CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 218Avian ecology and behaviorWildlife Ecology and ConservationAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Are white storks addicted to junk food? Impacts of landfill use on the movement and behaviour of resident white storks (Ciconia ciconia) from a partially migratory population

Open access
Gilbert, Nathalie I., Correia, Ricardo A., Silva, João Paulo, Pacheco, Carlos, Catry, Inês, Atkinson, Philip W., Gill, Jenny A., Franco, Aldina M. A.·2016·Movement Ecology
DOI 10.1186/s40462-016-0070-0PMC PMC4791752
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The migratory patterns of animals are changing in response to global environmental change with many species forming resident populations in areas where they were once migratory. The white stork (Ciconia ciconia) was wholly migratory in Europe but recently guaranteed, year-round food from landfill sites has facilitated the establishment of resident populations in Iberia. In this study 17 resident white storks were fitted with GPS/GSM data loggers (including accelerometer) and tracked for 9.1 ± 3.7 months to quantify the extent and consistency of landfill attendance by individuals during the non-breeding and breeding seasons and to assess the influence of landfill use on daily distances travelled, percentage of GPS fixes spent foraging and non-landfill foraging ranges. RESULTS: Resident white storks used landfill more during non-breeding (20.1 % ± 2.3 of foraging GPS fixes) than during breeding (14.9 % ± 2.2). Landfill attendance declined with increasing distance between nest and landfill in both seasons. During non-breeding a large percentage of GPS fixes occurred on the nest throughout the day (27 % ± 3.0 of fixes) in the majority of tagged storks. This study provides first confirmation of year-round nest use by resident white storks. The percentage of GPS fixes on the nest was not influenced by the distance between nest and the landfill site. Storks travelled up to 48.2 km to visit landfills during non-breeding and a maximum of 28.1 km during breeding, notably further than previous estimates. Storks nesting close to landfill sites used landfill more and had smaller foraging ranges in non-landfill habitat indicating higher reliance on landfill. The majority of non-landfill foraging occurred around the nest and long distance trips were made specifically to visit landfill. CONCLUSIONS: The continuous availability of food resources on landfill has facilitated year-round nest use in white storks and is influencing their home ranges and movement behaviour. White storks rely on landfill sites for foraging especially during the non-breeding season when other food resources are scarcer and this artificial food supplementation probably facilitated the establishment of resident populations. The closure of landfills, as required by EU Landfill Directives, will likely cause dramatic impacts on white stork populations.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s40462-016-0070-0

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 White stork behaviours identified using the accelerometer data: a inactive (standing), b flight, c foraging, d tending eggs. The three axes and speed are represented, X axis- surge (black line), y axis -sway (dashed line), z axis -heave (dotted line) and speed (line with circles)
Fig. 1 White stork behaviours identified using the accelerometer data: a inactive (standing), b flight, c foraging, d tending eggs. The three axes and speed are represented, X axis- surge (black line), y axis -sway (dashed line), z axis -heave (dotted line) and speed (line with circles)CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 White stork habitat and nest use during the non-breeding (filled bars) and breeding (open bars) seasons. a Seasonal differences in percentage of total GPS fixes (±SE, excluding flight) registered in non-landfill habitat (t(16) = 1.465, p = 0.162), landfill sites (t(16) = 2.63, p = 0.018), and on the nest (t(16) = −4.36, p = 0.001). b Frequency of GPS fixes occurring on the nest during each of the 5 daily data bursts as a percentage (±SE) of all transmissions within 20 m of the nest. Asterisks indicate statistically significant differences
Fig. 2 White stork habitat and nest use during the non-breeding (filled bars) and breeding (open bars) seasons. a Seasonal differences in percentage of total GPS fixes (±SE, excluding flight) registered in non-landfill habitat (t(16) = 1.465, p = 0.162), landfill sites (t(16) = 2.63, p = 0.018), and on the nest (t(16) = −4.36, p = 0.001). b Frequency of GPS fixes occurring on the nest during each of the 5 daily data bursts as a percentage (±SE) of all transmissions within 20 m of the nest. Asterisks indicate statistically significant differencesCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Frequency of GPS fixes away from the nest (excluding flight) occurring on landfill sites in the breeding and non-breeding seasons for 17 white storks. Dashed lines are the 10 % intervals around the line that represents equal use of landfill in both the non-breeding and breeding seasons. 6 birds use landfill less in the breeding season (points above dashed line), 9 individuals use landfill equally in both seasons (points inside dashed lines), and 2 birds use landfill more in the breeding season (points below dashed lines)
Fig. 3 Frequency of GPS fixes away from the nest (excluding flight) occurring on landfill sites in the breeding and non-breeding seasons for 17 white storks. Dashed lines are the 10 % intervals around the line that represents equal use of landfill in both the non-breeding and breeding seasons. 6 birds use landfill less in the breeding season (points above dashed line), 9 individuals use landfill equally in both seasons (points inside dashed lines), and 2 birds use landfill more in the breeding season (points below dashed lines)CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 Percentage of GPS fixes on landfill (excluding fixes in flight and within 20 m of the nest) in relation to distance from nest to the landfill site during a non-breeding and b breeding seasons. Total daily distance moved (derived from all available fixes, including flight and nest) in relation to distance between the nest and the landfill site during c non-breeding and b the breeding season. One individual was considered an outlier (unfilled square) and was excluded from the linear regressions, see results section
Fig. 4 Percentage of GPS fixes on landfill (excluding fixes in flight and within 20 m of the nest) in relation to distance from nest to the landfill site during a non-breeding and b breeding seasons. Total daily distance moved (derived from all available fixes, including flight and nest) in relation to distance between the nest and the landfill site during c non-breeding and b the breeding season. One individual was considered an outlier (unfilled square) and was excluded from the linear regressions, see results sectionCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 5 Percentage of foraging behaviour (defined from all GPS fixes) in relation to distance from nest to landfill during the a non-breeding and b breeding seasons. One individual (triangle) had an exceptionally high percentage of foraging behaviour GPS fixes during both the non-breeding and breeding seasons and was excluded from the linear regressions presented in this figure. Analysis including this individual showed no significant relationship
Fig. 5 Percentage of foraging behaviour (defined from all GPS fixes) in relation to distance from nest to landfill during the a non-breeding and b breeding seasons. One individual (triangle) had an exceptionally high percentage of foraging behaviour GPS fixes during both the non-breeding and breeding seasons and was excluded from the linear regressions presented in this figure. Analysis including this individual showed no significant relationshipCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 6 a 50 % and b 95 % UD Kernels constructed from GPS fixes associated only with data bursts showing foraging behaviour. One individual (unfilled square) is excluded from the linear regressions (see results section)
Fig. 6 a 50 % and b 95 % UD Kernels constructed from GPS fixes associated only with data bursts showing foraging behaviour. One individual (unfilled square) is excluded from the linear regressions (see results section)CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 7 Typical non-landfill foraging ranges for 3 individuals (i,ii,iii) nesting at varying distances from landfill. The non-breeding season (a) and the breeding season (b) are depicted. 50 % (dark grey) and 90 % (light grey) UD Kernels from foraging GPS fixes in non-landfill habitat. Nests (black triangles) were located at 2.9 km (i), 11.5 km (ii) and 25.0 km (iii) from landfill. The shaded rectangle indicates the position of the landfill
Fig. 7 Typical non-landfill foraging ranges for 3 individuals (i,ii,iii) nesting at varying distances from landfill. The non-breeding season (a) and the breeding season (b) are depicted. 50 % (dark grey) and 90 % (light grey) UD Kernels from foraging GPS fixes in non-landfill habitat. Nests (black triangles) were located at 2.9 km (i), 11.5 km (ii) and 25.0 km (iii) from landfill. The shaded rectangle indicates the position of the landfillCC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 36 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Peris SJ. Feeding in urban refuse dumps: Ingestion of plastic objects by the white stork (Ciconia ciconia). Ardeola. 2003;50:81–4.
  2. Onrubia A, Martín B, De la Cruz A, Ferrer M. La migración de las aves planeadoras por el Estrecho de Gibraltar: magnitud, tendencias e implicaciones de conservación. Madrid: Actas XXII Congreso Español de Ornitología; 2014.
  3. Kosiki J, Sparks T, Tryjanowski P. Does arrival date influence autumn departure of the white stork Ciconia ciconia? Ornis Fenn. 2004;81:91–5.
  4. Moritzi M, Maumary L, Schmid D, Steiner I, Vallotton L, Spaar R, et al. Time budget, habitat use and breeding success of white storks Ciconia ciconia under variable foraging conditions during the breeding season in Switzerland. Ardea. 2001;89:457–70.
  5. (PERSU II) Ministério do Ambiente do Ordenamento do Territorio e do Desenvolvimento Regional. 1st edition 2007 Deposito legal no. 255 244/07.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Gilbert, N. I., Correia, R. A., Silva, J. P., Pacheco, C., Catry, I., Atkinson, P. W., Gill, J. A., & Franco, A. M. A.
Affiliations
  • University of East Anglia (GB)
  • University of Lisbon (PT)
  • British Trust for Ornithology (GB)
Corresponding author
Gilbert, Nathalie I.
ORCID
Venue
Movement Ecology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2016-03-15
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
7-7
ISSN
2051-3933 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s40462-016-0070-0
PMC
PMC4791752
OpenAlex
W2302520141
Cited by
217
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 3
FWCI
15.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Movement Ecology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Natural Environment Research Council (T12314.ENV.R.AS.)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Avian ecology and behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Keywords
white stork, resident population, foraging behavior, home range, movement behavior, non-breeding season, landfill closure, Iberia

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review