Abstract
AbstractWe used biological and physical responses at 71 shallow waterbodies with contrasting nutrient levels undergoing recovery from eutrophication to predict potential changes in waterbird species abundance, an important component of lake ecosystems. These general predictions were tested using 28 years of breeding waterbird data from three Danish shallow eutrophic lakes, comparing species-specific responses to improved nutrient and water transparency in two lakes with a third where conditions remained constantly suitable for breeding waterbirds. We predicted positive responses to improved water quality from pursuit diving predators (three grebe species), a specialist zooplankton feeder (northern shoveler Anas clypeata) and waterbirds feeding on (common pochard Aythya ferina) or within (tufted duck A. fuligula) submerged macrophyte underwater canopies. These species were characterised by positive waterbird community composition changes (using Principal Components Analysis) associated with decreasing nutrient loading and increasing water transparency at two lakes, with no change in breeding waterbird community at the third. Secchi depth explained 73–95% of variance in both PC axes at both restored lakes, but not at the third, suggesting water transparency was the major factor driving waterbird community composition. These examples show predicting waterbird species-specific responses to management can usefully direct the use of breeding waterbirds as indicator species.
Funder
Danish Environment Ministry
Aage V. Jensens Fonde
Biodiversa+ SPEAR
AU Centre for Water Technoogy
TÜBITAK
Poul Due Jensens Fond
Aarhus Universitet
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference43 articles.
1. Amat, J. A. & R. C. Soriguer, 1984. Kleptoparasitism of coots by gadwalls. Ornis Scandinavica 15(3): 188–194. https://doi.org/10.2307/3675962.
2. Amat, J. A. & A. J. Green, 2010. Waterbirds as bioindicators of environmental conditions. In Hurford, C., M. Schneider & I. Cowx (eds), Conservation monitoring in freshwater habitats: practical guide and case studies Springer, London: 45–52.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9278-7
3. Anderson, M. G., J. M. Rhymer & F. C. Rohwer, 1992. Philopatry, dispersal, and the genetic structure of waterfowl populations. In Batt, B. D. J., A. D. Afton, M. G. Anderson, C. D. Ankney, D. H. Johnson, J. A. Kadlec & G. L. Krapu (eds), Ecology and Management of Breeding Waterfowl University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN: 365–395.
4. Bacon, L., J. Madsen, G. H. Jensen, L. de Vries, A. Follestad, K. Koffijberg, H. Kruckenberg, M. Loonen, J. Månsson, L. Nilsson & B. Voslamber, 2019. Spatio–temporal distribution of greylag goose Anser anser resightings on the north-west/south-west European flyway: guidance for the delineation of transboundary management units. Wildlife Biology 2019:00533. https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.005332019.
5. Burger, J., 2006. Bioindicators: types, development, and use in ecological assessment and research. Environmental Bioindicators 1: 22–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/15555270590966483.