Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T05:46:53.894Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Human Distance and Birds: Tolerance and Response Distances of Resident and Migrant Species in India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

Joanna Burger  and
Michael Gochfeld
Joanna Burger
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey 08855, USA
Michael Gochfeld
Affiliation:
Professor of Environmental and Community Medicine, UMDNJ – Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, New Jersey 08854, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this report we describe a method of examining the tolerance of birds to humans, namely by measuring the distance to which birds will allow a person to approach them before flying off (flush distance). We studied the tolerance of Indian birds to approaching people by recording the flush distance for 925 individuals of 138 species of residents (birds breeding in India) and migrants (birds that are not known to breed in India). Over 20% of the variance in flush distance was accounted for by the number of people situated within 50 m, the distance to the closest person, the bird's migratory status, the number of people approaching, the time of day, and the bird's total body-length (including tail).

For migratory species, 43% of the variability in flush distance was accounted for by distance to the closest other person, time of day, number of people originally within 50 m, number of people approaching, flock size, and species size. For resident species, only 18% of the variance was accounted for by distance to the closest other person, number of people within 50 m, and number of people approaching. Migrants were thus more responsive to the effect of humans, and their response was also influenced by their own size (body length) and flock size. Migratory species were less tolerant of people, flushing sooner than residents, and being more sensitive to the number of approaching people.

We suggest that resident birds in North India have become habituated to the non-violent protective behaviour of the Hindu people towards birds, whereas migrants from farther north are more wary. Alternatively migrants, being less familiar than residents with the local predators and hiding places, may be more wary than residents on their home territory. Enhanced wariness results in more time spent alert or fleeing, with resultant greater energy-demand and decreased time for feeding.

Type
Main Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , Summer 1991 , pp. 158 - 165
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramson, M. (1979). Vigilance as a factor influencing flock formation among Curlews (Numenius arquata). Ibis, 121, pp. 213–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ali, S. & Ripley, S.D. (1983). Handbook of the Birds of India and Pakistan (compact edn). Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, UK: xxxviii + 737 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Anderson, D.W. & Keith, J.O. (1980). The human influence on seabird nesting success: Conservation implications. Biol. Conserv., 18, pp. 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnard, C.J. (1980). Flock feeding and time budgets in the House Sparrow (Passer domesticus L.). Anim. Behav., 28, pp. 295–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burger, J. (1981). The effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biol. Conserv., 21, pp. 231–41, map.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burger, J. (1986). The effect of human activity on shore birds in two coastal bays in Northeastern United States. Environmental Conservation, 13(2), pp. 123–30, 11 figs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burger, J. & Galli, J. (1987). Factors affecting distribution of gulls (Larus spp.) on two New Jersey coastal bays. Environmental Conservation, 14(1), pp. 59–65, 8 figs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burger, J. & Gochfeld, M. (1981). Discrimination of the threat of direct versus tangential approach to the nest by incubating Herring and Great Black-backed Gulls. J. of Comp. Physiol. and Psychol., 95, pp. 676–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burger, J. & Gochfeld, M. (1983). Behavioural responses to human intruders of Herring Gulls (Larus argentatus) and Great Black-backed Gulls (L. marinus) with varying exposure to human disturbance. Behavioural Processes, 8, pp. 327–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caraco, T., Martindale, S. & Pulliam, H.R. (1980). Avian flocking in the presence of a predator. Nature (London), 285, pp. 400–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conover, M.R. & Miller, D.E. (1979). Reaction of Ring-billed Gulls to predators and human disturbance at their breeding colonies. Proc. 1978 Conf. Colonial Waterbird Group, 2, pp. 41–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunnet, G.M. (1977). Observations on the effects of low-flying aircraft at seabird colonies on the coast of Aberdeenshire, Scotland. Biol. Cons., 12, pp. 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elgar, M.A. & Catterall, C.P. (1982). Flock size and feeding efficiency in House Sparrows. Emu, 82, pp. 109–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellison, L.N. & Cleary, L. (1978). Effects of human disturbance on breeding of Double-crested Cormorants. Auk, 95, pp. 510–7.Google Scholar
Hand, J.L. (1980). Human disturbance in Western Gull (Larus occidentalis livens) colonies and possible amplification by intraspecific predation. Biol. Cons., 18, pp. 59–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, A. & Lendrem, D.W. (1984). Vigilance and scanning patterns in birds. Anim. Behav., 32, pp. 1216–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R.A. (1938). Predation of gulls in murre colonies. Wilson Bull., 50, pp. 161–70.Google Scholar
Knight, R.L. (1984). Responses of nesting ravens to people in areas of different human densities. Condor, 86, pp. 345–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, R.L. & Fitzner, R.E. (1985). Human disturbance and nestsite placement in Black-billed Magpies. J. Field Ornithol., 56, pp. 153–7.Google Scholar
Korschgen, C.E., George, L.S. & Green, W.L. (1985). Disturbance of diving ducks by boaters on a migrational staging area. Wildl. Soc. Bull., 13, pp. 290–6.Google Scholar
Krebs, J.R. (1980). Flocking and feeding in the Great Tit: a reply to Baker. Am. Nat., 112, pp. 147–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kury, C.R. & Gochfeld, M. (1975). Human interference and gull predation in cormorant colonies. Biol. Cons., 8, pp. 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarus, J. (1979). The early-warning function of flocking birds: an experimental study with captive Quelea. Anim. Behav., 27, pp. 855–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metcalfe, N.B. (1984). The effects of mixed-species flocking on the vigilance of shorebirds: who do they trust? Anim. Behav., 32, pp. 986–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrinovich, L. (1973). A species-meaningful analysis of habituation. Pp. 141–62 in Habituation Volume I (Eds Peeke, H.V.S. & Herz, M.J.). Academic Press, New York, NY, USA: x + 290 pp., illustr.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrinovich, L. & Patterson, T.L. (1982). Field studies of Habituation, V: Evidence for a two-factor dual-process system. J. Comp. Physiol. Psycho., 96, pp. 284–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, G.V.N. (1974). Experimental analysis of the social value of flocking by Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) in relation to predation and foraging. Anim. Behav., 22, pp. 501–5, illustr.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert, H.C. & Ralph, C.J. (1975). Effects of human disturbance on the breeding success of gulls. Condor, 77, pp. 490–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS (1985). SAS Manual: Statistics. Statistical Analysis System Institute, Carey, North Carolina, USA; xxii + 921 pp.Google Scholar
Safina, C. & Burger, J. (1983). Effects of human disturbance on reproductive success in the Black Skimmer. Condor, 85, pp. 164–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, S. (1956). Non-parametric Statistics. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA: ix +312 pp.Google Scholar