Figures
Abstract
One way to manage disturbance to waterbirds in natural areas where humans require access is to promote the occurrence of stimuli for which birds tolerate closer approaches, and so cause fewer responses. We conducted 730 experimental approaches to 39 species of waterbird, using five stimulus types (single walker, three walkers, bicycle, car and bus) selected to mimic different human management options available for a controlled access, Ramsar-listed wetland. Across species, where differences existed (56% of 25 cases), motor vehicles always evoked shorter flight-initiation distances (FID) than humans on foot. The influence of stimulus type on FID varied across four species for which enough data were available for complete cross-stimulus analysis. All four varied FID in relation to stimuli, differing in 4 to 7 of 10 possible comparisons. Where differences occurred, the effect size was generally modest, suggesting that managing stimulus type (e.g. by requiring people to use vehicles) may have species-specific, modest benefits, at least for the waterbirds we studied. However, different stimulus types have different capacities to reduce the frequency of disturbance (i.e. by carrying more people) and vary in their capacity to travel around important habitat.
Citation: McLeod EM, Guay P-J, Taysom AJ, Robinson RW, Weston MA (2013) Buses, Cars, Bicycles and Walkers: The Influence of the Type of Human Transport on the Flight Responses of Waterbirds. PLoS ONE 8(12): e82008. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082008
Editor: Cédric Sueur, Institut Pluridisciplinaire Hubert Curien, France
Received: April 16, 2013; Accepted: October 20, 2013; Published: December 18, 2013
Copyright: © 2013 McLeod et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: This research was funded by Melbourne Water, a Victoria University Fellowship and a Faculty of Health Engineering and Science Collaborative Research Grant Scheme to P. J. Guay (no URLs are available for these funding sources). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
‘Disturbance’ is the disruption of the normal activity or physiology of wildlife, such as birds, in the proximity of an agent such as a person or vehicle. In some circumstances disturbance is regarded as a conservation problem [1]–[3]. The classic mechanistic model of bird disturbance involves an external ‘stimulus’ (e.g. a person), and a ‘response’ on the part of the bird (e.g. escape), with various internal (e.g. body weight, species) and external (e.g. speed of approach) influences mediating the response [4], [5].
While great variation in the form and intensity of escape responses occurs, including substantial variation within species, several general principles regarding animal escape have been elucidated [4]. One of the basic principles which has been described regarding bird disturbance by humans is that the nature and behaviour of the stimulus influences the probability and extent of response [6]–[8]. For example, walkers may evoke responses of shorebirds at different distances than those evoked by dog walkers or joggers [9]. Different stimuli are often associated with multiple cues (visual, auditory or olfactory) and birds may respond to these cues separately as well as holistically; for example, birds may respond to a recording of a barking dog [10]. The behaviour of stimuli may also influence responses, for example, the unpredictable and rapid movements of unleashed dogs may explain the greater responses of birds to unleashed rather than leashed dogs [6], [11].
Anthropogenic stimuli come in many shapes and forms, but few studies actually examine the responses of birds to different stimuli ‘likely’ to occur in areas of natural significance ([12]–[16], but see [17]). An understanding of which stimuli are associated with more frequent or intense responses could aid planning and promote coexistence between humans and wildlife. An example of this is areas of high natural significance (i.e. those harbouring substantial biodiversity) and the question as to how humans should be able to use such areas. Humans could be permitted on foot or by bicycle (potentially representing low acoustic cues). Alternatively, people could access such areas in vehicles, such as cars or buses (permitting fewer vehicles because they have higher carrying capacities but representing larger, noisier stimuli). In essence, these choices represent a potential management continuum of self-directed (walking, cycling, some vehicles) to organised ecotourism (some vehicles but especially buses).
Given that human presence can be detrimental to wildlife such as birds, the management of human access into sensitive natural areas is critical [4]. A common way to manage human disturbance in sensitive areas involves the establishment of buffer/exclusion zones (attempts to completely exclude people are not always effective e.g. [18]). Ideally, the size of buffer zones is determined using Flight Initiation Distance (FID), the distance at which birds responds to various stimuli [19]. Although the responses of birds differ markedly between stimuli, it has been suggested that available FIDs are dominated by those evoked by single walkers [4]. However, this has not been tested.
This study aims to: 1) determine if there is a bias in the literature to reporting more FIDs evoked in response to a single walker; and 2) examine FIDs evoked by five different (but commonly occurring) stimuli: single walker, a group of (three) walkers, bicycle, car, and bus. We control for a range of other factors by conducting the study at a site which currently experiences relatively low levels of human presence compared with publically accessible sites nearby [9]. Managers are seeking advice on the least-disturbing human presence for birds at this site (W. K. Steele pers. comm.).
Methods
Literature search
We performed a search in Google Scholar 12th October 2012 using the keywords “bird” and “flight initiation distance” (see Figure S1). The keywords “bird” and “flush distance” were used in an additional search performed in the same database (14th January 2013). These searches returned a total of 695 papers. Of these, only the 100 studies that measured FID in birds were considered further. The stimuli which had been used in each study were determined and details of each paper were noted. For each study, we extracted the stimuli used and the species studied. For studies comparing multiple stimuli within species, we recorded the comparisons made and whether significant differences were reported.
Fieldwork
Field work was conducted at the Western Treatment Plant (WTP), Werribee, near Melbourne, Victoria, Australia (38°1′S, 144°34′E). The Ramsar-listed WTP holds internationally significant numbers of many waterbird species and is a renowned birdwatching site [20], [21]. Access to the plant is restricted; visitors are required to obtain a permit and register each visit. The common birdwatching areas of the WTP are comprised of various ponds and lagoons and the coastline, all of which are easily accessible via car or foot from the roads and paths that run throughout the plant, usually between every pond. In addition to the birdwatchers and workers in cars or on foot, bus tours of the WTP are often conducted. The waterbirds at the WTP are thus exposed to some human activity, less than that evident in unrestricted areas such as urban parks [9].
Measuring flight-initiation distances
We collected FIDs for 39 waterbird species between September 2011 and February 2012. All fieldwork was conducted between 0730 and 2100 hours, and as is customary and practical, only when it was not raining. We presented five types of stimuli to waterbirds within the WTP: single walker (1.4 ms−1), three walkers (1.0 ms−1), bicycle (2.0 ms−1), car (2.8 ms−1) and bus (2.8 ms−1). A stimulus type was randomly selected for each fieldwork day. For each stimulus type, FID was assessed by moving towards the focal bird at a constant pace. While approach speeds can influence FIDs [22] we used approach speeds which were typical of the stimuli being tested; our aim was to mimic realistic behaviour of each stimulus type. During the approach the observer/s were silent and made no sudden body movements. The distance at which we started an approach was recorded as the Starting Distance, and was maximised i.e. we used the longest Starting Distance possible [5], [23]. The distance at which the bird walked, swam, dived, or flew away in response to the approach was recorded as the FID. Approaches were only included if the bird's response was determined to occur as a result of the approach. When a flock was approached, the FID was taken from the point at which the first individual showed a response to the approach. An approach was abandoned if it was unclear whether the bird was responding to the observer or to another potential stimulus, such as a bird of prey. Depending on the target bird's original location, we approached either directly or tangentially. For tangential approaches, we minimised bypass distance and bypass distance was thus reasonably modest (29.4±1.0 m [mean ± SE]; 493 tangential approaches. All distances were measured using a laser rangefinder.
All approaches were made by EMM and AJT. For all walking and bicycle approaches the observers wore standard clothes (dark pants and a dark long-sleeved top). In all bicycle approaches observers also wore a bicycle helmet. All approaches were conducted on non-breeding adult waterbirds and only single-species flocks were approached. We attempted to avoid resampling individuals by closely monitoring where birds flushed to after an approach, before moving on to the next site. We present all raw FID and Starting Distance data, following the recommendation of Weston et al. [4].
Statistical analysis
For tangential approaches, FID was calculated as the Euclidian distance between the observer and the subject at the time escape behaviour was initiated by taking into account the bypass distance, the minimum distance between the focal bird and the path of the observer [24]. FID did not differ between tangential and direct approaches (F1,403 = 0.878; P = 0.349) so data for both approach types were pooled for further analysis.
We were not able to measure FID against all stimuli for all species because of the sample sizes achieved, an artefact of locating birds in appropriate locations and manoeuvring stimuli to enable useful data collection. We therefore restricted our statistical analyses to four species (Australian shelduck Tadorna tadornoides, black swan Cygnus atratus, chestnut teal Anas castanea, and little pied cormorant Microcarbo melanoleucos). For these species we obtained at least five FID estimates per stimulus. We used a General Linear Model (GLM) to investigate the effect of species, stimulus type, and their interaction, and Starting Distance on FID using data from those four species. To test for potential differences in the relationship between Starting Distance and FID between stimuli and between species, we included two-way interactions, i.e. between Starting Distance and stimulus type and Starting Distance and species. We further used GLMs to compare responses between stimulus for all species where at least two stimuli had sample sizes of five or more (n = 12 species). Estimated Marginal Means (EMM) were calculated from these GLMs and two-tailed post hoc tests were performed using the EMM standard errors to compare FID between stimuli within species. All distances were Log10 transformed prior to analyses. Summary statistics are presented as mean ± standard deviation.
Permissions
Data were collected under Deakin University Animal Ethics Committee Permit A48/2008, Victoria University Animal Ethics Committee Permit AEETH 15/10, National Parks Permit 10004656, DSE Scientific Permits Nos 10004656 and 10005536, and Western Treatment Plant Study Permit SP 08/02. Techniques used were non-invasive, and all were under permit and ethics approval.
Results
The 100 studies located described FIDs evoked by 1.17±0.51 stimulus types per paper (1–4). Most studies reporting FIDs in birds only reported estimates derived from approaches by single walkers (73%; Table 1). The diverse mixture of species and stimuli tested, and the unbalanced nature of the sample, meant statistical comparisons between stimuli were unsuitable. Only 13% of studies, involving 44 species, compared more than one stimulus type. These studies report a total of 70 comparisons of FID between any two given stimulus types (Table 2).
We conducted 730 approaches to 39 species of waterbird (Table 3). The mean FIDs for each stimulus type, across those 39 species, were: walker, 67.6±37.5 m; three walkers, 92.3±67.7 m; bicycle, 67.7±37.1 m; car, 59.5±37.7 m; and bus, 81.2±96.5 m.
Within the four species where we had at least five estimates of FID for each stimuli, Starting Distance was positively correlated with FID (F1,339 = 233.10; P<0.001). However, Starting Distance differed between species (F3,363 = 61.81; P<0.001) and stimulus type (F4,367 = 6.99; P<0.001) and the relationship between Starting Distance and FID varied between stimulus types (F4,339 = 2.60; P = 0.036; Figure 1) and between species (F7,339 = 5.11; P = 0.002). There was also a significant interaction between stimulus type and species (F12,339 = 3.17, P<0.001; Figure 2). These results suggested that comparisons between stimuli would be best made on a species by species basis.
Data are from four species that had at least five FIDs for each stimulus type (black swan, Australian shelduck, chestnut teal and little pied cormorant). Symbols: single walker (X), three walkers (○), bicycle (▵), car (□) and bus (◊).
Figures are derived from a General Linear Model which revealed a significant interaction between species and stimulus type. Values are estimated marginal means ± 95% C.I.
To explore the species-specific patterns, we conducted ANCOVA for each species where five or more estimates of FID for at least two stimuli were available (Table 4). Of the 60 pairwise comparisons, 43% [26] revealed significant differences. While most analyses had observed power greater than 0.500, power was quite low in some species (Table 4) and results in these species must be treated with caution. Seven of the twelve species discriminated between stimuli (i.e. had at least one significant pairwise difference; 1–10 comparisons across taxa), but often the effect size was modest (see, for example, Figure 2). FIDs differed between all possible comparisons between stimuli in at least one species (Table 4). Single and multiple walkers evoked longer FIDs than cars (10 of 15 pairwise comparisons; 5 comparisons reported no difference) and buses (4 of 6 significant comparisons; 6 comparisons reported no difference; Table 4). Thus, of the 16 significant comparisons between humans on foot and motor vehicles, humans evoked longer FIDs in 14 comparisons (88%). Pedestrians, singly or in groups, also evoked longer FIDs than bicycle riders in most cases (4 of 5 significant comparisons; 6 comparisons reported no difference). The number of comparisons between cars, buses and bicycles were too few to permit any generalisations, although two (of 2) comparisons involved shorter FIDs to cars compared with bicycles.
Discussion
The majority of FID studies focus on a single stimulus, usually a single walker. The few studies which have compared species response across more than one stimuli have found that while some species discriminate between stimuli, many do not. Where we report no difference between stimuli with regard to FID we acknowledge that low power sometimes existed, thus the cases where we report a lack of difference between stimuli should be treated with caution. The available dataset for determining meaningful buffers for non-walker stimuli around sensitive sites relies on data from single walkers. This study suggests that such buffers will often also effectively protect against most disturbance by the other stimuli we tested, at least at the study site and for the species studied. However, we report at least one case where buses, bicycles and multiple walkers evoked longer FIDs than single walkers, and we caution against the use of “walker-only” FIDs in all cases. Any elucidation of general principles regarding the influence of stimulus on bird response is clearly to be encouraged.
This study suggests that some but not all species discriminate among the stimuli we tested. Some birds have the capacity to discriminate between stimuli in terms of their responses [4], [9], and are even capable of discriminating between behaviour of the same stimulus [23], [24]. Many studies of discrimination between stimuli focus on a single species [10], [25], [26], [27] but multi-species studies ([9]; this study) report species differences in the capacity to discriminate between stimuli, with some species not adjusting responses between different stimuli. While this may result from low statistical power, or because the stimuli presented are similarly threatening and so responses are equivalent, it may also mean some species do not discriminate between stimuli and instead generalise their response to a variety of perceived anthropogenic threats. Discrimination between stimuli is expected to evolve where a fitness advantage is derived from such discrimination, or where species have the capacity to learn to adjust their responses [28].
Although species varied in their response to different stimuli, this study confirms that, where discrimination between stimuli occurs, vehicles tend to evoke shorter FIDs than humans on foot. This has previously been observed in some [29] but not all species examined [30]. We are unaware of any previous studies using buses as stimuli, and while for six species cars and buses evoked the same FIDs, for one species buses evoked longer FIDs than cars. Single and multiple walkers evoked the same FIDs in five of six species; human group size is rarely studied though has been proposed as a factor which might mediate FID [4]. We are aware of only three studies that have examined the influence of human group size on FID [8], [31], [32]. Lee et al. [31] and Kerbitou et al. [32] found no effect of human group size on FID, while Geist et al. [8] found one of two species distinguished between human group size. As for all studies of this type, the generalizability of the specific stimuli we used is unknown. For example, larger buses, noisier, speedier or different coloured cars, may influence responses. The fundamental attributes of stimuli which are used by birds to adjust responses remain unknown and represent a tantalising prospect for an experimental study [4].
A major aim of this study was to examine whether management of stimuli could reduce disturbance to waterbirds. While vehicles sometimes but not always reduce FIDs, they can carry a number of humans (5–7 for cars; the bus we used could carry 25 passengers). Thus, on a per human basis, vehicles dramatically reduced the response of waterbirds to humans compared with the situation where humans walked singly through the site. However, vehicles can travel greater distances than walkers over the same time frame, potentially exposing more birds to vehicles. Indeed, vehicles may reach areas effectively unreachable by walkers (and vice versa). Ultimately, in large wetlands such as the one we studied, the frequency with which birds are affected by disturbance will be influenced more by the capacity to carry numbers of people and the distance covered by the different modes of transport, than by the FIDs each transportation mode evokes.
Overall, our results demonstrate that at least some species can differentiate between stimuli, with motor vehicles apparently being less disturbing than pedestrians. However, when managing disturbance, it is very important to establish the extent of access and likely occurrence of humans on foot versus vehicles, the frequency of occurrence of each stimulus type, and how the distribution of each stimulus overlaps with important habitat used by birds.
Supporting Information
Figure S1.
PRISMA flow diagram describing the literature search and selection of articles for analysis.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082008.s001
(DOC)
Acknowledgments
We thank Dr W.K. Steele for his support and advice. We also thank Liam Bailey, Jan Bayley, Mathew Booth, Rebecca Dale, Emma Dear, Elly Love, John Lyons, and Gina Marino for their assistance in the field. Clorinda Schofield and Jessica Bywater kindly drove the bus. We thank Rob Slotow and three anonymous reviewers.
Author Contributions
Conceived and designed the experiments: PJG MAW RWR. Performed the experiments: PJG MAW EMM AJT. Analyzed the data: PJG MAW EMM. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: PJG MAW EMM AJT RWR. Wrote the paper: PJG MAW EMM AJT RWR.
References
- 1. Møller AP (2008) Flight distance and population trends in European breeding birds. Behav Ecol 19: 1095–1102.
- 2. Fox AD, Madsen J (1997) Behavioural and distributional effects of hunting disturbance on waterbirds in Europe: implications for refuge design. J Appl Ecol 34: 1–13.
- 3. Heil L, Fernández-Juricic E, Renison D, Cingolani AM, Blumstein DT (2007) Avian responses to tourism in the biogeographically isolated high Córdoba Mountains, Argentina. Biodivers Conserv 16: 1009–1026.
- 4. Weston MA, McLeod EM, Blumstein DT, Guay P-J (2012) A review of flight-initiation distances and their application to managing disturbance to Australian birds. Emu 112: 269–286.
- 5. Blumstein DT (2006) Developing an evolutionary ecology of fear: how life history and natural history traits affect disturbance tolerance in birds. Anim Behav 71: 389–399.
- 6. Weston MA, Elgar MA (2007) Responses of incubating hooded plovers (Thinornis rubricollis) to disturbance. J Coast Res 23: 569–576.
- 7. Gould ML, Green L, Altenau B, Blumstein DT (2004) A study of the species-confidence hypothesis with spiny-cheeked honeyeaters (Acanthagenys rufogularis). Emu 104: 267–271.
- 8. Geist C, Liao J, Libby S, Blumstein DT (2005) Does intruder group size and orientation affect flight initiation distance in birds? Anim Biodivers Conserv 28: 69–73.
- 9. Glover HK, Weston MA, Maguire GS, Miller KK, Christie BA (2011) Towards ecologically meaningful and socially acceptable buffers: Response distances of shorebirds in Victoria, Australia, to human disturbance. Landsc Urban Plann 103: 326–334.
- 10. Randler C (2006) Disturbances by dog barking increase vigilance in coots Fulica atra. Eur J Wildlife Res 52: 265–270.
- 11. Weston MA, Elgar MA (2005) Disturbance to brood-rearing hooded plover Thinornis rubricollis: responses and consequences. Bird Conserv Int 15: 193–209.
- 12. Buick AM, Paton DC (1989) Impact of off-road vehicles on nesting success of hooded plovers Charadrius rubricollis in the Coorong region of South Australia. Emu 89: 159–172.
- 13. Burger J (1998) Effects of motorboats and personalised watercraft on flight behaviour over a colony of Common Terns. Condor 100: 528–534.
- 14. Delaney DK, Grubb TG, Beier P, Pater LL, Reiser MH (1999) Effects of helicopter noise on Mexican Spotted Owls. J Wildl Manag 63: 60–76.
- 15.
Kirby JS, Clee C, Seager V (1993) Impact and extent of recreational disturbance to wader roosts on the Dee estuary: some preliminary results. In: Davidson N, Rothwell P, editors. Disturbance to Waterfowl on Estuaries. Thetford, UK: Wader Study Groupp. pp. 53–66
- 16. Kushlan JA (1979) Effects of helicopter census on wading bird colonies. J Wildl Manag 43: 756–760.
- 17. Andersen DE, Rongstad OJ, Mytton WR (1989) Response of nesting Red-tailed Hawks to helicopter overflights. Condor 91: 296–299.
- 18. Antos MJ, Ehmke GC, Tzaros CL, Weston MA (2007) Unauthorised human use of an urban coastal wetland sanctuary: Current and future patterns. Landsc Urban Plann 80: 173–183.
- 19.
Blumstein DT, Fernández-Juricic E (2010) A Primer of Conservation Behavior. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
- 20.
Loyn RH, Schreiber ESG, Swindley RJ, Saunders K, Lane BA (2002) Use of Sewage Treatment Lagoons by Waterfowl at the Western Treatment Plant: Analyses of Physico-chemical and Waterfowl data collected between October 2000 and February 2002.
- 21.
Ramsar Convention Bureau (1984) Convention on wetlands of international importance especially as waterfowl habitat. In: editors. Proceedings of the Second Conference of Parties: Groningen, Netherlands, 7 to 12 May 1984. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Ressources.
- 22. Stankowich T, Blumstein DT (2005) Fear in animals: A meta-analysis and review of risk assessment. Proc R Soc Lond Biol 272: 2627–2634.
- 23. Blumstein DT (2003) Flight-initiation distance in birds is dependent on intruder starting distance. J Wildl Manag 67: 852–857.
- 24. Cooper WE (1997) Factors affecting risk and costs of escape by broad-headed skink (Eumeces laticeps): Predator speed, directness of approach, and female presence. Herpetologica 53: 464–474.
- 25. Lord A, Wass JR, Innes J, Whittingham MJ (2001) Effects of human approaches to nests of northern New Zealand dotterel. Biol Conserv 98: 233–240.
- 26. Weston MA, Ehmke G, Maguire G (2011) Nest return times in response to static versus mobile human disturbance. J Wildl Manag 75: 252–255.
- 27. Rodgers JA, Smith HT (1995) Set-back distances to protect nesting bird colonies from human disturbance in Florida. Conserv Biol 9: 89–99.
- 28. Guay P-J, Weston MA, Symonds MRE, Glover HK (2013) Brains and bravery: Little evidence of a relationship between brain size and flightiness in shorebirds. Austral Ecol 38: 516–522.
- 29. Rodgers JA, Smith HT (1997) Buffer-zone distances to protect foraging and loafing waterbirds from human disturbance in Florida. Wildl Soc Bull 25: 139–145.
- 30. Holmes TL, Knight RL, Stegall L, Craig GR (1993) Responses of wintering grassland raptors to human disturbance. Wildl Soc Bull 21: 461–468.
- 31. Lee J-E, Jeong E, Kim S-Y, Sung H-C (2012) Effects of human disturbance on nesting little terns (Sterna albifrons). Korean J Ornithol 19: 93–103.
- 32. Kerbiriou C, Le Viol I, Robert A, Porcher E, Gourmelon F, et al. (2009) Tourism in protected areas can threaten wild populations: from individual response to population viability of the chough Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax. J Appl Ecol 46: 657–665.
- 33. Blumstein DT, Anthony LL, Harcourt R, Ross G (2003) Testing a key assumption of wildlife buffer zones: is flight initiation distance a species-specific trait? Biol Conserv 110: 97–100.
- 34. Burger J, Gochfeld M (1991) Human distance and birds: Tolerance and response distances of resident and migrant species in India. Environ Conserv 18: 158–165.
- 35. Burger J, Gochfeld M, Saliva JE, Gochfeld D, Gochfeld D, et al. (1989) Antipredator behaviour in nesting zenaida doves (Zenaida aurita): parental investment or offspring vulnerability. Behaviour 129–143.
- 36. Fernández-Juricic E, Jimenez MD, Lucas E (2002) Factors affecting intra- and inter-specific variations in the difference between alert distances and flight distances for birds in forested habitats. Can J Zool 80: 1212–1220.
- 37. Fraser JD, Frenzel LD, Mathisen JE (1985) The impact of human activities on breeding bald eagles in north-central Minnesota. J Wildl Manag 49: 585–592.
- 38. Burhans DE, Thompson FR (2001) Relationship of songbird nest concealment to nest fate and flushing behavior of adults. Auk 118: 237–242.
- 39. Miller SG, Knight RL, Miller CK (2001) Wildlife responses to pedestrians and dogs. Wildl Soc Bull 29: 124–132.
- 40. Ackerman JT, Takekawa JY, Kruse KL, Orthmeyer DL, Yee JL, et al. (2004) Using radiotelemetry to monitor cardiac response of free-living tule greater white-fronted geese (Anser albifrons elgasi) to human disturbance. Wilson Bull 116: 146–151.
- 41. Albrecht T, Klvaňa P (2004) Nest crypsis, reproductive value of a clutch and escape decisions in incubating female mallards Anas platyrhynchos. Ethology 110: 603–613.
- 42. Beale CM, Monaghan P (2004) Behavioural responses to human disturbance: a matter of choice? Anim Behav 68: 1065–1069.
- 43. Blumstein DT, Fernández-Juricic E, LeDee O, Larsen E, Rodriguez-Prieto I, et al. (2004) Avian risk assessment: effects of perching height and detectability. Ethology 110: 273–285.
- 44. Fernández-Juricic E, Schroeder N (2003) Do variations in scanning behavior affect tolerance to human disturbance? Appl Anim Behav Sci 84: 219–234.
- 45. Fernández-Juricic E, Vaca R, Schroeder N (2004) Spatial and temporal responses of forest birds to human approaches in a protected area and implications for two management strategies. Biol Conserv 117: 407–416.
- 46. Ikuta LA, Blumstein DT (2003) Do fences protect birds from human disturbance? Biol Conserv 112: 447–452.
- 47. Martín J, De Neve L, Fargallo JA, Polo V, Soler M (2004) Factors affecting the escape behaviour of juvenile chinstrap penguins, Pygoscelis antarctica, in response to human disturbance. Polar Biol 27: 775–781.
- 48. Cárdenas YL, Shen B, Zung L, Blumstein DT (2005) Evaluating temporal and spatial margins of safety in Galahs. Anim Behav 70: 1395–1399.
- 49. Adams JL, Camelio KW, Orique MJ, Blumstein DT (2006) Does information of predators influence general wariness? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60: 742–747.
- 50. Boyer JS, Hass LL, Lurie MH, Blumstein DT (2006) Effect of visibility on time allocation and escape decisions in crimson rosellas. Aust J Zool 54: 363–367.
- 51. Fernández-Juricic E, Venier MP, Renison D, Blumstein DT (2005) Sensitivity of wildlife to spatial patterns of recreationist behavior: a critical assessment of minimum approaching distances and buffer areas for grassland birds. Biol Conserv 125: 225–235.
- 52. Hess MF, Silvy NJ, Griffin CP, Lopez RR, Davis DS (2005) Differences in flight characteristics of pen-reared and wild prairie-chickens. J Wildl Manag 69: 650–654.
- 53. Holmes N, Giese M, Kriwoken LK (2005) Testing the minimum approach distance guidelines for incubating royal penguins Eudyptes schlegeli. Biol Conserv 126: 339–350.
- 54. Webb NV, Blumstein DT (2005) Variation in human disturbance differentially affects predation risk assessment in western gulls. Condor 107: 178–181.
- 55. Eason PK, Sherman PT, Rankin O, Coleman B (2006) Factors influencing flight initiation distance in American robin. J Wildl Manag 70: 1796–1800.
- 56. Gulbransen D, Segrist T, del Castillo P, Blumstein DT (2006) The fixed-slope rule: an inter-specific study. Ethology 112: 1056–1061.
- 57. Baines D, Richardson M (2007) An experimental assessment of the potential effects of human disturbance on black grouse Tetrao tetrix in the North Pennines, England. Ibis 149: 56–64.
- 58. Baudains TP, Lloyd P (2007) Habituation and habitat changes can moderate the impacts of human disturbance on shorebird breeding performance. Anim Conserv 10: 400–407.
- 59. Fernández-Juricic E, Blumstein DT, Abrica G, Manriquez L, Adams LB, et al. (2006) Relationships of anti-predator escape and post-escape responses with body mass and morphology: a comparative avian study. Evol Ecol Res 8: 731–752.
- 60. Martin J, De Neve L, Polo V, Fargallo JA, Soler M (2006) Health-dependent vulnerability to predation affects escape responses of unguarded chinstrap penguin chicks. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60: 778–784.
- 61. Rollinson DJ, Jones DN (2006) Tolerance of Australian magpies Gymnorhina tibicen towards humans: A comparison along an urban gradient. Aust Field Ornithol 23: 29–35.
- 62. Smith PA, Gilchrist HG, Smith JN, Nol E (2007) Annual variation in the benefits of a nesting association between red phalaropes (Phalaropus fulicarius) and Sabine's gulls (Xema sabini). Auk 124: 276–290.
- 63. Thiel D, Ménoni E, Brenot J-F, Jenni L (2007) Effects of recreation and hunting on flushing distance of capercaillie. J Wildl Manag 71: 1784–1792.
- 64. Greeney HF, Halupka K (2008) Nesting biology of the Andean solitaire (Myadestes ralloides) in northeastern Ecuador. Ornitol Neotrop 19: 213–220.
- 65. Møller AP, Nielsen JT, Garamszegi LZ (2008) Risk taking by singing males. Behav Ecol 19: 41–53.
- 66. Kitchen K, Lill A, Price M (2010) Tolerance of human disturbance by urban magpie-larks. Aust Field Ornithol 27: 1–9.
- 67. Rodriguez-Prieto I, Fernández-Juricic E, Martín J, Regis Y (2009) Antipredator behavior in blackbirds: habituation complements risk allocation. Behav Ecol 20: 371–377.
- 68. Boogert NJ, Monceau K, Lefebvre L (2010) A field test of behavioural flexibility in zenaida doves (Zenaida aurita). Behav Process 85: 135–141.
- 69. Bregnballe T, Aaen K, Fox AD (2009) Escape distances from human pedestrians by staging waterbirds in a Danish wetland. Wildfowl Special Issue 2: 115–130.
- 70. Carrete M, Tella JL (2010) Individual consistency in flight initiation distances in burrowing owls: A new hypothesis on disturbance-induced habitat selection. Biol Lett 6: 167–170.
- 71. Eason P, Rabea B, Attum O (2010) Conservation implications of flight initiation distance and refuge use in corn crakes Crex crex at a migration stopover site. Zool Middle East 51: 9–14.
- 72. Evans J, Boudreau K, Hyman J (2010) Behavioural syndromes in urban and rural populations of song sparrows. Ethology 116: 588–595.
- 73. Fernández-Juricic E, Zahn EF, Parker T, Stankowich T (2009) California's endangered Belding's savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi): Tolerance of pedestrian disturbance. Avian Conserv Ecol 4 (2) 1.
- 74. Levey DJ, Londoño GA, Ungvari-Martin J, Hiersoux MR, Jankowski JE, et al. (2009) Urban mockingbirds quickly learn to identify individual humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106: 8959–8962.
- 75. Madsen J, Tombre I, Eide NE (2009) Effects of disturbance on geese in Svalbard: implications for regulating increasing tourism. Polar Res 28: 376–389.
- 76. Magige FJ, Holmern T, Stokke S, Mlingwa C, Røskaft E (2009) Does illegal hunting affect density and behaviour of African grassland birds? A case study on ostrich (Struthio camelus). Biodivers Conserv 18: 1361–1373.
- 77. Møller AP (2009) Basal metabolic rate and risk-taking behaviour in birds. J Evol Biol 22: 2420–2429.
- 78. Randler C (2008) Risk assessment by crow phenotypes in a hybrid zone. J Ethol 26: 309–316.
- 79. Rodriguez-Prieto I, Fernandez-Juricic E, Martin J (2008) To run or to fly: low cost versus low risk escape strategies in blackbirds. Behaviour 145: 1125–1138.
- 80. Tillmann JE (2009) Fear of the dark: night-time roosting and anti-predation behaviour in the grey partridge (Perdix perdix L.). Behaviour 146: 999–1023.
- 81. Tillmann JE (2009) An ethological perspective on defecation as an integral part of anti-predatory behaviour in the grey partridge (Perdix perdix L.) at night. J Ethol 27: 117–124.
- 82. Valcarcel A, Fernández-Juricic E (2009) Antipredator strategies of house finches: Are urban habitats safe spots from predators even when humans are around? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 63: 673–685.
- 83. Møller AP, Erritzøe J (2010) Flight distance and eye size in birds. Ethology 116: 458–465.
- 84. Bateman PW, Fleming PA (2011) Who are you looking at? Hadeda ibises use direction of gaze, head orientation and approach speed in their risk assessment of a potential predator. J Zool Lond 285: 316–323.
- 85. Ge C, Li Z, Li J, Huang C (2011) The effects on birds of human encroachment on the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau. Transport Res D 16: 604–606.
- 86. Martín CA, Casas F, Mougeot F, García JT, Viñuela J (2010) Positive interactions between vulnerable species in agrarian pseudo-steppes: Habitat use by pin-tailed sandgrouse depends on its association with the little bustard. Anim Conserv 13: 383–389.
- 87. Møller AP (2010) Interspecific variation in fear responses predicts urbanization in birds. Behav Ecol 21: 365–371.
- 88. Møller AP (2010) Up, up, and away: relative importance of horizontal and vertical escape from predators for survival and senescence. J Evol Biol 23: 1689–1698.
- 89. Møller AP, Erritzøe H, Erritzøe J (2011) A behavioral ecology approach to traffic accidents: Interspecific variation in causes of traffic casualties among birds. Zool Res 32: 115–127.
- 90. Scales J, Hyman J, Hughes M (2011) Behavioral syndromes break down in urban song sparrow populations. Ethology 117: 887–895.
- 91. Smith-Castro JR, Rodewald AD (2010) Behavioral responses of nesting birds to human disturbance along recreational trails. J Field Ornithol 81: 130–138.
- 92. St Clair JJH, García-Peña GE, Woods RW, Székely T (2010) Presence of mammalian predators decreases tolerance to human disturbance in a breeding shorebird. Behav Ecol 21: 1285–1292.
- 93. Zanette LY, White AF, Allen MC, Clinchy M (2011) Perceived predation risk reduces the number of offspring songbirds produce per year. Science 334: 1398–1401.
- 94. Chamaillé-Jammes S, Blumstein DT (2012) A case for quantile regression in behavioral ecology: Getting more out of flight initiation distance data. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 66: 985–992.
- 95. Atwell JW, Cardoso GC, Whittaker DJ, Campbell-Nelson S, Robertson KW, et al. (2012) Boldness behavior and stress physiology in a novel urban environment suggest rapid correlated evolutionary adaptation. Behav Ecol 23: 960–969.
- 96. Clucas B, Marzluff JM (2012) Attitudes and actions toward birds in urban areas: Human cultural differences influence bird behavior. Auk 129: 8–16.
- 97. Javůrková V, Šizling AL, Kreisinger J, Albrecht T (2012) An alternative theoretical approach to escape decision-making: the role of visual cues. PLoS ONE 7: e32522.
- 98. Lin T, Coppack T, Lin Q, Kulemeyer C, Schmidt A, et al. (2012) Does avian flight initiation distance indicate tolerance towards urban disturbance? Ecol Indicat 15: 30–35.
- 99. Møller AP (2012) Urban areas as refuges from predators and flight distance of prey. Behav Ecol 23: 1030–1035.
- 100. Møller AP, Garamszegi LZ (2012) Between individual variation in risk-taking behavior and its life history consequences. Behav Ecol 23: 843–853.
- 101. Navedo JG, Herrera AG (2012) Effects of recreational disturbance on tidal wetlands: supporting the importance of undisturbed roosting sites for waterbird conservation. J Coast Conserv 16: 373–381.
- 102. Seltmann MW, Öst M, Jaatinen K, Atkinson S, Mashburn K, et al. (2012) Stress responsiveness, age and body condition interactively affect flight initiation distance in breeding female eiders. Anim Behav 84: 889–896.
- 103. Burger J, Gochfeld D (1988) Defensive aggression in terns: effect of species, density, and isolation. Aggress Behav 14: 169–178.
- 104. Wang Y-P, Chen S-H, Ding P (2004) Flush distance: bird tolerance to human intrusion in Hangzhou. Zool Res 25: 214–220.
- 105. Møller AP, Liang W (2013) Tropical birds take small risks. Behav Ecol 24: 267–272.
- 106. Buehler DA, Mersmann TJ, Fraser JD, Seegar JKD (1991) Effects of human activity on bald eagle distribution on the northern Chesapeake Bay. J Wildl Manag 55: 282–290.
- 107. Burger J, Gochfeld M, Jenkins CD, Lesser F (2010) Effect of approaching boats on nesting black skimmers: Using response distances to establish protective buffer zones. J Wildl Manag 74: 102–108.
- 108. Mori Y, Sodhi NS, Kawanishi S, Yamagishi S (2001) The effect of human disturbance and flock composition on the flight distances of waterfowl species. J Ethol 19: 115–119.
- 109. Osiejuk TS, Kuczynski L (2007) Factors affecting flushing distance in incubating female greylag geese Anser anser. Wildl Biol 13: 11–18.
- 110. Rodgers JA, Schwikert ST (2002) Buffer-zone distances to protect foraging and loafing waterbirds from disturbance by personal watercraft and outboard-powered boats. Conserv Biol 16: 216–224.
- 111. Wood PB (1999) Bald eagle response to boating activity in northcentral Florida. J Raptor Res 33: 97–101.
- 112. Keyel AC, Peck DT, Reed JM (2012) No evidence for individual assortment by temperament relative to patch area or patch openness in the bobolink. Condor 114: 212–218.
- 113. Zuberogoitia I, Martínez JE, Margalida A, Gómez I, Azkona A, et al. (2010) Reduced food availability induces behavioural changes in griffon vulture Gyps fulvus. Ornis Fenn 87: 52–60.
- 114. Martínez-Abraín A, Oro D, Conesa D, Jiménez J (2008) Compromise between seabird enjoyment and disturbance: The role of observed and observers. Environ Conserv 35: 104–108.
- 115. Karp DS, Root TL (2009) Sound the stressor: How hoatzins (Opisthocomus hoazin) react to ecotourist conversation. Biodivers Conserv 18: 3733–3742.
- 116. Müllner A, Eduard Linsenmair K, Wikelski M (2004) Exposure to ecotourism reduces survival and affects stress response in hoatzin chicks (Opisthocomus hoazin). Biol Conserv 118: 549–558.
- 117. Steidl RJ, Anthony RG (1996) Responses of bald eagles to human activity during the summer in interior Alaska. Ecol Appl 6: 482–491.
- 118. Carrete M, Tella JL (2011) Inter-individual variability in fear of humans and relative brain size of the species are related to contemporary urban invasion in birds. PLoS ONE 6: e18859.
- 119. Rodgers JA, Schwikert ST (2003) Buffer zone distances to protect foraging and loafing waterbirds from disturbance by airboats in Florida. Waterbirds 26: 437–443.
- 120. Schwemmer P, Mendel B, Sonntag N, Dierschke V, Garthe S (2011) Effects of ship traffic on seabirds in offshore waters: implications for marine conservation and spatial planning. Ecol Appl 21: 1851–1860.
- 121. Watson JW (1993) Responses of nesting bald eagles to helicopter surveys. Wildl Soc Bull 21: 171–178.
- 122.
Christidis L, Boles WE (2008) Systematics and Taxonomy of Australian Birds. Melbourne: CSIRO Publishing