Effect of Anthropogenic Disturbance Intensity on the Vigilance Mode of Wintering Hooded Crane (Grus monacha)
Effect of Anthropogenic Disturbance Intensity on the Vigilance Mode of Wintering Hooded Crane (Grus monacha)
Xinran Wang1,2 and Lizhi Zhou1,2*
ABSTRACT
Wetland degradation has resulted in waterbirds choosing more habitats to forage and facing increased intensity of anthropogenic disturbance. Usually feeding in a large flock could provide safety by the vigilance partners through coordinated and synchronous vigilance modes. In this paper, we aimed to shed light on behavioral strategies adaptive to anthropogenic disturbances. Vigilance behavior of wintering Grus monacha was observed to assess the effect of traffic intensity on their vigilance mode at Shengjin Lake, a Ramsar Site in China. Disturbance intensity was divided into three levels, and the influence of disturbance intensity on collective vigilance was compared by one-way analysis of variance (low disturbance: F = 1.854, P < 0.001; moderate disturbance: F = 1.854, P < 0.001; high disturbance: F = 1.637). The relationship between disturbance intensity and vigilance mode was determined by analyzing the influence of disturbance intensity on the vigilance mode of the crane group. Anthropogenic disturbance intensity had a significant influence on vigilance mode of the wintering cranes. However, there were no significant differences between low and moderate disturbance groups (coordinated vigilance, low vs. moderate: Q = 3.27, P = 0.056; synchronized vigilance, low vs. moderate: Q = 1.92, P = 0.364), probably because of the close distance between both habitats and the presence of patrol boats and photography enthusiasts. Moreover, results showed that there was a significant difference in the frequency of the synchronized vigilance wave among disturbance intensity levels (low vs. high: Q = 33.94, P < 0.001; low vs. moderate: Q = 3.557, P = 0.033730; high vs. moderate: Q = 28.24, P < 0.001). Under high anthropogenic disturbance, wintering cranes mostly adopted coordinated vigilance mode (50%, 482.28±113.12s), while under low anthropogenic disturbance intensity, they adopted both coordinated (26%, 247.56±101.14s) and synchronous vigilance (45%, 289.28±88.29s). These behavioral strategies are of great significance to anti-predation vigilance.
To share on other social networks, click on any share button. What are these?
