Do variations in scanning behavior affect tolerance to human disturbance?

被引:55
作者
Fernández-Juricic, E
Schroeder, N
机构
[1] Univ Minnesota, Dept Ecol Evolut & Behav, St Paul, MN 55108 USA
[2] Univ Nacl Cordoba, Fac Ciencias Exactas Fis & Nat, Museo Zool, RA-5000 Cordoba, Argentina
关键词
birds; buffer areas; social foraging; tourism; vigilance; wildlife;
D O I
10.1016/j.applanim.2003.08.004
中图分类号
S8 [畜牧、 动物医学、狩猎、蚕、蜂];
学科分类号
0905 ;
摘要
Tolerance to human disturbance can be estimated as the distance at which animals become noticeably alert to humans. Although this alert distance has been studied before, no consideration has been devoted to the relationship between vigilance behavior and the probabilities of detecting pedestrians. Our goal was to test whether and how differences in scanning behavior of two model species (spot-winged pigeon and eared dove) would affect the predicted and observed probabilities of detection of pedestrian approaches in two conditions: individuals foraging alone and in flocks. Overall, we found differences between species and between foraging conditions, but no interaction effects. Spot-winged pigeons and individuals foraging alone spent more time scanning, with longer scanning bout duration, than eared doves and individuals foraging in groups, respectively. Spot-winged pigeons showed greater alert distances (observed detection probabilities) than eared doves, and so did solitary individuals as compared to individuals foraging in groups. Greater scanning time may have increased predicted and observed detection probabilities of spot-winged pigeons. Expected probabilities of detection of pedestrian approaches were higher for group than for solitary foraging conditions, contrary to observed alert distances, probably due to a lack of collective detection in flocks. Our results suggest that vigilance behavior can affect the distance at which birds detect human disturbance and the estimation of tolerance. This behavioral effect could have implications in management scenarios (e.g. determining buffer areas), as similar levels of human visitation to protected areas may exert different effects according to the probabilities of detecting visitors within the detection windows of different species. (C) 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:219 / 234
页数:16
相关论文
共 59 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], AVIAN CONSERVATION C
[2]  
Anthony Robert G., 1995, P223
[3]   EVOLUTION OF BIRD COLORATION [J].
BAKER, RR ;
PARKER, GA .
PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, 1979, 287 (1018) :63-130
[4]   Little evidence for visual monitoring of vigilance in zebra finches [J].
Beauchamp, G .
CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY-REVUE CANADIENNE DE ZOOLOGIE, 2002, 80 (09) :1634-1637
[5]   Randomness, chaos and confusion in the study of antipredator vigilance [J].
Bednekoff, PA ;
Lima, SL .
TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION, 1998, 13 (07) :284-287
[6]  
Blumstein D. T., 2000, JWATCHER 0 9
[7]   Testing a key assumption of wildlife buffer zones: is flight initiation distance a species-specific trait? [J].
Blumstein, DT ;
Anthony, LL ;
Harcourt, R ;
Ross, G .
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 2003, 110 (01) :97-100
[8]   The scaling of eye size with body mass in birds [J].
Brooke, MD ;
Hanley, S ;
Laughlin, SB .
PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, 1999, 266 (1417) :405-412
[9]   HUMAN DISTANCE AND BIRDS - TOLERANCE AND RESPONSE DISTANCES OF RESIDENT AND MIGRANT SPECIES IN INDIA [J].
BURGER, J ;
GOCHFELD, M .
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, 1991, 18 (02) :158-165
[10]  
Camp RJ, 1997, WILDLIFE SOC B, V25, P612