Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

Personal tools

You are here: Home / Library / RBINS Staff Publications 2025 / Modelling migratory waterfowl stopover habitat while accounting for ephemeral environmental conditions

N Rogova, M Iliev, N Petkov, A Timoshenko, D Vangeluwe, I Zuban, A Pidgeon, and V Radeloff (2025)

Modelling migratory waterfowl stopover habitat while accounting for ephemeral environmental conditions

Journal of Applied Ecology, 62:2941–2953. .

1.Migratory species depend on ephemeral environmental conditions; thus, species distribution modelling (SDM) must incorporate phenological changes along migratory routes. Our overarching goal was to model habitats for three waterfowl species migrating through Eurasian grasslands (red-breasted goose [Branta ruficollis], taiga bean goose [Anser fabalis fabalis] and Bewick's swan [Cygnus columbianus bewickii]) while accounting for ephemeral environmental conditions. Our objectives were (a) to develop a workflow of mapping ephemeral environmental conditions, (b) model habitats for the three species and (c) evaluate the protection status of habitats in natural and agricultural landscapes. We expected water availability, particularly ephemeral spring waterbodies, to strongly influence these species' distributions. 2. We utilized MODIS data for phenological synchronization of Landsat images to create species-and season-specific metrics and land cover maps. We used Landsat-derived environmental variables, elevation and bird GPS locations in Maxent SDM. We compared locations of modelled habitats, protected areas and Ramsar sites. 3. Our land cover maps had an overall accuracy of 0.92–0.95 and captured ephemeral water extent during these species' migrations. All models had AUC scores of 0.89–0.94; distance to water, land cover and elevation were the most important variables. Modelled habitats were distributed unevenly and occurred in both natural and agricultural landscapes; 40%–76% fell within croplands. Although most croplands provide a rich food supply, their value as waterfowl habitat critically depended on water availability. Approximately 22% of potential habitat in the natural landscape, but only 3% in croplands, had some level of protection.
Peer Review, International Redaction Board, Impact Factor
  • DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.70169

Document Actions