Departure, routing and landing decisions of long-distance migratory songbirds in relation to weather

Migrating birds flexibly adjust their individual migratory decisions, i.e. departing, routing and landing, based on intrinsic (e.g. energy stores) and extrinsic (e.g. landscape features and weather) factors modulating the endogenous stimuli. So far, these decisions have mostly been studied separately. Notably, we lack information on which factors landing decisions during active flight are based on. Therefore, we simultaneously recorded all three decisions in free-flying long-distance migratory songbirds in a coastal stopover area via regional-scale radio-telemetry and related them to the prevailing weather. Birds departed under favourable weather conditions resulting in specific nights with increased departure probability. Once departed, birds could either fly offshore or take a route along the coast, which was predicted by wind support. Radio-tracking revealed that departed individuals more likely interrupted their migratory endurance flight under overcast or headwind conditions. Studying departure, routing and landing decisions in concert, we highlight the importance of weather as a common driver across all migratory decisions. By radio-tracking individuals between stopovers, we provide evidence that avoidance of adverse weather conditions is an important function of stopover. Understanding how birds adjust migratory decisions and how they affect the timing of migration and survival is key to link migration performance to individual fitness.

Understanding the ecological and evolutionary function of stopover in migrating birds

Global movement patterns of migratory birds illustrate their fascinating physical and physiological abilities to cross continents and oceans. During their voyages, most birds land multiple times to make so-called 'stopovers'. Our current knowledge on the functions of stopover is mainly based on the proximate study of departure decisions. However, such studies are insufficient to gauge fully the ecological and evolutionary functions of stopover. If we study how a focal trait, e.g. changes in energy stores, affects the decision to depart from a stopover without considering the trait(s) that actually caused the bird to land, e.g. unfavourable environmental conditions for flight, we misinterpret the function of the stopover. It is thus important to realise and acknowledge that stopovers have many different functions, and that not every migrant has the same (set of) reasons to stop-over. Additionally, we may obtain contradictory results because the significance of different traits to a migrant is context dependent. For instance, late spring migrants may be more prone to risk-taking and depart from a stopover with lower energy stores than early spring migrants. Thus, we neglect that departure decisions are subject to selection to minimise immediate (mortality risk) and/or delayed (low future reproductive output) fitness costs. To alleviate these issues, we first define stopover as an interruption of migratory endurance flight to minimise immediate and/or delayed fitness costs. Second, we review all probable functions of stopover, which include accumulating energy, various forms of physiological recovery and avoiding adverse environmental conditions for flight, and list potential other functions that are less well studied, such as minimising predation, recovery from physical exhaustion and spatiotemporal adjustments to migration. Third, derived from these aspects, we argue for a paradigm shift in stopover ecology research. This includes focusing on why an individual interrupts its migratory flight, which is more likely to identify the individual-specific function(s) of the stopover correctly than departure-decision studies. Moreover, we highlight that the selective forces acting on stopover decisions are context dependent and are expected to differ between, e.g. K-/r-selected species, the sexes and migration strategies. For example, all else being equal, r-selected species (low survival rate, high reproductive rate) should have a stronger urge to continue the migratory endurance flight or resume migration from a stopover because the potential increase in immediate fitness costs suffered from a flight is offset by the expected higher reproductive success in the subsequent breeding season. Finally, we propose to focus less on proximate mechanisms controlling landing and departure decisions, and more on ultimate mechanisms to identify the selective forces shaping stopover decisions. Our ideas are not limited to birds but can be applied to any migratory species. Our revised definition of stopover and the proposed paradigm shift has the potential to stimulate a fruitful discussion towards a better evolutionary ecological understanding of the functions of stopover. Furthermore, identifying the functions of stopover will support targeted measures to conserve and restore the functionality of stopover sites threatened by anthropogenic environmental changes. This is especially important for long-distance migrants, which currently are in alarming decline.

Migrating curlews on schedule: departure and arrival patterns of a long-distance migrant depend on time and breeding location rather than on wind conditions

BACKGROUND

Departure decisions in long-distance migratory bird species may depend on favourable weather conditions and beneficial resources at the destination location, overarched by genetic triggers. However, few studies have tried to validate the significance of these three concepts simultaneously, and long-term, high-resolution tagging datasets recording individual movements across consecutive years are scarce. We used such a dataset to explore intraspecific and intra-individual variabilities in departure and arrival decisions from/to wintering grounds in relation to these three different concepts in bird migration.

METHODS

We equipped 23 curlews (Numenius arquata) wintering in the Wadden Sea with Global Positioning System data loggers to record their spatio-temporal patterns of departure from and arrival at their wintering site, and the first part of their spring migration. We obtained data for 42 migrations over 6 years, with 12 individuals performing repeat migrations in consecutive years. Day of year of departure and arrival was related to 38 meteorological and bird-related predictors using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) to identify drivers of departure and arrival decisions.

RESULTS

Curlews migrated almost exclusively to Arctic and sub-Arctic Russia for breeding. They left their wintering site mainly during the evening from mid- to late April and returned between the end of June and mid-July. There was no difference in departure times between the sexes. Weather parameters did not impact departure decisions; if departure days coincided with headwind conditions, the birds accounted for this by flying at higher altitudes of up to several kilometres. Curlews breeding further away in areas with late snowmelt departed later. Departures dates varied by only < 4 days in individual curlews tagged over consecutive years.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that the trigger for migration in this long-distance migrant is largely independent of weather conditions but is subject to resource availability in breeding areas. The high intra-individual repeatability of departure days among subsequent years and the lack of relationship to weather parameters suggest the importance of genetic triggers in prompting the start of migration. Further insights into the timing of migration in immatures and closely related birds might help to further unravel the genetic mechanisms triggering migration patterns.