No abstract

The ecology of opportunistic foragers can be highly dependent on anthropogenic food sources, such as landfills, resulting in changes in several ecological and demographic aspects. The total closure of several landfill sites and the use of deterrence systems to prevent access to the remaining open landfill sites in a region in the northern Iberian Peninsula provided an excellent opportunity to evaluate the consequences of landfills on the trophic ecology of an opportunistic forager, the Yellow‐legged Gull Larus michahellis, using these resources. Based on stable isotope analyses, we used mixing models to estimate changes in diet before and after the closure of the majority of landfills in the breeding and the non‐breeding season. We found a decrease in the consumption of food from landfills after their closure, which was accompanied by an increase in feeding on terrestrial prey (mostly earthworms), but only in the breeding season. Interestingly, we observed no increase in marine prey consumption after the landfill closures. In winter there was a decrease in terrestrial prey consumption, whereas the consumption of marine and, despite their reduce availability, landfill resources increased. Thus, and unlike when all the landfills were open, we detected significant trophic differences between breeding and non‐breeding seasons. Additionally, we found significant trophic differences among colonies that were quite close to each other, but not between breeding adults and chicks. In conclusion, landfill closure or the use of deterrence systems had a direct impact on the trophic ecology of Yellow‐legged Gulls; loss of refuse was mainly compensated for by prey of terrestrial origin when breeding, but not in winter. Thus, this species may experience foraging constraints in winter with potential effects on other life‐history aspects including their dispersal, breeding and survival that needs further evaluation.

No abstract

Open landfills seem to be playing an increasing role as target feeding areas for several species, not only in their breeding areas or during the winter, but also during the migration period. Evaluating the extent to which landfill sites are used by migrants is crucial to understanding their role in driving stopover decisions during migration, and in the potential health risks linked to feeding on refuse. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of two open landfills located just before (France) and after (Spain) the East-Atlantic flyway enters Iberia through the western Pyrenees as potentially important stopover sites for the White Stork populations moving along this route. Overall, we detected that these sites were used by storks that had been ringed from many western European breeding populations, mainly during the migration period, but also in winter. The mean distance between the stork breeding/ringing origin and the landfill sites increased from summer to winter, suggesting that storks breeding further away pass through Iberia later in the season, reflecting population-specific timing of migration. During the autumn migration period (August-September), the first encountered landfill in France was estimated to be used by c. 1200 storks, and the other in Spain by 4000 storks. Our study hence contributes to a better understanding of the current and potentially hazardous role played by landfill sites in White Stork ecology, which is essential in order to provide management recommendations, and to evaluate the consequences of proposed open landfill closures in Europe.During long-distance migration, most birds need to stopover to refuel so they can successfully undertake subsequent flight bouts. Sometimes, migrants depend on very specific target stopover locations for that purpose, and hence these sites are crucial for the success of migration, even of entire populations (Newton 2008). This can be the case for stopover sites close to bottlenecks which concentrate high numbers of migrants. Soaring birds, including storks or raptors, largely rely on thermal updrafts for assisted flight and normally avoid large fuel accumulations, as they have a relatively small energy consumption during migration (Alerstam 1993). However, even these species still need some refuelling along their migration routes, especially when crossing hazardous geographical obstacles such as seas, mountains or deserts, which might require additional energy investment (Yosef et al.

No abstract