You are not logged in.

Manage one beach or two? Movements and space-use of the threatened hooded plover (Thinornis rubricollis) in south-eastern Australia

Weston, Michael A., Ehmke, Glenn C. and Maguire, Grainne S 2009, Manage one beach or two? Movements and space-use of the threatened hooded plover (Thinornis rubricollis) in south-eastern Australia, Wildlife research, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 289-298, doi: 10.1071/WR08084.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Title Manage one beach or two? Movements and space-use of the threatened hooded plover (Thinornis rubricollis) in south-eastern Australia
Formatted title Manage one beach or two? Movements and space-use of the threatened hooded plover (Thinornis rubricollis) in south-eastern Australia
Author(s) Weston, Michael A.ORCID iD for Weston, Michael A. orcid.org/0000-0002-8717-0410
Ehmke, Glenn C.
Maguire, Grainne S
Journal name Wildlife research
Volume number 36
Issue number 4
Start page 289
End page 298
Total pages 10
Publisher CSIRO Publishing
Place of publication Collingwood, Vic.
Publication date 2009-06
ISSN 1035-3712
1448-5494
Summary An understanding of space use and dispersal of a wildlife species is essential for effective management. We examined the movements of a beach-dwelling, threatened population of hooded plover (Thinornis rubricollis) in southern central Victoria, Australia, by analysing sightings of colour-banded birds (4897 sightings; 194 birds tracked for up to 9 years). Most movements were relatively short (5050 ± 305 m), with 61.4% <1 km and 95.3% <20 km; they lacked directional or sexual bias. The extent of coastline used by individual birds was 47.8 ± 58.0 km. Regional differences in average distances moved by adults were apparent. For adults, movement rates (mean distance per day) were higher during the non-breeding season than during the breeding season. Non-breeding adults generally remained close to their partners (non-breeding, 456.3 ± 163.9 m; breeding, 148.2 ± 45.3 m). Largest flock sizes were recorded during the non-breeding period, and flocking was not uniformly distributed along the coast but appeared to be concentrated in particular locations. The frequency of pair cohesion (i.e. when the distance between partners was zero on a given day) was similar during the breeding (69.6%) and non-breeding seasons (67.7%). Breeding territories (kernel analysis) were 36.7 ± 5.7 ha and overlapped from year to year in all cases (23 pairwise comparisons; 47.9 ± 7.1% overlap). The high fidelity and constancy of territories confirms they warrant ongoing management investment, although the species relies on a matrix of breeding and non-breeding sites. The latter appear to occur in specific parts of the coast and warrant enhanced protection and more research attention. Fragmentation of the breeding population might occur where habitat is rendered unsuitable for > ~50 km.
Language eng
DOI 10.1071/WR08084
Field of Research 060201 Behavioural Ecology
Socio Economic Objective 960902 Coastal and Estuarine Land Management
HERDC Research category C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
ERA Research output type C Journal article
HERDC collection year 2009
Copyright notice ©2009, CSIRO
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30022596

Connect to link resolver
 
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 9 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 13 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 534 Abstract Views, 3 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Tue, 19 Jan 2010, 13:54:00 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.