USGS Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70258223

The Amazon Basin’s rivers and lakes support Nearctic-breeding shorebirds during southward migration

Jennifer A. Linscott·Enzo Basso·Rosalyn Bathrick·Juliana Bosi de Almeida·Alexandra Anderson·Fernando Angulo-Pratolongo·Bart M Ballard·Joël Bêty·Stephen Brown·Katherine S. Christie·Sarah J. Clements·Christian Friis·Callie Gesmundo·Marie-Andree Giroux·Autumn-Lynn Harrison·Christopher M. Harwood·Jason M. Hill·James A. Johnson·Bart Kempenaers·Benoit Laliberte·Jean-François Lamarre·Richard B. Lanctot·Christopher Latty·Nicolas Lecomte·Laura Anne McDuffie·Juan G. Navedo·Erica Nol·Zachary M. Pohlen·Jennie Rausch·R.B. Renfrew·Jorge Ruiz·Mike Russell·Daniel R. Ruthrauff·Sarah T. Saalfeld·Brett K. Sandercock·Shiloh A. Schulte·Paul A Smith·Audrey R. Taylor·T. Lee Tibbitts·Mihai Valcu·Mitch D. Weegman·James R. Wright·Nathan R. Senner
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

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), and 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.

Explore related subjects

Ornithological ApplicationsArticle
90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: -22.94525529595316° to 5.0159834439544255° latitude; -78.561846377901° to -44.8281771872405° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jennifer A. Linscott, Enzo Basso, Rosalyn Bathrick, Juliana Bosi de Almeida, Alexandra Anderson, Fernando Angulo-Pratolongo, Bart M Ballard, Joël Bêty, Stephen Brown, Katherine S. Christie, Sarah J. Clements, Christian Friis, Callie Gesmundo, Marie-Andree Giroux, Autumn-Lynn Harrison, Christopher M. Harwood, Jason M. Hill, James A. Johnson, Bart Kempenaers, Benoit Laliberte, Jean-François Lamarre, Richard B. Lanctot, Christopher Latty, Nicolas Lecomte, Laura Anne McDuffie, Juan G. Navedo, Erica Nol, Zachary M. Pohlen, Jennie Rausch, R.B. Renfrew, Jorge Ruiz, Mike Russell, Daniel R. Ruthrauff, Sarah T. Saalfeld, Brett K. Sandercock, Shiloh A. Schulte, Paul A Smith, Audrey R. Taylor, T. Lee Tibbitts, Mihai Valcu, Mitch D. Weegman, James R. Wright, Nathan R. Senner. 2024-08-09. The Amazon Basin’s rivers and lakes support Nearctic-breeding shorebirds during southward migration. https://doi.org/10.1093/ornithapp%2Fduae034

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

The cost of limited nocturnal roost availability on pre-migratory energy budgets in a central-place foraging shorebird, Numenius hudsonicus (Hudsonian Whimbrel)

Mobile species often travel long distances between the sites they use for different behaviors, such as central-place foragers that make daily commutes between a central roost and foraging sites. For migratory shorebird species that use coastal habitats, the limited availability of suitable nocturnal roost sites can lead individuals to commute long distances to their foraging territories, forcing them to balance the energetic cost of commuting with the need to refuel in between migratory flights. We investigated this potential trade-off in a population of Numenius hudsonicus (Hudsonian Whimbrel) that show wide variation in commute distance between a shared central nocturnal roost and individual foraging territories in coastal South Carolina, USA. We combined high-resolution movement data, behavioral state modeling, and empirical foraging behavior data to assess how increasing commute distances from a central nocturnal roost affect individual daily activity budgets, foraging habitat use, potential net energy gain, and breeding ground departure date. We found that N. hudsonicus that commute farther from their nocturnal roost spend a higher proportion of each day foraging and commuting, and that they delay their departure to the breeding grounds by 3–6 days. Our results indicate that roosting habitat close to foraging areas can reduce the energetic cost of commuting to help shorebirds avoid delays in migratory timing. Thus, protecting, restoring, and creating nocturnal roosting habitat close to foraging areas may enhance successful shorebird migration.

South Carolina↗
USGS2026

Modeling observational uncertainty improves estimation of breeding-season parameters that inform lek-based monitoring for Centrocercus urophasianus (Greater Sage-Grouse)

Counts of males on leks are widely used as abundance indices to monitor populations of lek-breeding species, but they can be influenced by variation in male attendance, inter-lek movement, and mortality. When there is imperfect observability of males on leks, estimates of lek attendance and inter-lek movement are likely to be biased low. We compared traditional multi-state mark–recapture (MSMR) and MSMR models with state uncertainty (MSMR-SU) to determine how accounting for uncertainty in GPS-derived lek attendance improves inference of rates underlying lek-based abundance indices for male Centrocercus urophasianus (Greater Sage-Grouse). We found that modeling observational uncertainty with MSMR-SU models consistently reduced bias in lek attendance and inter-lek movement estimates for adult and yearling males compared to MSMR models. Estimates of daily maximum male lek attendance (adults: 0.79; yearlings: 0.68) and inter-lek movement rates (adults: 0.10; yearlings: 0.07) from MSMR-SU models were higher than daily maximum lek attendance (adults: 0.74; yearlings: 0.55) and inter-lek movement rates (adults: 0.01; yearlings: 0.04) from MSMR models. Consistent with previous studies, adults exhibited higher lek attendance and mortality rates than yearlings. However, unlike earlier studies, inter-lek movement rates were similar between age classes, with adults tending to move earlier in the lekking season than yearlings. Wind speed and precipitation had a weak negative effect on lek attendance. Greater distance to the nearest known lek strongly reduced inter-lek movement. Accounting for lekking-season mortality shifted the estimated date of maximum lek attendance earlier in the season by 8–9 days for adults and 1–3 days for yearlings. Accounting for state uncertainty due to error in state assignment should reduce bias in demographic estimates for use in wildlife conservation and management decisions.

Colorado, Wyoming↗
USGS2026

Incorporating location uncertainty improves inference with stop-level North American Breeding Bird Survey data

Ecological models should account for uncertainty to be most effective and useful. Yet, uncertainty from model covariates—unlike that from other sources, such as sampling error or process variability—is seldom explicitly incorporated. This can cause underestimates of uncertainty to cascade through model parameter estimates, predictions, and downstream uses. Burner et al. proposed a method for quantifying uncertainty in covariates and incorporating it into models using informative Bayesian priors. This method was applied to stop-level Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) analyses, where land cover uncertainty at each stop arises from substantial stop location uncertainty. A limited validation of model-estimated land cover, using stops with known locations, indicated the method’s potential effectiveness, but it was not rigorously evaluated. We conduct a robust simulation-based test, generating stop locations, extracting land cover, and simulating bird communities across 210 BBS routes in the upper Midwest. We compare 3 models: a “known” model with true land cover, a “naive” model assuming consistent 800-m stop spacing, and a “full” model using informative priors to estimate land cover. Species parameter estimates and predicted prevalence patterns across gradients in land cover from the full model approached those of the known model and were substantially closer to the true values used in simulations relative to those from the naive model. Naive model parameters were more biased relative to the other models, and credible intervals of predicted species prevalence rarely included the true simulated values. The full model also produced land cover covariate estimates closer to true simulation values relative to the mean informative priors. Our results show that, for the BBS, informative priors enable more accurate stop-level analyses despite location uncertainty. In contrast, naive models that ignore this uncertainty yield poor inferences. More broadly, we demonstrate empirically the utility of informative priors to account for covariate uncertainty in ecological models.

Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconson↗