105
©Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust
Wildfowl
(2013) 63: 105–114
American Wigeon
Anas americana
vigilance
behaviour on suburban golf courses
JACOB L. BERL
Division of Forestry and Natural Resources, West Virginia University,
Morgantown, West Virginia 26506, USA.
E-mail:
Abstract
Behavioural data were recorded from flocks of wintering American Wigeon
Anas
americana
on a southern Californian (USA) golf course to test whether vigilance was
related to levels of local human activity. The study site was subject to high rates of
human activity, which provided an opportunity to evaluate waterfowl anti-predatory
response (vigilance) when presented with frequent disturbance stimuli. Overall,
human activities had no significant effect on individual vigilance behaviour while
flocks grazed on golf course fairways. Vigilance patterns were instead influenced by
the distance at which flocks grazed from water, flock size and the sex of the birds.
Furthermore, vigilance constituted < 7 % of the ducks’ activity budget, less than that
reported for American Wigeon and Eurasian Wigeon
Anas penelope
in more natural
environments. This suggests that the ducks did not increase time spent in vigilance in
response to high rates of human activity, but may benefit from favourable foraging
opportunities associated with golf course and other human-modified habitats.
Key words:
Anas americana
, anti-predatory behaviour, golf course habitat, human
activity, safe-habitat hypothesis.
It is important to understand the
influence of human activities on waterbird
behaviour given that growing human
populations will invariably result in
increased human-wildlife interactions (Pease
et al.
2005; Guillemain
et al.
2007a; Wang
et al.
2011). Waterfowl can be adversely affected
by human disturbance through increased
vigilance behaviour and decreased foraging
or intake rates (Bélanger & Bédard 1990;
Henson & Grant 1991; Korschgen &
Dahlgren 1992; Knapton
et al.
2000).
However, most studies quantifying
waterfowl behavioural responses to
disturbance by humans have been
conducted in relatively natural environments
such as wildlife refuges and conservation
areas (
e.g.
Fox
et al.
1993; Pease
et al.
2005;
Guillemain
et al.
2007a; Madsen
et al.
2009),
with very few being conducted in urbanised
or artificial environments (but see Randler
2003).
