4.7 Article

Winter movement patterns of a globally endangered avian scavenger in south-western Europe

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-74333-0

关键词

-

资金

  1. Servicio de Conservacion de la Naturaleza y areas Protegidas of the regional government
  2. Basque government predoctoral grant [569382696]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Partial migration, whereby some individuals migrate and some do not, is relatively common and widespread among animals. Switching between migration tactics (from migratory to resident or vice versa) occurs at individual and population levels. Here, we describe for the first time the movement ecology of the largest wintering population of Egyptian Vultures (Neophron percnopterus) in south-west Europe. We combined field surveys and GPS tracking data from December to February during four wintering seasons (2014-2018). The wintering population consisted on average of 85 individuals (range 58-121; 76% adults and 24% subadults). Individuals were counted at five different roosting sites located near farms, unauthorized carcass deposition sites and authorized carcass deposition sites. Our results show that vultures tend to remain close to the roosting site. Moreover, we observed that females exhibited smaller home range sizes than males, which suggests a possible differential use of food sources. Overall, birds relied more on farms than other available food resources, particularly subadult individuals which exploited more intensively these sites. Our results showed that Egyptian Vultures congregate in significant numbers at specific sites throughout the winter period in south-west Spain and that these roosting and feeding sites should be given some level of legal protection and regular monitoring. Furthermore, predictable food sources might be driving the apparent increase in the non-migratory population of Egyptian Vultures, as observed in other avian species which are also changing their migratory behavior.

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

4.7
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