Scribd
Upload
14 views

Wader Abundance Report

Abundance of three wading birds, Curlew, Oystercatcher and Redshank.

Uploaded by

Aidan Lack
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
14 views

Wader Abundance Report

Abundance of three wading birds, Curlew, Oystercatcher and Redshank.

Uploaded by

Aidan Lack
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Curlew, Oystercatcher and Redshank probing proves our probes show no difference.

Research Hypotheses

There is a difference in the number of probes between the Curlew, Redshank and Oystercatcher.

There is a relationship between the tidal height and the abundance of Oystercatcher.

Results

Figure 1 A boxplot showing the number of probes for three wading bird species, Curlew,
Oystercatcher and Redshank.

The mean number of probes for curlew was 9.46 (SD = 8.32). Oystercatcher was 11.10 (SD = 6.99).
Redshank was 20.15 (SD = 12.10) There was no significant difference between the number of probes
between Curlew, Oystercatcher and Redshank (F (2,66) = 1.519, p = 0.226)

Figure 2 a scatterplot showing the Oystercatcher Count against the Tidal Height in metres. The
regression line is in blue.

There is no significant linear relationship between the oystercatcher count and the tidal height (F
(1,21) = 1.092, p = 0.3079) (figure 2). The tidal height explained 0.4% of the oystercatcher count. The
oystercatcher count for any given height can be calculated using the formula:
oystercatcher count = 1.24 tidal height (m) - 0.04.

Discussion

The number of probes between oystercatcher and redshank was fairly like each other. The redshank
saw a higher number of probes but that still wasn’t much more than the other 2 species. There was
also a lot of variation between individuals of the same species as to the number of probes they did.
Redshanks use a method of feeding called “Burrow-probe”, they probe into a burrow until a prey is
sensed and then probe more repeatedly until the prey is seized (Stenzel et al., 1976). This might
explain why there is a large difference in the number of probes for the Curlew. Oystercatchers feed
on mussels, the probing might have been through the oystercatcher, feeding on the mussels and
either hammering into the shells or stabbing through to the mussel itself (Heppleston, 1971). The
other option is that they were feeding on worms and the success rate in catching a worm is about 1
in 12 probes (Heppleston, 1971) which backs up the mean number of probes they were doing in this
report. The probing was higher in redshank however Fitzpatrick & Bouchez, (1998) show the probing
rates of redshank in focal observations was 234 vs 232 in curlew and 281 in oystercatcher. They also
say that the only effect on probing comes from either the bird Zone for oystercatcher or human
disturbance for the Redshank. During the experiment there was little human disturbance that should
have affected the redshank probing number. Redshank also have higher foraging rates on salt-marsh
habitats as opposed to mussel beds (Cresswell, 1994). None of this backs up the high number of
probes of redshank found. They utilise different feeding strategies making it harder to compare the
probing numbers anyway.

The Optimal feeding time for oystercatchers comes during the exposure period of the mussel beds
(Daan & Koene, 1981). This means that one would expect to see greater numbers of oystercatchers
as the tide decreases as more oystercatchers come to feed. Figure 1 shows little to no change in the
numbers of oystercatchers at different tidal heights which does not back up this theory. Whilst the
number of oystercatchers seen at the site didn’t change, the number of oystercatchers that were
actively feeding might have increased because a large number of oystercatcher were spotted that
were not feeding during high tide.

References

Cresswell, W. (1994) ‘Age-dependent choice of Redshank (Tringa Totanus) feeding location: Profitability or
risk?’, The Journal of Animal Ecology, 63(3), p. 589. doi:10.2307/5225.

Daan, S. and Koene, P. (1981) ‘On the timing of foraging flights by oystercatchers, haematopus ostralegus, on
tidal mudflats’, Netherlands Journal of Sea Research, 15(1), pp. 1–22. doi:10.1016/0077-7579(81)90002-8.

Fitzpatrick, S. and Bouchez, B. (1998) ‘Effects of recreational disturbance on the foraging behaviour of waders
on a rocky beach’, Bird Study, 45(2), pp. 157–171. doi:10.1080/00063659809461088.

Heppleston, P.B. (1971) ‘Feeding techniques of the Oystercatcher’, Bird Study, 18(1), pp. 15–20.
doi:10.1080/00063657109476289.

Stenzel, L.E., Huber, H.R. and Page, G.W. (1976) ‘Feeding Behaviour and Diet of the Long-Billed Curlew and
Willet’, The Wilson Bulletin, 88(2), pp. 314–332. From https://www.jstor.org/stable/4160745?seq=1.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy