have interpreted multiple pairwise comparisons using mean overlaps (e.g., Macias-Duarte and Panjabi 2013), however mean values can be scarcely representative of the pairwise overlap matrix if the dispersion of overlap values around the mean is elevated.

Accordingly, we propose here a new, conceptually simple and computationally efficient index (general overlap index; GOI hereafter) for the ready computation within GIS of home range overlap of an arbitrarily large number (i.e., n ≥ 2) of individuals, populations or species. As a case study, we applied our index to ten Lesser Kestrels (Falco naumanni) in order to estimate within-colony and between-colony overlap/segregation in two neighboring urban colonies (Cassano delle Murge and Santeramo in Colle; Apulia region) in Southern Italy. From an ecological point of view, it was a good study system to investigate competition during the breeding season as the two colonies represent the most elevated density of Lesser Kestrels in urban areas worldwide (Gustin etal. 2013).

The Lesser Kestrel is a colonial, small falcon breeding in steppe-like grasslands and cultivated landscapes with short vegetation and extensive crops (BirdLife International 2017). It is present among Annex I species of EU Wild Birds Directive (2009/147/EEC), and its important breeding habitats have been designated as Special Protection Areas of the Natura 2000 Network. In Southern Italy, the Lesser Kestrel has been widely studied in the nearby colonies of Gravina in Puglia and Altamura (Gustin et al. 2014a, b, 2017a; Gustin et al. 2014b, 2017b, 2018; Ferrarini et al. 2018a, b; Ferrarini et al. 2018b, 2019). The study area (Fig. 1) is an agricultural landscape located within the SPA (Special Protection Area) "Murgia Alta" IT9120007, and also included within the IBA (Important Bird Area) "Murge".

Figure 1. Study area (Apulia, Italy). Municipalities (outlined in black) and GPS points of the two Lesser Kestrel's colonies under study (Cassano delle Murge, green points; Santeramo in Colle, blue points) are shown. The two black triangles indicate the two urban colonies where the nests of the tracked Lesser Kestrels are located

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

Methods

We monitored ten birds (5 at Cassano delle Murge and 5 at Santeramo in Colle; Table 1) during the nestling period (Additional file 1: Fig. S1) in the two urban colonies of Cassano delle Murge (between June 22th and July 6th 2017; 11, 993 GPS points) and Santeramo in Colle (between June 13th and June 29th 2017; 12, 081 GPS points) where Lesser Kestrels have their artificial nests (Additional file1: Fig. S2). We tracked birds using TechnoSmart GiPSy-4 and GiPSy-5 data loggers (23 × 15 × 6 mm, 5 g weight; Additional file1: Fig. S3), which provided information about date, time, latitude, longitude, altitude (m a.s.l.) and instantaneous speed (m/s). GPS sampling frequency was one fix every three minutes. We fitted birds with data loggers at their nest boxes when they were delivering food to nestlings. All devices were tied dorsally to the base of two central tail feathers (Additional file1: Fig. S4). The weight of the devices in relation to that of the birds was less than 4% for all individuals. The attachment of transmitters did not take more than 15 min, and had no visible deleterious effects on the birds. To download the data from the data-loggers, we recaptured birds at their nest boxes.

Table 1. Description of the tracked Lesser Kestrels

GPS ID	Colony	Sex	Weight (g)	Start date of tracking	End date of tracking	No. of GPS points	Home range size (ha)
F6 C	Cassano delle Murge	F	138	June 30th 2017	July 5th 2017	1920	21, 142.96
M6 C	Cassano delle Murge	M	135	June 30th 2017	July 1st 2017	509	3802.39
F12 C	Cassano delle Murge	F	159	June 29th 2017	July 6th 2017	3185	14, 324.96
F15 C	Cassano delle Murge	F	128	June 29th 2017	July 6th 2017	3011	7304.12
M15 C	Cassano delle Murge	M	128	June 22th 2017	June 30th 2017	3368	9072.23
M4 S	Santeramo in Colle	M	124	June 16th 2017	June 22th 2017	2765	11, 147.12
F18 S	Santeramo in Colle	F	155	June 13th 2017	June 16th 2017	1375	2275.81
M18 S	Santeramo in Colle	M	135	June 13th 2017	June 16th 2017	1417	4046.01
F24 S	Santeramo in Colle	F	120	June 22th 2017	June 29th 2017	3311	3431.67
M24 S	Santeramo in Colle	M	116	June 22th 2017	June 29th 2017	3213	9762.25

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

We imported GPS data into GIS and estimated the individual home ranges using the fixed-mean minimum convex polygons (Kenward 1987) which calculates the arithmetic mean of all X (longitude) and Y (latitude) coordinates, then selects the requested percentage of points closest to that arithmetic mean point. We also estimated colony-specific home ranges (i.e. home ranges calculated after pooling the locations of all individuals of each colony). We chose the 95% isopleth to represent home range as this value is widely used in the literature (White and Garrott 1990).

In order to quantify home range overlaps, we first used the most common method (percent overlap; Kernohan et al. 2001), i.e. HR_{i, j} = 100 × A_{i, j}/A_i, where HR_{i, j} is the proportion of home-range i that is overlapped by home-range j, A_i is the area of home-range i, and A_{i, j} is the area of overlap between the two home-ranges. As HR_{i, j} ≠ HR_{j, i} (i.e., directional indices), we quantified the degree of overlap using both HR_{i, j} and HR_{j, i}. In addition, we also employed our general overlap index (GOI). In the case of perfectly disjoint (i.e. non-overlapping) home ranges (Fig. 2a), the total area (A_T) covered by the home ranges is simply the sum of their extents (i.e. $\sum {A_{i} }$ ). In the case of perfectly nested (i.e. overlapping) home ranges (Fig. 2b), A_T is simply the extent of the largest home range (i.e. max(A_i)). In the intermediate case (i.e., partially overlapping home ranges; Fig. 2c), A_T corresponds to the union of the home range polygons (i.e. $\bigcup {A_{i} }$ ). Unioning a set of (partially) overlapping polygons is a standard GIS procedure with the effect of merging their areas (). Therefore, the difference between $\sum {A_{i} }$ and max(A_i) represents the maximum distance possible (Dist_MAX) from a perfectly non-overlapping situation. The difference between $\sum {A_{i} }$ and $\bigcup {A_{i} }$ is the observed distance (Dist_OBS) from the perfectly disjoint situation. GOI was calculated as (Eq. 1):

$GOI = 100*\frac{{Dist_{OBS} }}{{Dist_{MAX} }} = 100*\frac{{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} {A_{i} } - \bigcup\limits_{i = 1}^{n} {A_{i} } }}{{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} {A_{i} } - \max (A_{i} )}}$

(1)

Figure 2. a Perfectly disjoint (i.e., non-overlapping) home ranges, b perfectly nested (i.e., overlapping) home ranges, c partially-overlapping home ranges, d union (on the right) of partially-overlapping home range polygons (on the left)

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

where n is the number of home ranges under study. GOI thus measures the distance of the observed overlaps from two extremes (perfect overlap and perfect non-overlap). If Dist_OBS = 0, then GOI = 0 (perfect non-overlap); if Dist_OBS = Dist_MAX, then GOI = 100 (perfect overlap). If home ranges partially overlap, then 0 < GOI < 100. The pseudo-code of the algorithm used to calculate GOI is described in the Additional file2: Text S1.

Our overlap index corresponds, in essence, to the linear equation Y = 100 × (b ‒ X)/(b ‒ a) where a is the extent of the largest home range polygon, b is the sum of the home range extents and X is the extent of the union of home range polygons, which varies depending upon the degree of overlap. Since b ≥ X and b > a, then the denominator is always positive while the numerator can be positive or null. In addition, since X ≥ a, then b ‒X is always less than, or equal to, b ‒ a. Thus GOI is constrained in the interval [0, 100], independently of the number of home ranges under study. In the case of perfectly non-overlapping home ranges, X = b then GOI = 0. In the case of perfectly overlapping home ranges, X = a then GOI = 100. Finally, a general segregation index (GSI) was computed as the complement to 100 of GOI (Eq. 2):

$GSI = 100 - GOI = 100*\left(1 - \frac{{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} {A_{i} } - \bigcup\limits_{i = 1}^{n} {A_{i} } }}{{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} {A_{i} } - \max (A_{i} )}}\right)$

(2)

The first derivatives of GOI and GSI (Eqs. 3, 4) show their rate of change with respect to $\bigcup {A_{i} }$ :

$\frac{dGOI}{{d\bigcup\limits_{i = 1}^{n} {A_{i} } }} = \frac{ - 100}{{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} {A_{i} - \max (A_{i} )} }}$

(3)

and

$\frac{dGSI}{{d\bigcup\limits_{i = 1}^{n} {A_{i} } }} = \frac{100}{{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n} {A_{i} - \max (A_{i} )} }}$

(4)

Therefore, every unitary increase/decrease (e.g. 1 ha if home ranges are expressed in hectares, 1 km² if they are expressed in km²) of $\bigcup {A_{i} }$ determines a decrease/increase in GOI, and a correspondent increase/decrease of GSI, equal to $\frac{100}{{\sum\nolimits_{i = 1}^{n} {A_{i} } - \max (A_{i} )}}$ (Additional file2: Text S2).

We applied GOI to the individual and the colony-specific home ranges, in order to estimate within-colony (GOI_W) and between-colony (GOI_B) overlaps respectively. As suggested by the "diplomacy" hypothesis (Grémillet et al. 2004), spatial segregation among nearby colonies may mitigate intraspecific competition for resources. In order to test this hypothesis, we used a randomization procedure to determine if GOI_B was greater than expected by chance. Under the null hypothesis of no spatial segregation between the two colonies, GOI_B should not be significantly different from the size of the overlap if the GPS points of each colony were randomly and independently assigned. As Lesser Kestrels are central place foragers, distance is highly relevant and thus we could not assume they were free to visit all locations within the study area. Thus, we generated our null expectation by using a rotation with a random angle of the observed GPS points (by anchoring points to the coordinates of the correspondent urban colony), therefore randomly positioning the GPS points of each colony while keeping distances from the colony equal (Ferrarini et al. 2018a, b). In order to apply a rotational resampling of the colony data, all the data from each individual were randomly rotated around its nest location, independently from the other individuals. Mathematically, we used the standard algorithm (Eq. 5 and Eq. 6) for rotating points around a centre of rotation:

$x_{{1}} \, = \,\left( {x_{0} {-}x_{{\text{c}}} } \right)\, \times \,{\text{cos}}\left( \theta \right){-}\left( {y_{0} {-}y_{{\text{c}}} } \right)\, \times \,{\text{sin}}\left( \theta \right)\, + \,x_{{\text{c}}}$

(5)

$y_{{1}} \, = \,\left( {x_{0} {-}x_{{\text{c}}} } \right)\, \times \,{\text{sin}}\left( \theta \right)\, + \,\left( {y_{0} {-}y_{{\text{c}}} } \right)\, \times \,{\text{cos}}\left( \theta \right)\, + \,y_{{\text{c}}} .$

(6)

where (x₀, y₀) is the point to be rotated, (x_c, y_c) are the coordinates of the nest location, θ is the angle of rotation (positive counterclockwise), (x₁, y₁) are the coordinates of point after rotation.

We then computed the randomly created home ranges (HR_Rand) for each colony, and overlaps (GOI_Rand hereafter) between the two colonies. We repeated our randomizations 9999 times. The P-value for each colony was determined by the proportion of randomly created overlaps GOI_Rand that were smaller than the observed overlap GOI_B.

Results

In total, we collected 24, 074 GPS points, 11, 993 at Cassano nelle Murge and 12, 081 at Santeramo in Colle respectively (Table 1).

The five Lesser Kestrels of Cassano nelle Murge had an average home range size equal to 11, 129.33 ha (± 6764.46 std. dev.). The smallest and largest home ranges were 3802.39 ha (individual M6 C) and 21, 142.96 ha (individual F6 C) respectively (Table 1). Pairwise percent overlaps (Table 2) ranged from 17.98% to 100%, with an average value equal to 65.51% (± 27.64 std. dev.). Individual home ranges were almost completely nested within the largest home range (individual F6 C; Fig. 3), in fact GOI_W was equal to 96.41% (i.e., $\sum {A_{i} }$ = 55, 646.66 ha; max(A_i) = 21, 142.96 ha; $\bigcup {A_{i} }$ = 22, 378.92 ha), thus GSI_W was equal to 3.59% (Fig. 3).

Table 2. Pairwise percent overlap (in hectares and %) between tracked Lesser Kestrels from Cassano delle Murge

Individual A	Individual B	Overlap (ha)	Overlap (%)
F6 C	M6 C	3802.39	17.98
F6 C	F12 C	13, 263.67	62.73
F6 C	F15 C	7166.23	33.89
F6 C	M15 C	8825.94	41.74
M6 C	F6 C	3802.39	100.00
M6 C	F12 C	3505.18	92.18
M6 C	F15 C	3451.19	90.76
M6 C	M15 C	2665.18	70.09
F12 C	F6 C	13, 263.67	92.59
F12 C	M6 C	3505.18	24.47
F12 C	F15 C	6805.01	47.50
F12 C	M15 C	8371.77	58.44
F15 C	F6 C	7166.23	98.11
F15 C	M6 C	3451.19	47.25
F15 C	F12 C	6805.01	93.17
F15 C	M15 C	4868.14	66.65
M15 C	F6 C	8825.94	97.29
M15 C	M6 C	2665.18	29.38
M15 C	F12 C	8371.77	92.28
M15 C	F15 C	4868.14	53.66

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

Figure 3. Individual home ranges of the Lesser Kestrels tracked at Cassano nelle Murge (a) and Santeramo in Colle (b). See Table 1 for the GPS ID of the individuals. The red squares represent the towns of Cassano and Santeramo where the Lesser Kestrels have their nests. GOI and GSI stand for general overlap index and general segregation index, respectively

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

The five Lesser Kestrels of Santeramo in Colle scored an average home range size equal to 6132.58 ha (± 4026.29 std. dev.). The smallest and largest home ranges were 2275.81 ha (individual F18 S) and 11, 147.12 (individual M4 S) ha respectively (Table 1). Pairwise percent overlaps (Table 3) ranged from 20.42% to 100%, with an average value equal to 58.09% (± 27.09 std. dev.). Individual home ranges were mostly nested within the home range of the second largest home range (individual M24 S), except for individual M4 S (Fig. 3). GOI_W was equal to 81.38% (i.e., $\sum {A_{i} }$ = 30, 662.86 ha; max(A_i) = 11, 147.12 ha; $\bigcup {A_{i} }$ = 14, 779.66 ha), thus GSI_W was equal to = 18.62% (Fig. 3).

Table 3. Pairwise percent overlap (in hectares and %) between tracked Lesser Kestrels from Santeramo in Colle

Individual A	Individual B	Overlap (ha)	Overlap (%)
M4 S	F18 S	2275.81	20.42
M4 S	M18 S	2793.65	25.06
M4 S	F24 S	2365.70	21.22
M4 S	M24 S	6214.35	55.75
F18 S	M4 S	2275.81	100.00
F18 S	M18 S	1749.35	76.87
F18 S	F24 S	1390.54	61.10
F18 S	M24 S	2275.81	100.00
M18 S	M4 S	2793.65	69.05
M18 S	F18 S	1749.35	43.24
M18 S	F24 S	2224.76	54.99
M18 S	M24 S	3961.38	97.91
F24 S	M4 S	2365.70	68.94
F24 S	F18 S	1390.54	40.52
F24 S	M18 S	2224.76	64.83
F24 S	M24 S	3409.39	99.35
M24 S	M4 S	6214.35	63.66
M24 S	F18 S	2275.81	23.31
M24 S	M18 S	3961.38	40.58
M24 S	F24 S	3409.39	34.92

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

Colony-specific home ranges were 17, 652.74 ha at Cassano and 13, 228.31 ha at Santeramo, respectively. Between-colony overlap was 2529.46 ha.GOI_B was equal to 19.12% (i.e., $\sum {HR_{i} }$ = 30, 881.05 ha; max(A_i) = 17, 652.74 ha; $\bigcup {A_{i} }$ = 28, 351.58 ha; Fig. 4), thus GSI_B was 80.88%. The proportion of randomly created overlaps GOI_Rand that were smaller than the observed overlap GOI_B was 4.36% (436 randomizations out of 9999; P = 0.0436), therefore the null hypothesis of no spatial segregation was rejected (P < 0.05).

Figure 4. Between-colony overlap. We first estimated colony-specific home ranges (i.e. home ranges calculated after pooling the locations of all individuals of each colony), then we calculated the between-colony overlap. The red squares represent the towns of Cassano and Santeramo where the Lesser Kestrels have their nests. GOI and GSI stand for general overlap index and general segregation index, respectively

DownLoad: Full-Size Img PowerPoint

Discussion

In this study, we have proposed a non-pairwise metric of home range overlap/segregation, and have applied it to two neighboring Lesser Kestrel's colonies in Southern Italy.

Our overlap index follows a simple idea: given n home ranges, it is always possible to calculate the extent of two spatial configurations, perfect segregation and perfect overlap. In the former case (Fig. 2a), the extent covered by the home ranges is simply the sum of their areas, and in the latter case (Fig. 2b) it is equal to the area of the largest home range. Our index simply measures the distance of the observed overlaps from these two extremes. In doing so, our overlap index does not require calculating pairwise overlaps among individual home ranges. The uniquely non-pairwise nature of the metric leads to two interesting properties: first, it is computationally fast as it just requires the union of home range polygons (Fig. 2d) to be calculated within GIS; second, the overlap score provided by GOI is semantically different from the overlap scores provided by pairwise overlap indices. In fact, GOI provides an estimate of how nested different home ranges areas are. This explains why in both colonies GOI did not duplicate the information provided by pairwise overlap measures (Tables 2, 3), and not even some statistical properties (e.g. mean or median) of such pairwise measures. In fact, mean pairwise overlap was 65.51% ± 27.64 (mean ± std. dev.) at Cassano, and it was 58.09% ± 27.09 at Santeramo. Therefore, GOI was outside the mean ± std. dev. interval at Cassano, and almost outside the right tail of the same interval at Santeramo. In addition, GOI was much easier to interpret in comparison to the 5 × 5 pairwise overlap matrices (Tables 2, 3).

Our overlap index also has several other desirable properties: (1) GOI can be applied to an arbitrarily large number of home ranges (i.e., n ≥ 2) belonging to individuals, populations (colonies) or species; (2) whatever the number of home ranges under study, GOI returns a single overlap measure; (3) in the case of perfectly disjoint home ranges, GOI is equal to 0; (4) in the case of perfectly nested (overlapping) home ranges, GOI is equal to 100; (5) in any other case, GOI returns a value between 0 and 100; (6) GOI varies linearly between 0 and 100, independently of the number of home ranges under study. In fact, Eqs.1‒4 ensure that GOI and GSI and their rates of change are independent of (a) the number of observations and (b) the initial value assumed by $\bigcup {A_{i} }$ , but only depend on the geometric and positional properties of the home ranges. The linear nature of these metrics also ensures that small/big changes to the home range overlaps proportionally determine small/big changes to GOI (Additional file2: Text S2).

In this study, we have applied GOI to 2D home ranges, however our overlap index can be readily applied to 3D home ranges as well (Tracey etal. 2014; Ferrarini et al. 2018b). In the case of volumetric home ranges, the 2D home range size should be simply replaced by 3D estimation, but GOI (and also GSI) would maintain the same properties described above. We estimated home ranges through the minimum convex polygons algorithm, however the application of GOI (and also GSI) is successive, and thus independent, of the type of algorithm (e.g. low convex hull; Getz et al. 2007) employed to assess birds' home ranges. Thus, both GOI and GSI can be applied to home range polygons derived from any type of home range estimator (Signer et al. 2015). We have applied GOI to a central-place forager, as this type of species presents elevated within-colony overlap thus making the use of an overlap index very appropriate. In the case of bird species with low overlaps, the alternative GSI index could be more suitable to readily assess the degree of home range segregation.

The populations studied here showed elevated intra-colony overlap and between-colony segregation. These results are in agreement with findings from the nearby colonies of Gravina in Puglia and Altamura (Ferrarini et al. 2018a, b), although in that case segregation was computed using a standard pairwise overlap index. During the chick rearing interval the demand for food is the highest, thus this might affect spatial segregation between the colonies. By foraging in spatially segregated areas, individuals from different colonies may avoid interference competition for food (Grémillet et al. 2004). It is therefore plausible that spatial segregation is relaxed in other periods when food demand is lower.

Conclusions

Our overlap index addresses the question of generalizing pairwise measures of home range overlap to a single measure of overlap within or across populations or species. It is not intended to replace the commonly used pairwise approach, just represents a prompt measure of home range overlap/segregation, which is particularly useful when the number of home ranges to be analyzed is elevated. As home range overlap/segregation is an ecologically significant property of animal space use and interactions, GOI can be useful to promptly summarize ecological information from a set of home ranges estimated at individual, population or species level, and readily formulate working hypotheses and address successive analyses. Real-life applications of this metric can include (a) measuring intra-specific competition during the breeding season, (b) detecting change in space use over successive years, (c) evaluating degree of competition among various age classes, and (d) evaluating the reliability of home-range assessment by measuring the degree of overlap of several estimators.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s40657-020-00240-7.

Acknowledgements

We thank Annagrazia Frassanito (Alta Murgia National Park) for project administration. We thank three anonymous reviewers for their useful remarks and suggestions that improved this manuscript.

Authors' contributions

AF conceived the study; GG, MG, SCP participated in the field work; AF carried out the GIS and modelling work; AF, MG drafted the earlier version of the manuscript, and GG, SCP revised it. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used in the present study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Our research adheres to local guidelines and appropriate ethical approval and licences were obtained.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References (61)

References

Aborn DA (2010) Possible competition between waterfowl and Sandhill cranes at Hiwassee wildlife refuge, Tennessee. Proceedings of the North American Crane Workshop, In, pp 15–21

Ackerman JT, Takekawa JY, Orthmeyer DL, Fleskes JP, Yee JL, Kruse KL (2006) Spatial use by wintering Greater white-fronted geese relative to a decade of habitat change in California's central valley. J Wildlife Manage 70(4):965–976

Alonso JC, Bautista LM, Alonso JA (2004) Family-based territoriality vs flocking in wintering Common cranes Grus grus. J Avian Biol 35(5):434–444

Amano T (2012) Unravelling the dynamics of organisms in a changing world using ecological modelling. Ecol Res 27(3):495–507

Ashmole NP (1963) The regulation of numbers of tropical oceanic birds. Ibis 103b(3):458–473

Backwell PR, O'hara PD, Christy JH (1998) Prey availability and selective foraging in shorebirds. Anim Behav 55(6):1659–1667

Baschuk MS, Koper N, Wrubleski DA, Goldsborough G (2012) Effects of water depth, cover and food resources on habitat use of marsh birds and waterfowl in boreal wetlands of Manitoba, Canada. Waterbirds 35(1):44–55

Beerens JM, Gawlik DE, Herring G, Cook MI (2011) Dynamic habitat selection by two wading bird species with divergent foraging strategies in a seasonally fluctuating wetland. Auk 128(4):651–662

Bishop MA, Li F (2002) Effects of farming practices in Tibet on wintering Black-necked Crane (Grus nigricollis) diet and food availability. Biodivers Sci 10(4):393–398

Burger J, Gochfeld M (2013) Wood Storks (Mycteria americana) prey on eggs and hatchlings of Olive ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea) at Ostional, Costa Rica. Waterbirds 36(3):358–363

Cai T, Huettmann F, Guo Y (2014) Using stochastic gradient boosting to infer stopover habitat selection and distribution of Hooded Cranes Grus monacha during spring migration in Lindian, Northeast China. PLoS One 9(2), e89913

Cao L, Mark B, Zhao M, Meng H, Zhang Y (2011) A systematic scheme for monitoring waterbird populations at Shengjin Lake, China: methodology and preliminary results. Chinese Birds 2(1):1–17

Chen JY, Zhou LZ, Zhou B, Xu RX, Zhu WZ, Xu WB (2011) Seasonal dynamics of wintering waterbirds in two shallow lakes along Yangtze River in Anhui Province. Zoolog Res 32(5):540–548

Clausen KK, Clausen P, Fælled CC, Mouritsen KN (2012) Energetic consequences of a major change in habitat use: endangered Brent geese Branta bernicla hrota losing their main food resource. Ibis 154(4):803–814

Collar NJ, Crosby R, Crosby M (2001) Threatened Birds of Asia: the BirdLife International Red Data Book, vol 1. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK

Demment MW, van Soest PJ (1985) A nutritional explanation for body-size patterns of ruminant and nonruminant herbivores. Am Nat 125(5):641–672

Eadie J, Elphick C, Reinecke K, Miller M, Manley S (2008) Wildlife values of North American ricelands. In: Manley SW (ed) Conservation in Ricelands of North America. The Rice Foundation, Stuttgart, Arkansas, pp 7–90

Elphick CS, Oring LW (2003) Conservation implications of flooding rice fields on winter waterbird communities. Agr Ecosyst Environ 94(1):17–29

Emlen JM (1966) The role of time and energy in food preference. Am Nat 100:611–617

Fauchald P, Erikstad KE, Skarsfjord H (2000) Scale-dependent predator–prey interactions: the hierarchical spatial distribution of seabirds and prey. Ecology 81(3):773–783

Folmer EO, Olff H, Piersma T (2010) How well do food distributions predict spatial distributions of shorebirds with different degrees of self-organization? J Anim Ecol 79(4):747–756

Fox AD, Kahlert J, Ettrup H (1998) Diet and habitat use of moulting Greylag geese Anser anser on the Danish island of Saltholm. Ibis 140(4):676–683

Fox AD, Cao L, Zhang Y, Barter M, Zhao MJ, Meng FJ, Wang SL (2011) Declines in the tuber-feeding waterbird guild at Shengjin Lake National Nature Reserve, China — a barometer of submerged macrophyte collapse. Aquat Conserv 21(1):82–91

Fretwell S, Lucas HL (1969) On territorial behavior and other factors influencing habitat distribution in birds. Acta Biotheor 19(1):16–36

Fryxell JM (1991) Forage quality and aggregation by large herbivores. Am Nat 138(2):478–498

Gyimesi A, Franken MS, Feige N, Nolet BA (2012) Human disturbance of Bewick's swans is reflected in giving-up net energy intake rate, but not in giving-up food density. Ibis 154(4):781–790

Harris J, Su LY, Higuchi H, Ueta M, Zhang ZW, Zhang YY, Ni XJ (2000) Migratory stopover and wintering locations in eastern China used by White-naped Cranes Grus vipio and Hooded Cranes G. monacha, as determined by satellite tracking. Forktail 16:93–99

Heaney V, Monaghan P (1996) Optimal allocation of effort between reproductive phases: the trade-off between incubation costs and subsequent brood rearing capacity. P Roy Soc B-Biol Sci 263(1377):1719–1724

Jia Y, Jiao S, Zhang Y, Zhou Y, Lei G, Liu G (2013) Diet shift and its impact on foraging behavior of Siberian crane (Grus leucogeranus) in Poyang Lake. PLoS One 8(6), e65843

Jing K, Ma Z, Li B, Li J, Chen J (2007) Foraging strategies involved in habitat use of shorebirds at the intertidal area of Chongming Dongtan, China. Eco Res 22(4):559–570

Jónsson JE, Afton AD (2006) Different time and energy budgets of Lesser snow geese in rice-prairies and coastal marshes in Southwest Louisiana. Waterbirds 29(4):451–458

Kuwae T, Miyoshi E, Sassa S, Watabe Y (2010) Foraging mode shift in varying environmental conditions by dunlin Calidris alpina. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 406:281–289

Lantz SM, Gawlik DE, Cook MI (2011) The effects of water depth and emergent vegetation on foraging success and habitat selection of wading birds in the Everglades. Waterbirds 34(4):439–447

Li Z, Wang Z, Ge C (2013) Time budgets of wintering Red-crowned cranes: effects of habitat, age and family size. Wetlands 33(2):227–232

Link PT, Afton AD, Cox RR, Davis BE (2011) Use of habitats by female mallards wintering in southwestern Louisiana. Waterbirds 34(4):429–438

Liu Q, Yang J, Yang X, Zhao J, Yu H (2010) Foraging habitats and utilization distributions of Black-necked cranes wintering at the Napahai Wetland, China. J Field Ornithol 81(1):21–30

Liu ZY, Xu WB, Wang QS, Shi KC, Xu JS, Yu GQ (2001) Environmental carrying capacity for overwintering Hooded Cranes in Shenjin Lake. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin 10(5):454–459

Ma Z, Li B, Jing K, Zhao B, Tang S, Chen J (2003) Effects of tidewater on the feeding ecology of Hooded Crane (Grus monacha) and conservation of their wintering habitats at Chongming Dongtan, China. Ecol Res 18(3):321–329

MacArthur RH, Pianka ER (1966) On optimal use of a patchy environment. Am Nat 100(916):603–609

Marra PP, Holberton RL (1998) Corticosterone levels as indicators of habitat quality: Effects of habitat segregation in a migratory bird during the non-breeding season. Oecologia 116:284–292

Meine CD, Archibald GW (1996) The Cranes: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, U.K.

Miller M, Garr J, Coates P (2010) Changes in the status of harvested rice fields in the Sacramento Valley, California: implications for wintering waterfowl. Wetlands 30(5):939–947

Moen AN (1976) Energy conservation by White-tailed deer in the winter. Ecology 57:192–198

Newton I (1998) Population Limitation in Birds. Academic, San Diego

Newton I (2004) Population limitation in migrants. Ibis 146(2):197–226

Nolet BA, Bevan RM, Klaassen M, Langevoord O, van Der Heijden YGJT (2002) Habitat switching by Bewick's swans: maximization of average long-term energy gain? J Anim Ecol 71(6):979–993

Ohsako Y (1994) Analysis of crane population change, habitat selection, and human disturbance in Japan. In: Higuchi H, Miton J (eds) The Future of Cranes and Wetlands. Wilde Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo, pp 107–113

Puglisi L, Claudia Adamo M, Emilio Baldaccini N (2005) Man-induced habitat changes and sensitive species: a GIS approach to the Eurasian bittern (Botaurus stellaris) distribution in a Mediterranean wetland. Biodivers Conserv 14(8):1909–1922

Quaintenne G, Van Gils JA, Bocher P, Dekinga A, Piersma T (2010) Diet selection in a molluscivore shorebird across Western Europe: does it show short- or long-term intake rate- maximization? J Anim Ecol 79(1):53–62

Reynolds MH (2004) Habitat use and home range of the Laysan Teal on Laysan Island, Hawaii. Waterbirds 27(2):183–192

Strong AM, Sherry TW (2000) Habitat-specific effects of food abundance on the condition of Ovenbirds wintering in Jamaica. J Anim Ecol 69:883–895

Thomas DL, Taylor EJ (2006) Study designs and tests for comparing resource use and availability Ⅱ. J Wildlife Manage 70(2):324–336

Tourenq C, Bennetts RE, Kowalski H, Vialet E, Lucchesi J-L, Kayser Y, Isenmann P (2001) Are ricefields a good alternative to natural marshes for waterbird communities in the Camargue, southern France? Biol Conserv 100(3):335–343

van Beest FM, Mysterud A, Loe LE, Milner JM (2010) Forage quantity, quality and depletion as scale-dependent mechanisms driving habitat selection of a large browsing herbivore. J Anim Ecol 79(4):910–922

Wang Q (1988) Hooded Crane (Grus monacha). Chin J Zool 23(4):30–39

Wang X, Fox AD, Cong P, Cao L (2013) Food constraints explain the restricted distribution of wintering Lesser white-fronted Geese Anser erythropus in China. Ibis 155(3):576–592

Weimerskirch H, Ancel A, Caloin M, Zahariev A, Spagiari J, Kersten M, Chastel O (2003) Foraging efficiency and adjustment of energy expenditure in a pelagic seabird provisioning its chick. J Anim Ecol 72(3):500–508

White G, Purps J, Alsbury S (2006) The Bittern in Europe: a Guide to Species and Habitat Management. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Sandy, Utah, U.S.

Xu L, Xu W, Sun Q, Zhou Z, Shen J, Zhao X (2008) Flora and vegetation in Shengjin Lake. J Wuhan Botanical Res 27(3):264–270

Zhao F, Zhou L, Xu W (2013) Habitat utilization and resource partitioning of wintering Hooded Cranes and three goose species at Shengjin Lake. Chinese Birds 4(4):281–290

Zhou B, Zhou L, Chen J, Cheng Y, Xu W (2010) Diurnal time-activity budgets of wintering Hooded Cranes (Grus monacha) in Shengjin Lake, China. Waterbirds 33(1):110–115

Cited By

Cited by

Periodical cited type(7)

1.	Supratim Dutta, Ramesh Krishnamurthy. Tigers in their new territory: intraspecific interactions among the reintroduced tiger population in Panna Tiger Reserve, Central India. Scientific Reports, 2025, 15(1) DOI:10.1038/s41598-024-83278-7
2.	D. Hoffart, C. J. Johnson, R. S. McNay. Go where you know: range expansion and fidelity in mountain caribou following eight years of maternity penning. Animal Conservation, 2024. DOI:10.1111/acv.12975
3.	Alessandro Ferrarini, Giuseppe Giglio, Stefania Caterina Pellegrino, et al. Overlap and Segregation among Multiple 3D Home Ranges: A Non-Pairwise Metric with Demonstrative Application to the Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni. Biology, 2023, 12(1): 77. DOI:10.3390/biology12010077
4.	Joseph D. Bailey. An assessment of the contact rates between individuals when movement is modelled by a correlated random walk. Theoretical Ecology, 2023, 16(3): 239. DOI:10.1007/s12080-023-00567-z
5.	Caroline C. Sauvé, Are R. Berentsen, Steven F. Llanos, et al. Home range overlap between small Indian mongooses and free roaming domestic dogs in Puerto Rico: implications for rabies management. Scientific Reports, 2023, 13(1) DOI:10.1038/s41598-023-50261-7
6.	Alessandro Ferrarini, Giuseppe Giglio, Stefania Caterina Pellegrino, et al. A Community-Level Approach to Species Conservation: A Case Study of Falco naumanni in Southern Italy. Diversity, 2022, 14(7): 566. DOI:10.3390/d14070566
7.	Alessandro Ferrarini, Giuseppe Giglio, Stefania Caterina Pellegrino, et al. Measuring the Degree of Overlap and Segregation among Multiple Probabilistic Home Ranges: A New Index with Illustrative Application to the Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni. Animals, 2021, 11(10): 2913. DOI:10.3390/ani11102913

Other cited types(0)

Figures(3) / Tables(3)

Get Citation

PDF

XML

Article Metrics

Article views (260) PDF downloads (29) Cited by(7)

	Xueqin Deng, Qingshan Zhao, Junjian Zhang, Andrea Kölzsch, Diana Solovyeva, Inga Bysykatova-Harmey, Zhenggang Xu, Helmut Kruckenberg, Lei Cao, Anthony David Fox. 2021: Contrasting habitat use and conservation status of Chinese-wintering and other Eurasian Greater White-fronted Goose (Anser albifrons) populations. Avian Research, 12(1): 71. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-021-00306-0
	Wei Wang, Lizhi Zhou, Rong Fu, Lei Cheng, Shaofei Yan, Nazia Mahtab, Yunwei Song. 2021: Effects of foraging site distances on the intestinal bacterial community compositions of the sympatric wintering Hooded Crane (Grus monacha) and Domestic Duck (Anas platyrhynchos domesticus). Avian Research, 12(1): 20. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-021-00255-8
	Yanguang Fan, Lizhi Zhou, Lei Cheng, Yunwei Song, Wenbin Xu. 2020: Foraging behavior of the Greater White-fronted Goose (Anser albifrons) wintering at Shengjin Lake: diet shifts and habitat use. Avian Research, 11(1): 3. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-020-0189-y
	Ru Jia, Tian Ma, Fengjiang Zhang, Guogang Zhang, Dongping Liu, Jun Lu. 2019: Population dynamics and habitat use of the Black-necked Crane (Grus nigricollis) in the Yarlung Tsangpo River basin, Tibet, China. Avian Research, 10(1): 32. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-019-0170-9
	Wenjing Wan, LizhiZhou, Yunwei Song. 2016: Shifts in foraging behavior of wintering Hooded Cranes (Grus monacha) in three different habitats at Shengjin Lake, China. Avian Research, 7(1): 13. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-016-0047-0
	Dongmei Zhang, Lizhi Zhou, Yunwei Song. 2015: Effect of water level fluctuations on temporal-spatial patterns of foraging activities by the wintering Hooded Crane (Grus monacha). Avian Research, 6(1): 16. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-015-0026-x
	Ling Yang, Lizhi Zhou, Yunwei Song. 2015: The effects of food abundance and disturbance on foraging flock patterns of the wintering Hooded Crane (Grus monacha). Avian Research, 6(1): 15. DOI: 10.1186/s40657-015-0024-z
	Fengting ZHAO, Lizhi ZHOU, Wenbin XU. 2013: Habitat utilization and resource partitioning of wintering Hooded Cranes and three goose species at Shengjin Lake. Avian Research, 4(4): 281-290. DOI: 10.5122/cbirds.2013.0032
	Xin LU. 2012: Summer-autumn habitat use by Galliformes in a primary forest, southeastern Tibet. Avian Research, 3(2): 113-117. DOI: 10.5122/cbirds.2012.0014
	Xiaojing LI, Yang SHI, Jiliang XU, Weidong BAO. 2011: Wintering ecology of the Black Stork (Ciconia nigra) in Beijing. Avian Research, 2(1): 46-52. DOI: 10.5122/cbirds.2011.0005

Effects of variation in food resources on foraging habitat use by wintering Hooded Cranes (Grus monacha)