Literature type: Scientific
Journal: Ornis Hungarica
Volume: 28 , Pages: 28–48.
Language: English (In English with Hungarian summary)Download:
Full reference: Zuban, I., Vilkov, V., Kalashnikov, M., Zhadan, K. & Bisseneva, A. 2020. The results of spring monitoring on the status of geese populations in the North Kazakhstan Region during 2011-2018. Ornis Hungarica 28: 28–48. https://www.dx.doi.org/10.2478/orhu-2020-0003
The article presents the results of monitoring studies on the population dynamics of goose species at one of the largest stopover sites in Northern Kazakhstan during the springs of 2011–2018. Comparative analysis of the phenological phases at the beginning and end of migration over a 50 year period is conducted and changes in timing of migration for the studied groups are established. Data on the number of flocks at various stages of the migration process are presented. Authors revealed characteristics of the distribution of birds in the directions of migration through the region associated with the presence of various migration strategies. Based on the distribution and number of geese in the region for rest and feeding, key zones with characteristics of their natural and anthropogenic state were identified. It has been established that water bodies and large areas have optimal conditions for rest and replenishment of energy reserves for the birds.
Literature type: Thesis
Language: Chinese (Mandarin) (In Chinese with English abstract and legends)Download:
Full reference: Ao, P. 2020. Migration strategies and conservation of two large-bodied Anatidae species in East Asia. , Master thesis, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences. 105 pp.
The East Asian-Australasian Flyway (EAAF) is the most threatened flyway in the world. China is located in the center of the EAAF where more than one million Anatidae waterbirds winter every year. With the economic development in China, the loss of wetland has resulted in the declining waterfowl diversity and abundance. In order to conserve the waterfowl population and their habitats in China, it is urgent to define the distribution of key species, determine the distribution of key species and obtain the population estimates and historical changes, the location, land use and conservation status of key habitats. Based on satellite tracking, remote sensing data, field survey, ringing resightings, literature review and expert knowledge, we studied the Whooper Swan Cygnus cygnus, a common species, and the Lesser White-fronted Goose Anser erythropus, a global threatened species. The main results are: Satellite tracking, field survey, ringing resightings, literature review and expert knowledge found the East Asian populations of Whooper Swans summered from Yenisei River in the west to Anadyr River in the East, south to the border between China and Mongolia, and wintered in Xinjiang, Gansu, Qinghai, Beijing, middle and lower reaches of Yellow River in China, South Korea and Japan. The Whooper Swans that summered in central and western Mongolia, wintered in China; swans that summered in eastern Mongolia, wintered in China and South Korea; and swans that summered in Far East Russia, wintered in Japan. The East Asian population of Whooper Swans was estimated as 57,700, which increased compared to that in 2011 (42,000-47,000 individuals). Eight key wintering sites were found in Xinjiang, Qinghai, Henan and Shandong in China, six in the coastal and inland wetlands in South Korea and 14 in Hokkaido, Miyagi, and Iwate counties in Japan. Satellite tracking, ringing resightings and remote sensing data identified five wintering areas of Whooper Swans that summered in western Mongolia, namely, Xinjiang (12%), Gansu-Qinghai (16%), Henan-Shanxi-Shaanxi (51%), Beijing (2%), Shandong (19%), from west to east. The population growth may be related to the artificial food of two largest wintering areas (Henan-Shanxi-Shaanxi and Shandong). Tracked swans mainly used water in autumn, winter and summer (82% in autumn, 74% in winter and 62% in summer), and cultivated land (64%) in spring. 47% of the GPS fixes were in protected areas in summer, higher than those in winter (35%), spring (0%) and autumn (26%). The mean migration duration in spring was 21 days (range March 1 - April 15), and in autumn it was 14 days (range October 3 - November 13). At the same time, it is found that the conservation proportion in spring was 0. Therefore, it is suggested to strengthen the conservation of important stopover sites of the Whooper Swan in the bend of the Yellow River. The migration speed in spring was slower than that in autumn, due to more stopover sites and longer stopover duration in spring, which does not support the classic migration theory which claims that spring migration should be faster than autumn migration. Satellite tracking, field survey, literature review and expert knowledge found that the East Asian Lesser White-fronted Geese that summered from the Anabas River in the west to the Anadyr River in the east, and to the Far East Taiga in the south, wintered in the middle and lower Yangtze River in China, South Korea and Japan. The East Asian population of Lesser White-fronted Geese was estimated as 4,200, which declined compared to that in 2015 (16,000 individuals). East Dongting Lake in Hunan Province is the most important wintering site for Lesser White-fronted Geese, followed by Poyang Lake in Jiangxi Province and Caizi Lake in Anhui Province, and one key wintering site in Miyagi County in Japan. Satellite tracking and remote sensing data found that the major wintering sites of the tracked Lesser White-fronted Geese were Dongting Lake (50%), Poyang Lake (24%) and Shengjin Lake (18%) in China, and they summered in the Arctic tundra of Russia and Far East Taiga. The tracked geese mainly used cultivated land (52% in spring and 45% in autumn), tundra in summer (63%) and wetland (66%) in winter. 87% of the GPS fixes were in protected areas in winter, higher than that in spring (37%), autumn (28%) and summer (7%). The breeding area were located in the less populated Arctic tundra, although the proportion in protected area in summer was low. The Lesser White-fronted Goose was more concentrated in nature reserves during the wintering period, thus the conservation proportion in wintering area is high. Dongting Lake is the largest wintering site. However, its hydrological changes resulted in the decrease of food, degradation of habitats, and might have led to the decrease of population. Therefore, it is suggested to restore and maintain of the natural hydrological process of the wintering habitat of geese. At the same time, the conservation proportion in spring and autumn was relatively low, so it is suggested to strengthen the conserve of Northeast Plain in China, the main stopover sites in spring and autumn. The migration speed of Lesser White-fronted Geese in spring was slower than that in autumn, mainly due to the longer stopover duration in spring, which does not support the classic migration theory. Both the Whooper Swan and the Lesser White-fronted Goose are large-bodied Anatidae waterbirds in EAAF. The overall conservation proportion of the Lesser White-fronted Goose is higher than Whooper Swan, but the number decreased, which may be related to its unique requirement of food and habitat. The Lesser White-fronted Goose was affected by the decrease of food resources caused by the hydrological change of the Yangtze River, while the swan was affected by local conservation measures. Therefore, we suggest conservation strategies for these two species that faced different conservation challenge: the key point for the conservation of the Lesser White-fronted Geese is the restoration and maintenance of the natural hydrological process in the wintering area, and that of the Whooper Swan is to conserve and restore the key natural habitat and reduce the dependence of the swan on artificial food.
Literature type: Rep.article
Full reference: Cao, L., Fox, A.D., Morozov, V.V., Syroechkovskiy jr., E.E.. & Solovieva, D. 2018. , Pp. 38-39 in Fox, A.D. & Leafloor, J.O. (eds.). A Global Audit of the Status and Trends of Arctic and Northern Hemisphere Goose Populations (Component 2: Population accounts). CAFF: Akureyri, Iceland. ISBN 978-9935-431-74-5.
Literature type: Rep.article
Full reference: Aarvak, T., Øien, I.J. & Morozov, V.V. 2018. Western main Lesser White-fronted Goose Anser erythropus. , Pp. 43-44 in Fox, A.D. & Leafloor, J.O. (eds.). A Global Audit of the Status and Trends of Arctic and Northern Hemisphere Goose Populations (Component 2: Population accounts). CAFF: Akureyri, Iceland. ISBN 978-9935-431-74-5.
Literature type: Rep.article
Full reference: Aarvak, T. & Øien, I.J. 2018. Lesser White-fronted Goose Anser erythropus - Fennoscandian population. , Pp. 40-42 in Fox, A.D. & Leafloor, J.O. (eds.). A Global Audit of the Status and Trends of Arctic and Northern Hemisphere Goose Populations (Component 2: Population accounts). CAFF: Akureyri, Iceland. ISBN 978-9935-431-74-5.
Literature type: General
Journal: Dansk Ornitologisk Forenings Tidsskrift
Volume: 109 , Pages: 41-112.
Language: Danish (In Danish)
Full reference: Christensen, J.S. & Rasmussen, P.A.F. 2015. Revideret status for sjældne fugle i Danmark før 1965. [Revised status of rare birds in Denmark before 1965.], Dansk Ornitologisk Forenings Tidsskrift: 109, 41-112.
Literature type: Proceedings
Journal: Ornis norvegica
Volume: 36 , Pages: 47-51.
Full reference: Yerokhov, S. 2013. The current status of the Lesser White-fronted Goose Anser erythropus in Kazakhstan: monitoring, threats and conservation measures , Proceedings of the 14th meeting of the Goose Specialist Group of the IUCN Species Survival Commission and Wetlands International. Ornis norvegica 36: 47-56.
Within the framework of the National Action Plan (hereafter NAP) for the globally threatened Lesser White-fronted Goose Anser erythropus developed in the republic of Kazakhstan between 2011 and 2012, a number of measures are planned for the forthcoming three years (2012–2014). On the basis of scientific data received on this species in the last decades, and making use of available experience from other countries, it is proposed to carry out a variety of practical activities regarding goose protection, in particular in order to reduce the negative influence of a number of anthropogenic factors upon Lesser White-fronted Goose, in particular the influence of hunting on this protected species. Considering that implementation of such plans have not previously been applied to the fauna of Kazakhstan, this NAP will serve as a model as to how to implement effective management of other species and populations in order to reduce and eliminate negative factors affecting biodiversity and habitat.
Literature type: General
Journal: Goose Bulletin
Volume: 17 , Pages: 10-18.
Full reference: Kruckenberg, H. & Krüger, T. 2013. Lesser White-fronted Geese Anser erythropus in Lower Saxony (NW Germany) – status, distribution and numbers 1900–2007. Goose Bulletin: 17, 10-18.
In the period from 1907/08 to 2006/07, i.e. 100 winters, 156 records of 261 Lesser White-fronted Geese Anser erythropus were reported in Lower Saxony. The first records were from 9 December 1907. For the period before 1970, only accidental occurrences were reported. A large increase in the number of records occurred in the 1990s and continued in the 2000s. Since the mid-1990s, the Lesser White-fronted Goosehas become a regular, annually occurring migratory bird in Lower Saxony. There is evidence of a concentration of records in the north-west of Lower Saxony in the region of East Frisia, especially in the Dollart-Lower Ems-Region (Rheiderland, Emsmarschen) and the Krummhörn including Leybucht, which are key sites of the occurrence. Other important sites are the Middle Elbe and the Lower Elbe. During autumn migration, the first Lesser White-fronted Geese reach Lower Saxony in mid-October. From early December the numbers rise steadily until early March and peak in the first decade of March (median = 2 March). After that the numbers decrease but birds remain until the first third of April at a relatively high level, and birds are gone by the end of April. In 139 cases (92.1%), Lesser White-fronted Geese were recorded only on a single day, longer stays were reported only twelve times (7.9%, n = 151 records), the longest 27 days, indicating overwintering. About 93% of all observations of Lesser White-fronted Geese refer to birds which were associated in only small flocks of three individuals, and often only single birds (68.6%) occurred (n = 156 flocks and 261 ind.). “Large” flocks have been recorded rarely. 141 Lesser White-fronted Geese were reported as adult birds (86.5%), with only 21 individuals identified as juveniles (13.5%, n = 163). In 75% of records since the mid-1990s (73%, n = 70 records) Lesser White-fronted Geese were roosting with White-fronted Geese A. albifrons. In 19% of the records they were with Barnacle Geese Branta bernicla, and in 9 % with Greylag Geese A. anser. There is a high likelihood of confusion between Lesser White-fronted Geese and Whitefronted Geese during goose hunting, which is usually practiced at dusk at the night roosts of both species. Therefore, to collect data for better protection of Lesser Whitefronted Geese in Lower Saxony we started a new research programme in autumn 2012 involving field research, satellite tracking and colour-marking as well as an awareness campaign for birders, hunters and the general public.
Literature type: Scientific
Journal: International Journal of Osteoarchaeology
Volume: 24 , Pages: 365–377
Full reference: Gotfredsen, A.B. 2013. Birds in subsistence and culture at viking age sites in Denmark. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 24: 365–377 https://www.dx.doi.org/10.1002/oa.2367
This paper reviews the evidence for consumption and use of birds at Danish Viking Age sites. The presence and diversity of wild and domestic bird species were studied on the basis of the avian material retrieved from sites representing a wide range of different habitats covering a period from the Late Germanic Iron Age to early medieval times (ca 5th–12th centuries AD). A large diversity of at least 20 avian families with more than 60 taxa in addition to domestic fowl was documented. Although variation in species diversity and abundance in the assemblages were influenced by recovery methods, some genuine differences emerged regarding site type as well as topographical and geographic variation. Marked differences among avian species within certain bird families were revealed; herons (Ardeidae), birds of prey (Accipitridae), cranes (Gruidae), tetraonids (Tetraonidae) and waders (Scolopacidae) occurred more commonly at certain categories of sites such as high-status manorial and early urban sites. The usage of eagle feathers was evidenced by cut marks on eagle wing bones and falconry was documented at a few high-status sites.
Number of results: 86