4.0 Article

Avoiding competition? Site use, diet and foraging behaviours in two similarly sized geese wintering in China

期刊

ARDEA
卷 103, 期 1, 页码 27-U108

出版社

NEDERLANDSE ORNITHOLOGISCHE UNIE
DOI: 10.5253/arde.v103i1.a3

关键词

Anser albifrons; Anser fabalis; dietary composition; feeding ecology; interspecific competition

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2012CB956104]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31370416]
  3. State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences [SKLURE2014-2-3]
  4. Science and Technology Service Network Initiative Project of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [KFJ-EW-ZY-004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Competition may occur when two species with similar feeding ecologies exploit the same limited resources in time and space. In recent years, the Eastern Tundra Bean Goose Anser fabalis serrirostris and Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons frontalis have increased in wintering numbers at Shengjin Lake, China. To examine the potential for coexistence and possible avoidance strategies, we studied (1) their habitat use, (2) foraging behaviours and (3) diets of birds foraging in mixed-and single-species flocks. Both species extensively exploited sedge meadows, where they showed considerable overlap in spatial distribution and diet. The percentage feeding time and diet of both species were unaffected by the presence of the other. Greater White-fronted Geese appeared diurnal sedge meadow specialists, almost never feeding in other habitats. Eastern Tundra Bean Geese were less selective, exploiting other habitats, which they increasingly exploited at night in mid-winter. The use of alternative habitats and night feeding may have avoided interspecific competition. While the specialised feeding ecology of Greater White-fronted Geese may make them particularly vulnerable to loss of sedge meadow habitat, Eastern Tundra Bean Geese may be able to adjust because of their use of alternative habitats and a less restricted diet.

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

4.0
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