Releases of Asian houbara must respect genetic and geographic origin to preserve inherited migration behaviour: evidence from a translocation experiment

Abstract

Maintaining appropriate migratory strategies is important in conservation; however, translocations of migratory animals may alter locally evolved migration behaviours of recipient populations if these are different and heritable. We used satellite telemetry and experimental translocation to quantify differences and assess heritability in migration behaviours between three migratory Asian houbara ( Chlamydotis macqueenii ) breeding populations (640 km range across eastern, central and western Uzbekistan). Adults from the eastern population migrated twice as far (mean = 1184 km ± 44 s.e.) as the western population (656 km ± 183 s.e.) and showed significantly less variation in migration distance than the central population (1030 km ± 127 s.e.). The western and central populations wintered significantly further north (mean: +8.32° N ± 1.70 s.e. and +4.19° N ± 1.16 s.e., respectively) and the central population further west (−3.47° E ± 1.46 s.e.) than individuals from the eastern population. These differences could arise from a differing innate drive, or through learnt facultative responses to topography, filtered by survival. Translocated birds from the eastern population (wild-laid and captive-reared, n = 5) migrated further than adults from either western or central recipient populations, particularly in their second migration year. Translocated birds continued migrating south past suitable wintering grounds used by the recipient populations despite having to negotiate mountain obstacles. Together, this suggests a considerable conserved heritable migratory component with local adaptation at a fine geographic scale. Surviving translocated individuals returned to their release site, suggesting that continued translocations would lead to introgression of the heritable component and risk altering recipient migration patterns. Conservation biologists considering translocation interventions for migratory populations should evaluate potential genetic components of migratory behaviour.

Birds use individually consistent temperature cues to time their migration departure

“…However, understanding how individual reaction thresholds are established, as well as the contribution of genetics, environment, and learning, requires further investigation. Genetics can contribute to migration distance (wintering latitude) in this species ( 30 ) and others ( 31 ), raising the possibility that wintering latitude and the individual’s temperature cue threshold may be genetically linked. However, early life experiences may also shape an individual’s phenotypic responses to temperature cues, given the geographic spread and potential uncertainties in the locations of wintering sites available to naïve juveniles on their first migration ( 32 ).…”

“…1 ). Individuals show high interannual fidelity to both wintering and breeding sites ( 30 ), and their migration behavior includes a potentially large genetic component ( 30 , 32 ).…”

“…The sample comprised 18 adult males from three areas in Uzbekistan, namely the Ustyurt plateau (three males), Aral Kum (six males), and Bukhara region (nine males) ( Fig. 1 ), and 30 adult females from Bukhara only [owing to difficulties tracking and locating nests elsewhere ( 30 )]. Each was fitted with a backpack harness–mounted satellite transmitter (Microwave Telemetry Argos/global positioning system [GPS] Platform Transmitter Terminal [PTT]-100, either 30 [both sexes] or 45 g [males only] models) that recorded 5 to 12 GPS fixes per day.…”

The effects of powerlines on bustards: how best to mitigate, how best to monitor?

“…Nevertheless, the best ways to prevent collision events and displacement/barrier effects are either through underground cabling (see 'Line undergrounding' below) or by routing the line far away both from high-quality bustard habitats (Silva et al 2010, Lóránt and Vadász 2014, 2021 and from bustard migratory routes and stopover sites (Raab et al 2011, Palacín et al 2017, Alonso et al 2020. Avoiding migration areas is, however, a challenge for long-distance migrant bustard populations, because they show inter-individual and inter-annual variation in their migratory routes, stopovers and wintering sites (Combreau et al 2011, Kessler et al 2013, Burnside et al 2020. It may also be a challenge when species (e.g.…”

Toward a new framework for restoring lost wildlife migrations

“…Biologically, the success of population reestablishment in a target area hinges primarily on mechanisms of movement that are often genetically controlled. For example, some species will readily migrate to and from a release site (e.g., Asian houbara bustard [ Chlamydotis macqueenii ], Burnside et al., 2020), whereas others appear genetically predisposed to return to their birth site or other nontarget area (e.g., cuckoos [ Cuculus canorus ], Thorup et al., 2020). Genetics may also determine whether an individual will migrate at all, though the immediate trigger of movement typically consists of complex interactions between internal and external mechanisms (Kendall et al., 2015), and some genotypes considered migratory or nonmigratory may in fact display the opposite behavior (Kelson et al., 2019).…”