Select data courtesy of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

© 2026 DeepDyve, Inc. All rights reserved.

This site is protected by VikingCloud's Trusted Commerce program
      Home

    Ornithological Advances

    Subject:
    Animal Science and Zoology
    Publisher:
    Oxford University Press — Oxford University Press
    ISSN:
    0010-5422
    Scimago Journal Rank:
    82

    2024

    Volume 126
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (Jan)

    2023

    Volume 126
    Issue 2 (Dec)Issue 1 (Oct)
    Volume 125
    Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Jun)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Feb)

    2022

    Volume 126
    Issue 1 (Jan)
    Volume 125
    Issue 1 (Dec)
    Volume 124
    Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Apr)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

    2021

    Volume Advance Article
    SeptemberAugustJulyJuneMay
    Volume 124
    Issue 1 (Nov)
    Volume 123
    Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Jul)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Mar)

    2020

    Volume Advance Article
    MayMarch
    Volume 2020
    May
    Volume 122
    Issue 4 (Dec)Issue 3 (Sep)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Mar)

    2019

    Volume Advance Article
    MayFebruary
    Volume 121
    Issue 4 (Dec)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    2018

    Volume 120
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    2017

    Volume 119
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    2016

    Volume 118
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    2015

    Volume 118
    Issue 1 (Dec)
    Volume 117
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    2014

    Volume 116
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    2013

    Volume 115
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    2012

    Volume 114
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    2011

    Volume 113
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    2010

    Volume 112
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Jan)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    2009

    Volume 111
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    2008

    Volume 110
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    2007

    Volume 109
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    2006

    Volume 108
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    2005

    Volume 107
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    2004

    Volume 106
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    2003

    Volume 105
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    2002

    Volume 104
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    2001

    Volume 103
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    2000

    Volume 102
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1999

    Volume 101
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1998

    Volume 100
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1997

    Volume 99
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1996

    Volume 98
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1995

    Volume 97
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1994

    Volume 96
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1993

    Volume 95
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1992

    Volume 94
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1991

    Volume 93
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1990

    Volume 92
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1989

    Volume 91
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1988

    Volume 90
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1987

    Volume 89
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1986

    Volume 88
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1985

    Volume 87
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1984

    Volume 86
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1983

    Volume 85
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1982

    Volume 84
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1981

    Volume 83
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1980

    Volume 82
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1979

    Volume 81
    Issue 4 (Nov)Issue 3 (Aug)Issue 2 (May)Issue 1 (Feb)

    1978

    Volume 80
    Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Jul)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1977

    Volume 79
    Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Jul)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1976

    Volume 78
    Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Jul)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1975

    Volume 77
    Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Jul)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1974

    Volume 76
    Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Jul)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1973

    Volume 75
    Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Jul)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1972

    Volume 74
    Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Jul)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1971

    Volume 73
    Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Jul)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1970

    Volume 72
    Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Jul)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1969

    Volume 71
    Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Jul)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1968

    Volume 70
    Issue 4 (Oct)Issue 3 (Jul)Issue 2 (Apr)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1967

    Volume 69
    Issue 1 (Jan)

    1965

    Volume 67
    Issue 3 (May)

    1961

    Volume 63
    Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1960

    Volume 62
    Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1959

    Volume 61
    Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1958

    Volume 60
    Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1957

    Volume 59
    Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1956

    Volume 58
    Issue 6 (Nov)Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 4 (Jul)Issue 3 (May)Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1955

    Volume 57
    Issue 6 (Nov)

    1954

    Volume 56
    Issue 5 (Sep)

    1947

    Volume 49
    Issue 2 (Mar)

    1944

    Volume 46
    Issue 2 (Mar)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1939

    Volume 41
    Issue 6 (Nov)

    1937

    Volume 39
    Issue 6 (Nov)

    1936

    Volume 38
    Issue 5 (Sep)

    1931

    Volume 33
    Issue 5 (Sep)Issue 1 (Jan)

    1930

    Volume 32
    Issue 6 (Nov)

    1926

    Volume 28
    Issue 5 (Sep)

    1925

    Volume 27
    Issue 4 (Jul)

    0010

    Volume Advance Article
    July
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    2024 AOS Katma Award to Emily DuVal

    Oyler-McCance, Sara; Bateman, Brooke; Cooper, Nathan W; Fraser, Kevin; MacDougall-Shackleton, Elizabeth; Guglielmo, Chris; da Silva, Jose Maria Cardoso; Tossas, Adrianne; Youngflesh, Casey

    2024 Ornithological Advances

    doi: 10.1093/ornithapp/duae045pmid: N/A

    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    Despite regional variation, Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus (Pinyon Jay) densities generally increase with local pinyon–juniper cover and heterogeneous ground cover

    Van Lanen, Nicholas J; Monroe, Adrian P; Aldridge, Cameron L

    2024 Ornithological Advances

    doi: 10.1093/ornithapp/duae036pmid: N/A

    Traditionally, local-scale habitat relationship models are developed over small spatial extents, limiting model transferability and inference outside the study area. Thus, habitat managers frequently lack fine-scale information regarding the influence of vegetation composition and structure on site suitability or species abundance. Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus (Pinyon Jay) represents one declining species for which managers have limited information regarding the influence that vegetation composition and structure have on abundance at broad scales. To address this need, we developed a hierarchical Bayesian abundance model using summertime bird and vegetation data collected under the Integrated Monitoring in Bird Conservation Regions program to explain jay abundance as a function of local conditions. Our G. cyanocephalus abundance model allowed abundance relationships with pinyon pine (Pinus edulis and P. monophylla) and juniper (Juniperus spp.) to vary by ecoregion, thereby accounting for potential regional differences in habitat associations. We found G. cyanocephalus abundance was generally positively associated with pinyon pine and juniper cover; however, habitat relationships varied by ecoregion. Additionally, we found positive associations between jay abundance and grass cover, sagebrush cover, and percent bare ground. Our results agree with prior research suggesting mechanical removal of pinyon pine and juniper trees for sagebrush restoration or fuel treatments may negatively affect G. cyanocephalus. Managers wishing to reduce pinyon and juniper tree cover without negatively affecting G. cyanocephalus may benefit from targeting sites where both large-scale distribution models and our local habitat relationships suggest G. cyanocephalus are likely to occur in low numbers. Additionally, our modeled relationships indicate restoration that increases grass cover, sagebrush cover, and bare ground, while maintaining pinyon and (or) juniper cover, may lead to increased local densities of G. cyanocephalus.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    2024 AOS Conservation Practitioner Award to Nestor Fariña and Olga Esther Villaba

    Chalfoun, Anna D; McGill, Patricia A; Rosenberg, Kenneth V; Walters, Jeffrey R; Michel, Nicole L; Loss, Scott R; Lepczyk, Christopher A; Panjabi, Arvind O; Senner, Stanley E; Ruegg, Kristen C; Brawn, Jeffrey D; Cox, Andrew; Kendrick, Sarah W; Gomez, Camila; Martínez-Salinas, Alejandra;

    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    Ecology and conservation of cavity-nesting birds in the Neotropics: Recent advances, future directions, and contributions to ornithology

    Bonaparte, Eugenia Bianca; Cuatianquiz Lima, Cecilia; Ferreira-Xavier, Hipólito D; da Hora, Jéssica S; Di Sallo, Facundo G; López, Fernando G; Cockle, Kristina L; Núñez Montellano, María Gabriela

    2024 Ornithological Advances

    doi: 10.1093/ornithapp/duae042pmid: N/A

    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    Home ranges, habitat selection, and energy expenditure of Strix varia (Barred Owls): Understanding the full diel cycle matters for enhancing urban landscapes

    Jirinec, Vitek; Bresnan, Alessandra M; Clément, Marion A; Colón, Melanie R; Long, Ashley M; Rhyne, Garrett S; Rodrigues, Patricia F; Stein, Eliza D; Pérez-Umphrey, Anna A; Varian, Christina P; Williams, S Tyler; Taylor, Sabrina S

    2024 The Condor
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    Cellular network measurements can unravel spatiotemporal properties of bird movement to enhance basic and applied knowledge globally

    Ben Moshe, Daniel; Messer, Hagit; Werber, Yuval; Sapir, Nir

    2024 Ornithological Advances

    doi: 10.1093/ornithapp/duae035pmid: N/A

    A major problem in studying bird movement in many countries is data scarcity, precluding information about the spatial and temporal properties of avian distribution and dynamics as well as their consequences for human lives. We address this problem by proposing an innovative approach based on the relation between counts of signal attenuation of wireless communication to the presence of birds across or near wireless links of cellular backhaul networks. Wireless point-to-point communication links, on either ground level or earth-satellite links, cover the globe. We statistically relate between signal attenuation in terrestrial Commercial Microwave Links (CMLs) and bird migration. Because modern communication systems measure and often log signal levels routinely, we propose using existing signal level measurements of cellular and other wireless communication systems around the world as sensors for monitoring bird movement. Using actual measurements from operational CMLs, we show that the daily cycle of signal attenuation during bird migration periods matched that of the water-bird migration traffic rate recorded by nearby bird radar. This demonstrates the potential of the proposed method for opportunistic bird movement monitoring by CMLs across the globe, with no additional hardware installation, maintenance, or communication costs.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    The Amazon Basin’s rivers and lakes support Nearctic-breeding shorebirds during southward migration

    Linscott, Jennifer A; Basso, Enzo; Bathrick, Rosalyn; Bosi de Almeida, Juliana; Anderson, Alexandra M; Angulo-Pratolongo, Fernando; Ballard, Bart M; Bêty, Joël; Brown, Stephen C; Christie, Katherine S; Clements, Sarah J; Friis, Christian; Gesmundo, Callie; Giroux, Marie-Andrée;

    journal article
    Open Access Collection
    Caught out in the cold: Anas platyrhynchos (Mallard) survival decreased during an extreme climatic event

    Blake-Bradshaw, Abigail G; Masto, Nicholas M; Highway, Cory J; Keever, Allison C; Link, Paul T; Feddersen, Jamie C; Hagy, Heath M; Osborne, Douglas C; Cohen, Bradley S

    2024 Ornithological Advances

    doi: 10.1093/ornithapp/duae025pmid: N/A

    Extreme climatic events (ECEs) can have profound impacts on individual fitness, affecting survival directly or indirectly. Late winter ECEs may be especially detrimental to fitness due to limited food resources and increased energetic requirements during this time. A polar vortex disruption ECE descended upon the mid-continental United States during February 7–20, 2021 with temperatures as low as −29°C in areas concurrent with ongoing research on Anas platyrhynchos (Mallard) movement ecology and survival in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Tennessee, United States spanning winters 2019–2022. Therefore, we opportunistically evaluated the effects of individual characteristics and latitude on daily survival during the ECE. We extended the survival analysis to March to test for lasting effects of the ECE on survival. We tracked 181 Global Positioning System (GPS)-marked A. platyrhynchos during February 2020, 256 in February 2021, and 324 in February 2022. We documented 22 mortalities during the February 2021 ECE (i.e., 9%), but only 6 mortalities during February 2020 (i.e., 2%) and 2022 (i.e., 1%) when conditions were average. February survival (e.g., 28-day survival) during the ECE was 0.908 (85% CI: 0.879–0.937) but was 0.982 (85% CI: 0.973–0.991) during the 2 non-ECE Februaries. The ECE effect on survival was isolated to February and did not affect March survival. Anas platyrhynchos was 5.4 times more likely to die during the ECE in 2021 compared to non-ECE Februaries. Although large-bodied waterfowl appear cold-tolerant and less sensitive to polar vortex disruptions compared to smaller-bodied passerines, direct mortalities can occur if conditions are severe enough and persist, highlighting the need to consider the influence of ECEs on common, seemingly robust species in future global climate change scenarios.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    Spatial survival analysis accounts for female-biased breeding dispersal and provides realistic estimates of true annual survival in migratory warblers

    Mumme, Ronald L

    2024 Ornithological Advances

    doi: 10.1093/ornithapp/duae040pmid: N/A

    Breeding dispersal—between-season change in breeding location—is usually female-biased in birds and creates problems in accurately estimating annual survival, as conventional Cormack-Jolly-Seber (CJS) survival models cannot discriminate between mortality and undetected emigration. Recently, spatial CJS (s-CJS) models have been developed that use data on breeding dispersal within a population to account for undetected emigration and provide corrected estimates of true annual survival, a development that promises to advance avian conservation initiatives that require accurate estimates of annual survival. Using a 14-year dataset on a color-banded population of Setophaga citrina (Hooded Warbler) in northwest Pennsylvania, I examined female-biased breeding dispersal and performance of an s-CJS model in estimating true annual survival of females and males. I also compared my findings to published literature on other migratory North American warblers, a group with many species of high conservation concern. Breeding dispersal in the S. citrina study population is strongly female-biased, with median dispersal distances of 151 m for females (n = 227) and 51 m (n = 336) for males. Although most individuals disperse short distances, the observed pattern of breeding dispersal within the study site was best modeled using a heavy-tailed Cauchy dispersal kernel, a model that indicates the presence of a substantial tail of undetected long-distance dispersal, particularly in females. Using the Cauchy model, s-CJS analysis yielded realistic estimates of S. citrina true annual survival, 0.61 for both sexes, and resolved ambiguities evident in much lower estimates of apparent annual survival, 0.45 for females and 0.54 for males, derived from conventional CJS analysis. Because long-distance breeding dispersal is widespread in migratory warblers and especially frequent in females, analyses of warbler survival should employ s-CJS methods whenever possible, as estimates of apparent annual survival derived from conventional CJS methods will in most cases poorly approximate true annual survival.
    journal article
    LitStream Collection
    2024 AOS Brina C. Kessel Award to Andrew J. Laughlin

    Oyler-McCance, Sara; Bateman, Brooke; Cooper, Nathan W; Fraser, Kevin; MacDougall-Shackleton, Elizabeth; Guglielmo, Chris; da Silva, Jose Maria Cardoso; Tossas, Adrianne; Youngflesh, Casey

    2024 Ornithological Advances

    doi: 10.1093/ornithapp/duae044pmid: N/A

    Showing 1 to 10 of 24 Articles

    Previous123Next
    Articles per page
    Browse All Journals

    Related Journals:

    World's Poultry Science JournalAnimal Health Research ReviewsPrimatesZoological StudiesInvertebrate BiologyCurrent ZoologyItalian Journal of Animal ScienceEuropean Zoological JournalNew Zealand Journal of ZoologyAfrican Zoology
    Ruiz Sanchez, Angelina
    2024 Ornithological Advances

    doi: 10.1093/ornithapp/duae046pmid: N/A

    About 35% of tree-cavity-nesting bird species inhabit the Neotropics, a region crucial to understanding their breeding ecology, conservation, and roles in social-ecological systems. Sixteen years ago, Cornelius et al. (2008) reviewed published knowledge and identified research priorities for Neotropical cavity-nesting birds. Advances since 2008 have not been synthesized and many remain excluded from dominant ornithology because of barriers that disproportionately affect people and ideas from the Global South. Here, we review recent advances in knowledge about Neotropical cavity-nesting birds, introduce the Special Feature series “Ecology and conservation of cavity nesters in the Neotropics,” and outline possible directions for future research. Research in the Neotropics has advanced knowledge of breeding biology, demonstrated that nest sites are limited and birds compete for cavities (mainly in humid forests), identified non-excavated cavities (formed by wood decay) as the main source of cavities and demonstrated the importance of understanding Indigenous and local community relationships to birds. With field studies across the Neotropics, the Special Feature series shows how environment, people’s common imaginaries, vegetation management, and behavior of avian excavators can interact to influence cavity availability, with ecological consequences for many cavity-using organisms. In the future, researchers should center ethno-knowledge and natural history to create an accurate list of cavity-nesting birds in the Neotropics, and integrate this knowledge into studies of population and community ecology. It is also important to study factors that influence cavity dynamics, especially using a social-ecological systems framework and especially in arid and semi-arid regions. We recommend expanding the concept of nest webs (ecological networks of cavity nesters) to incorporate additional cavity substrates (e.g., termitaria, cliffs), cavity alternatives (e.g., bulky enclosed stick nests of many Furnariidae), and cavity-using taxa beyond birds and mammals (e.g., social insects, snakes), which abound in the Neotropics but were not contemplated in the original nest web formulation. Translated versions of this article are available in Supplementary Material 1 (Spanish) and Supplementary Material 2 (Portuguese).

    doi: 10.1093/ornithapp/duae038pmid: N/A

    We integrated GPS and accelerometer data to examine habitat selection and energy expenditure patterns across the diel cycle in Strix varia (Barred Owls), addressing a critical gap in wildlife research that often overlooks activity during the “inactive” phase. Owls in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, selected forests with tall canopies and open understories, particularly in affluent neighborhoods, supporting the “luxury effect” in urban biodiversity. Nocturnal home ranges were larger (31.8 ha) compared to diurnal home ranges (8.9 ha), indicating broader habitat use at night. The total area of preferred nocturnal habitat was 33% of the Baton Rouge study area, whereas preferred diurnal habitat comprised only 5%. Energy expenditure was inversely related to preference in nocturnal home ranges but increased with preference in diurnal home ranges. Our models were validated using independent data from Clemson, South Carolina, supporting the robustness of our analysis and revealing generalities in owl habitat selection across these regions. This research contributes to a deeper understanding of urban ecology, highlighting habitat components preferred by owls and possibly other forest-dwelling species. It emphasizes the difference in nocturnal and diurnal home range sizes, the scarcity of daytime refuges for S. varia in urban landscapes, and the variation in energy expenditure in preferred habitats. Our findings advocate for urban designs that accommodate wildlife activity throughout the day and night, and highlight the positive correlation between preferred owl habitat and affluent neighborhoods, underscoring the need for equitable distribution of green spaces to foster biodiversity across socioeconomic gradients. These insights will help develop strategies to enhance the ecological value of urban environments and the conservation of S. varia and associated forest-dwelling species in rapidly urbanizing areas.
    Harrison, Autumn-Lynn;
    Harwood, Christopher M;
    Hill, Jason M;
    Johnson, James A;
    Kempenaers, Bart;
    Laliberté, Benoit;
    Lamarre, Jean-Francois;
    Lanctot, Richard B;
    Latty, Christopher;
    Lecomte, Nicolas;
    McDuffie, Laura A;
    Navedo, Juan G;
    Nol, Erica;
    Pohlen, Zachary M;
    Rausch, Jennie;
    Renfrew, Rosalind B;
    Ruiz, Jorge;
    Russell, Mike;
    Ruthrauff, Daniel R;
    Saalfeld, Sarah T;
    Sandercock, Brett K;
    Schulte, Shiloh A;
    Smith, Paul A;
    Taylor, Audrey R;
    Tibbitts, T Lee;
    Valcu, Mihai;
    Weegman, Mitch D;
    Wright, James R;
    Senner, Nathan R
    2024 Ornithological Advances

    doi: 10.1093/ornithapp/duae034pmid: N/A

    Identifying the migration routes and stopover sites used by declining species is critical for developing targeted conservation actions. Long-distance migratory shorebirds are among the groups of birds declining most rapidly, yet we frequently lack detailed knowledge about the routes and stopover sites they use during their hemisphere-spanning migrations. This is especially true for species that migrate through mid-continental regions in the Western Hemisphere. We therefore used satellite transmitters to track 212 individuals of 6 shorebird species during their southward migrations—Pluvialis dominica (American Golden-Plover), Limosa haemastica (Hudsonian Godwit), Tringa flavipes (Lesser Yellowlegs), Calidris subruficollis (Buff-breasted Sandpiper), C. melanotos (Pectoral Sandpiper), and Bartramia longicauda (Upland Sandpiper)—as they crossed the Amazon Basin of South America, a region from which reports of shorebird numbers are increasing but remain relatively rare. Our results make clear that the Amazon Basin provides stopover habitat for a large number of shorebirds: more than 74% of individuals tracked crossing the Amazon Basin stopped over in the region for an average of 2–14 days, with some spending the entire nonbreeding season there. All species selected stopover sites along the region’s many rivers and lakes, while within stopover sites each species exhibited distinct habitat preferences. The timing of stopovers within sub-basins of the Amazon Basin also coincided with periods of low water, when the muddy, shallow water habitats preferred by most shorebirds are likely plentiful. Together, our results highlight the need for detailed investigations into shorebird abundance and distribution within the Amazon Basin, threats to shorebirds within particular subbasins, and links between shorebird conservation efforts and those targeting the myriad other species that inhabit this dynamic, hyper-diverse region.