Spatio-temporal patterns of crop damage caused by geese, swans and cranes—Implications for crop damage prevention

Montràs-Janer, Teresa; Knape, Jonas; Stoessel, Marianne; Nilsson, Lovisa; Tombre, Ingunn; Pärt, Tomas; Månsson, Johan

doi:10.1016/j.agee.2020.107001

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second after the diversionary field, the probability of goose presence was highest on ley and barley, followed by rye and triticale, beans and peas, and wheat. This is in line with previous research on field occupancy during the growing season and corresponding reported crop damage (Montràs‐Janer et al., 2020; Strong et al., 2021; Teräväinen et al., 2022). Our study was, however, limited to the growing season and to one diversionary field, consequently we could not analyse additional factors known to influence the use and selection of the landscape and consequent variation in damage risk to arable land (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…This suggests that ley and barley are the crops highest at risk when the diversionary field does not fulfil the daily resource needs for common cranes. Our findings about selection of these crops align with previous research on common cranes foraging on waste grains of barley, wheat and potatoes in autumn (Montràs‐Janer et al., 2020; Nilsson et al., 2016). Second after the diversionary field, the probability of goose presence was highest on ley and barley, followed by rye and triticale, beans and peas, and wheat.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Selection of a diversionary field and other habitats by large grazing birds in a landscape managed for agriculture and wetland biodiversity

Nilsson,

Månsson,

Elmberg

et al. 2024

Ecol Sol and Evidence

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several populations of cranes, geese, and swans are thriving and increasing in modern agricultural landscapes. Abundant populations are causing conservation conflicts, as they may affect agricultural production and biodiversity negatively. Management strategies involving provisioning of attractive diversionary fields where birds are tolerated can be used to reduce negative impact to growing crops. To improve such strategies, knowledge of how the birds interact with the landscape and respond to current management interventions is key. We used GPS locations from tagged common cranes (Grus grus) and greylag geese (Anser anser) to assess how they use and select differentially managed habitats, such as diversionary fields to decrease impact on agriculture and wetlands protected for biodiversity conservation. Our findings show a high probability of presence of common cranes and greylag geese in the protected area and in the diversionary field, but also on arable fields, potentially causing negative impact on agricultural production and wetland biodiversity. We outline recommendations for how to improve the practice of diversionary fields and complementary management to reduce risk of negative impact of large grazing birds in landscapes tailored for both conservation and conventional agriculture.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Selection of a diversionary field and other habitats by large grazing birds in a landscape managed for agriculture and wetland biodiversity

Nilsson,

Månsson,

Elmberg

et al. 2024

Ecol Sol and Evidence

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Individuals may easily find refuge from disturbances within nearby fields (Jensen et al 2008, Nilsson et al 2018), or quickly habituate to mitigation measures (Simonsen et al 2016). Given the extent of the space used by magpie geese, optimal management could therefore be achieved through coordination at the local (~1,000 ha) or regional (~100,000 ha) scales, based on knowledge of the species' space use and intersecting land uses, as suggested for species in other parts of the world (Nilsson et al 2018, Montràs‐Janer et al 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seasonal space use and habitat selection in magpie geese: implications for reducing human‐wildlife conflicts

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Negative interactions between waterbirds and people are increasing. Waterbirds feeding on agricultural crops cause significant losses to farmers worldwide, but so far most research to address these conflicts has been conducted on migratory species in the temperate northern hemisphere. We investigated the space use and habitat selection of the magpie goose (Anseranas semipalmata), a taxonomically distinct waterbird endemic to Australia and southern Papua New Guinea. In tropical northern Australia, magpie geese are protected but are increasingly persecuted by farmers to protect crops during the late dry–early wet season (~Sep–Jan), a bottleneck of natural resources for waterbirds in the monsoonal tropics. Using satellite telemetry of 38 geese spread across 3 seasons (2016–2017, 2017–2018, 2018–2019), we evaluated daily and seasonal space use, individual site fidelity, and habitat selection to determine the extent of use of agricultural fields by geese, and the spatiotemporal scales at which management should be undertaken. Geese used relatively small daily areas (x̄ = 8.2 km2) consistently throughout the late dry–early wet season, and repeatedly used agricultural fields, forested bushlands, and local wetlands. Geese used comparatively large seasonal areas (x̄ = 219.5 km2) encompassing several agricultural areas, and had a low mean overlap between successive weekly core activity areas, indicating that site fidelity rapidly weakened over time. These results suggest that farm‐scale (<30 ha) management of geese is unlikely to be effective because hazed individuals are likely to be replaced soon afterwards. Instead, our findings suggest that goose management should be coordinated strategically at the local (~1,000 ha), or regional (~100,000 ha) scale. Farm‐level management would likely be more effective if implemented in conjunction with the creation of regional sanctuaries where geese could rest and potentially feed undisturbed away from farms. Our findings can be used by wildlife managers for optimizing the location of such sanctuaries and highlight the necessity for management to be adaptive given the opportunistic nature of the species.

show abstract

“…These management practices aim to influence the number of large grazing birds in an area, yet it remains unclear to what extent changes in abundance result in changes in yield loss, and therefore whether management is justified. While frequently studied for a variety of species, we still lack a basic understanding of the relationship between agricultural damage and herbivore abundance, which is complicated by external factors influencing both agricultural yields and wildlife distribution and behaviour (Bleier et al, 2012; Fox et al, 2017; Gill, 1992; Hofman‐Kaminska & Kowalczyk, 2012; Lombardini et al, 2017; Merkens et al, 2012; Montràs‐Janer et al, 2020; Naughton‐Treves, 2008; Schley et al, 2008). A number of studies have found indications that this relationship may be nonlinear (Gill, 1992; Hörnberg, 2001; Montràs‐Janer et al, 2019; Watve et al, 2016), which has important consequences for management of farmer–herbivore conflicts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

More grazing, more damage? Assessed yield loss on agricultural grassland relates nonlinearly to goose grazing pressure

Buitendijk

Jager

Hornman

et al. 2022

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent decades, conflict between geese and agriculture has increased. Management practices to limit this conflict include concentrating geese in protected areas, derogation shooting or population reduction. To justify such management, we need to understand their effects on goose‐related damages, which requires an understanding of how yield loss is influenced by goose abundance and species interactions. We combined data from monthly goose counts and GPS‐tracked geese to estimate grazing pressures by barnacle, white‐fronted and greylag geese on agricultural grassland in Fryslân, the Netherlands. Using linear mixed models, we related this to damages assessed by professional inspectors. Our results show a positive nonlinear relationship between yield loss and barnacle goose grazing pressure, where assessed damage increases with a decelerating rate as grazing pressure increases. For white‐fronted geese, we find a negative relationship, while for greylag geese both positive and negative relationships occur. For each species, the relationship is influenced by the abundance of the other two. For barnacle geese, the relationship can be explained by selection of fields offering the best balance between food intake and energy expenditure, and by grass regrowth, with highest grazing pressures occurring over a longer time period. The results for the other species are likely due to spatial and temporal differences in foraging preferences compared to barnacle geese, where larger species avoid areas with highest damages. Synthesis and applications. Our results suggest that decreasing herbivore abundance may not translate directly to decreased yield loss, and management tools such as population reduction or derogation shooting should be used with care. Management aimed at concentrating geese in refuges could help to alleviate farmer–goose conflict, although further studies are required to determine if it would lead to damage reduction. We also find that not all species contribute equally to agricultural damage; care should be taken to ensure wildlife management targets the right species.

show abstract

Spatio-temporal patterns of crop damage caused by geese, swans and cranes—Implications for crop damage prevention

Cited by 10 publications

References 29 publications

Selection of a diversionary field and other habitats by large grazing birds in a landscape managed for agriculture and wetland biodiversity

Selection of a diversionary field and other habitats by large grazing birds in a landscape managed for agriculture and wetland biodiversity

Seasonal space use and habitat selection in magpie geese: implications for reducing human‐wildlife conflicts

More grazing, more damage? Assessed yield loss on agricultural grassland relates nonlinearly to goose grazing pressure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About