hkr.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Agriculture and herbivorous waterfowl: a review of the scientific basis for improved management
Danmark.
Kristianstad University, School of Education and Environment, Avdelningen för Naturvetenskap.
Norge.
Kristianstad University, School of Education and Environment, Avdelningen för Naturvetenskap.
2017 (English)In: Biological Reviews, ISSN 1464-7931, E-ISSN 1469-185X, Vol. 92, no 2, 854-877 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Swans, geese and some ducks (Anatidae) are obligate herbivores, many are important quarry species and all contribute to a variety of ecosystem services. Population growth and shifting ranges have led to increasing proximity to man and thus increasing conflicts. We review and synthesize the role of these birds as herbivores on agricultural land (cropland, rotational grassland and pasture) and other terrestrial habitats where conflict with human interests may occur. A bibliographic analysis of peer-reviewed papers (N = 359) shows that publication activity peaked in 1991-2000 in North America and 2000-2010 in Europe, and has decreased since. Taxonomic and geographical biases are obvious in research to date: Snow Goose Chen caerulescens was the most studied species (N = 98), and Canada Branta canadensis, Barnacle B. leucopsis and Brent geese B. bernicla all featured in more than 40 studies; most studies originated in northwest Europe or North America, very few have been carried out in Asia and European Russia. On the basis of nutrient/energy budgets of herbivorous waterfowl, it is evident that dense single-species crops (such as rotational grassland, early-growth cereals and root crops) and spilled grain in agricultural landscapes offer elevated energetic and nutritional intake rates of food of higher quality compared to natural or semi-natural vegetation. Hence, although affected by seasonal nutritional demands, proximity to roost, field size, disturbance levels, access to water, food depletion and snow cover, agricultural landscapes tend to offer superior foraging opportunities over natural habitats, creating potential conflict with agriculture. Herbivorous waterfowl select for high protein, soluble carbohydrate and water content, high digestibility as well as low fibre and phenolic compounds, but intake rates from grazing varied with goose body and bill morphology, creating species-specific loci for conflict. Crop damage by trampling and puddling has not been demonstrated convincingly, nor do waterfowl faeces deter grazing stock, but where consumption of crops evidently reduces yields this causes conflict with farmers. Studies show that it is difficult and expensive to assess the precise impacts of waterfowl feeding on yield loss because of other sources of variation. However, less damage has been documented from winter grazing compared to spring grazing and yield loss after spring grazing on grassland appears more pronounced than losses on cereal fields. Although yield losses at national scales are trivial, individual farmers in areas of greatest waterfowl feeding concentrations suffer disproportionately, necessitating improved solutions to conflict. Accordingly, we review the efficacy of population management, disturbance, provision of alternative feeding areas, compensation and large-scale stakeholder involvement and co-management as options for resolving conflict based on the existing literature and present a framework of management advice for the future. We conclude with an assessment of the research needs for the immediate future to inform policy development, improve management of waterfowl populations and reduce conflict with agriculture.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2017. Vol. 92, no 2, 854-877 p.
Keyword [en]
Agricultural conflict, conflict resolution, ecosystem service, food preference, grazing, habitat choice, herbivore, management toolbox, research needs, waterfowl, yield loss
National Category
Biological Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hkr:diva-15337DOI: 10.1111/brv.12258ISI: 000398567200013PubMedID: 26946181OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hkr-15337DiVA: diva2:912658
Available from: 2016-03-17 Created: 2016-03-17 Last updated: 2017-04-20Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Elmberg, Johan
By organisation
Avdelningen för Naturvetenskap
In the same journal
Biological Reviews
Biological Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 97 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf