Exploiting the richest patch has a fitness pay-off for the migratory swift parrot

Beyond Migration: Causes and Consequences of Nomadic Animal Movements

Recent advances in animal tracking reveal that many species display irregular movements that do not fall into classical categories of movement patterns such as range residency or migration. Here, we develop a unifying framework that distinguishes these nomadic movements based on their patterns, drivers, and mechanisms. Though they occur in diverse taxa and geographic regions, nomadic movements are united by both their underlying environmental drivers, mainly environmental stochasticity, and the resulting irregular, far-ranging movement patterns. The framework further classifies types of nomadic movements, including full, seasonal, phase, irruptive, and partial nomadism. Nomadic movements can have unique effects on populations, communities, and ecosystems, most notably providing intermittent disturbances and novel introductions of propagules.

Understanding variation in migratory movements: A mechanistic approach

Spatial and temporal fluctuations in resource availability have led to the evolution of varied migration patterns. In order to appropriately time movements in relation to resources, environmental cues are used to provide proximate information for timing and the endocrine system serves to integrate these external cues and behavioral and physiological responses. Yet, the regulatory mechanisms underlying migratory timing have rarely been compared across a broad range of migratory patterns. First, we offer an updated nomenclature of migration using a mechanistic perspective to clarify terminology describing migratory types in relation to ecology, behavior and endocrinology. We divide migratory patterns into three types: obligate, nomadic, and fugitive. Obligate migration is characterized by regular and directed annual movements between locations, most commonly for breeding and overwintering, where resources are predictable and sufficient. Nomadic migrations occur less predictably than do obligate migrations as animals make use of potentially rich but ephemeral resources that occur unpredictably in space or time. Fugitive migrations move animals away from an area in response to severe disruption of environmental conditions and occur as part of an emergency life history stage. We also consider partially migratory populations, which include a mix of sedentary and migratory individuals; the movement patterns of partial migrants are expected to fall into one of the three types above. For these various forms of migration, we review our understanding of the environmental cues and endocrine mechanisms that underlie the expression of a migratory state. Several common hormonal mechanisms exist across the varied migratory forms, but there are also important areas where further investigations are needed in order to gain broad insight into the origin of movements and the diversity of migratory patterns. We propose that taking a comparative approach across the migratory types that considers endocrine mechanisms will advance a new understanding of migration biology.

When and where to move: Dynamic occupancy models explain the range dynamics of a food nomadic bird under climate and land cover change

Globally, long-term research is critical to monitor the responses of tropical species to climate and land cover change at the range scale. Citizen science surveys can reveal the long-term persistence of poorly known nomadic tropical birds occupying fragmented forest patches. We applied dynamic occupancy models to 13 years (2002-2014) of citizen science-driven presence/absence data on Cape parrot (Poicephalus robustus), a food nomadic bird endemic to South Africa. We modeled its underlying range dynamics as a function of resource distribution, and change in climate and land cover through the estimation of colonization and extinction patterns. The range occupancy of Cape parrot changed little over time (ψ = 0.75-0.83) because extinction was balanced by recolonization. Yet, there was considerable regional variability in occupancy and detection probability increased over the years. Colonizations increased with warmer temperature and area of orchards, thus explaining their range shifts southeastwards in recent years. Although colonizations were higher in the presence of nests and yellowwood trees (Afrocarpus and Podocarpus spp.), the extinctions in small forest patches (≤227 ha) and during low precipitation (≤41 mm) are attributed to resource constraints and unsuitable climatic conditions. Loss of indigenous forest cover and artificial lake/water bodies increased extinction probabilities of Cape parrot. The land use matrix (fruit farms, gardens, and cultivations) surrounding forest patches provides alternative food sources, thereby facilitating spatiotemporal colonization and extinction in the human-modified matrix. Our models show that Cape parrots are vulnerable to extreme climatic conditions such as drought which is predicted to increase under climate change. Therefore, management of optimum sized high-quality forest patches is essential for long-term survival of Cape parrot populations. Our novel application of dynamic occupancy models to long-term citizen science monitoring data unfolds the complex relationships between the environmental dynamics and range fluctuations of this food nomadic species.

The importance of incorporating functional habitats into conservation planning for highly mobile species in dynamic systems

The distribution of mobile species in dynamic systems can vary greatly over time and space. Estimating their population size and geographic range can be problematic and affect the accuracy of conservation assessments. Scarce data on mobile species and the resources they need can also limit the type of analytical approaches available to derive such estimates. We quantified change in availability and use of key ecological resources required for breeding for a critically endangered nomadic habitat specialist, the Swift Parrot (Lathamus discolor). We compared estimates of occupied habitat derived from dynamic presence-background (i.e., presence-only data) climatic models with estimates derived from dynamic occupancy models that included a direct measure of food availability. We then compared estimates that incorporate fine-resolution spatial data on the availability of key ecological resources (i.e., functional habitats) with more common approaches that focus on broader climatic suitability or vegetation cover (due to the absence of fine-resolution data). The occupancy models produced significantly (P < 0.001) smaller (up to an order of magnitude) and more spatially discrete estimates of the total occupied area than climate-based models. The spatial location and extent of the total area occupied with the occupancy models was highly variable between years (131 and 1498 km² ). Estimates accounting for the area of functional habitats were significantly smaller (2-58% [SD 16]) than estimates based only on the total area occupied. An increase or decrease in the area of one functional habitat (foraging or nesting) did not necessarily correspond to an increase or decrease in the other. Thus, an increase in the extent of occupied area may not equate to improved habitat quality or function. We argue these patterns are typical for mobile resource specialists but often go unnoticed because of limited data over relevant spatial and temporal scales and lack of spatial data on the availability of key resources. Understanding changes in the relative availability of functional habitats is crucial to informing conservation planning and accurately assessing extinction risk for mobile resource specialists.