2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.actao.2016.07.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Niche dynamics of shorebirds in Delaware Bay: Foraging behavior, habitat choice and migration timing

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
19
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 55 publications
0
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, these species did not differ in foraging preferences between bare mud and G. vermiculophylla patches at the smallest spatial scale (<1 m 2 ), although preference for G. vermiculophylla patches was statistically marginal for dunlin. These are larger shorebirds, with long beaks used for tactile foraging, that often probe deep into the substrate to capture infaunal prey, though willets and dunlin also use visual detection (Stenzel et al 1976, Rojas et al 1999, Castillo-Guerrero et al 2009, Novcic 2016. Given that these shorebirds forage below the sediment surface, the presence of G. vermiculophylla may not hinder prey detection, leading to their observed largely random foraging across patch types.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, these species did not differ in foraging preferences between bare mud and G. vermiculophylla patches at the smallest spatial scale (<1 m 2 ), although preference for G. vermiculophylla patches was statistically marginal for dunlin. These are larger shorebirds, with long beaks used for tactile foraging, that often probe deep into the substrate to capture infaunal prey, though willets and dunlin also use visual detection (Stenzel et al 1976, Rojas et al 1999, Castillo-Guerrero et al 2009, Novcic 2016. Given that these shorebirds forage below the sediment surface, the presence of G. vermiculophylla may not hinder prey detection, leading to their observed largely random foraging across patch types.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Notably, the third peep species, least sandpipers, strongly preferred foraging in G. vermiculophylla patches at the small scale – a pattern distinct from the other peeps species. Indeed, least sandpipers are known to utilize heavily vegetated microhabitats for foraging (Novcic ) and feed primarily on amphipods (Nebel and Cooper ). Thus, peeps and semipalmated plovers provide notable examples of how species identity (particularly morphology, behavior, and ecological niche) can alter the overall response of a community to an invasive ecosystem engineer.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition to inter-individual measurements, we also considered several other independent variables that could potentially have an impact on foraging: time of year (early vs. late; the median passage date of semipalmated sandpipers through the bay was May 22 (Novcic 2016), which was taken as a dividing point); recording location; recording time of day; temperature (the temperature was obtained from the NOAA website, the station was less than 10 km away from all three locations); the occurrence of wind and direct sunshine (there were no rainy days during the study period); position of the focal bird (edge vs. centre of the flock); distance to cover (a distance to the nearest wooded area).…”
Section: Statistical Analysesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Resource use partitioning has been reported for several taxa, including, mammals [6,14], birds [1516]), reptiles and amphibians [17–18] fishes [19], and invertebrates [20]. These studies showed that several mechanisms, such as differences in phenology or specific habitat selection, led to a decrease in competition, allowing the species to coexist.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%