Show simple item record

Files in this item

Thumbnail

Item metadata

dc.contributor.authorPatchett, Robert
dc.contributor.authorFinch, Tom
dc.contributor.authorCresswell, Will
dc.date.accessioned2019-04-22T23:37:28Z
dc.date.available2019-04-22T23:37:28Z
dc.date.issued2018-04-23
dc.identifier.citationPatchett , R , Finch , T & Cresswell , W 2018 , ' Population consequences of migratory variability differ between flyways ' , Current Biology , vol. 28 , no. 8 , pp. R340-R341 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.03.018en
dc.identifier.issn0960-9822
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 252481475
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: d47281cb-024b-4254-a870-21fcbc24be5c
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 85045735944
dc.identifier.otherORCID: /0000-0002-4684-7624/work/60426928
dc.identifier.otherWOS: 000430694900005
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10023/17578
dc.description.abstractLong-distance migratory bird populations are likely to be declining because of climate change shifting habitats or anthropogenic habitat loss [1], but this may be mediated by the size of the non-breeding area over which a population spreads (migratory spread), and migration distance (or number of stop-over sites). High migratory spread may make populations more resilient to climate change because they already encompass shifting habitats, but less resilient to uneven habitat loss that may not affect populations with low migratory spread [2] (Figure 1C). As migration distance increases so the probability of encountering a stop-over site with negative environmental change increases [3] (Figure 1D). Consequently, if habitat shift through climate change is the main driver of declines we predict more positive population trends for high spread migrants, but the reverse for outright habitat loss (Figure 1E); we also predict negative population trends for longer distance migrants (Figure 1F). But these relationships may vary between flyways, which differ profoundly in their climate variation, human population change and geography. Here we show that climate change may be more important in Neotropic migrant population declines whereas habitat loss may be more important in the Afro-Palearctic.
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofCurrent Biologyen
dc.rights© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. This work has been made available online in accordance with the publisher’s policies. This is the author created, accepted version manuscript following peer review and may differ slightly from the final published version. The final published version of this work is available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.03.018en
dc.subjectQH301 Biologyen
dc.subjectNDASen
dc.subjectBDCen
dc.subjectR2Cen
dc.subjectSDG 13 - Climate Actionen
dc.subject.lccQH301en
dc.titlePopulation consequences of migratory variability differ between flywaysen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.description.versionPostprinten
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. School of Biologyen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. Scottish Oceans Instituteen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. Institute of Behavioural and Neural Sciencesen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. St Andrews Sustainability Instituteen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. Centre for Biological Diversityen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.03.018
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden
dc.date.embargoedUntil2019-04-23
dc.identifier.urlhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982218303191#app2en


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record