Seasonal Migration and Daily Movement Patterns of Sympatric Overwintering Black-Necked Cranes (Grus nigricollis) and Common Cranes (Grus grus) in Caohai, Guizhou, China

Waterbirds ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhang Ming-Ming ◽  
Hu Can-Shi ◽  
Sun Xi-Jiao ◽  
Su Hai-Jun
2004 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Derek W. Bailey ◽  
Martina R. Keil ◽  
Larry R. Rittenhouse

2019 ◽  
Vol 209 ◽  
pp. 49-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catheline Y.M. Froehlich ◽  
Andres Garcia ◽  
Richard J. Kline

2019 ◽  
Vol 76 (7) ◽  
pp. 2020-2032 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chang Liu ◽  
Crista Bank ◽  
Michael Kersula ◽  
Geoffrey W Cowles ◽  
Douglas R Zemeckis ◽  
...  

Abstract Atlantic halibut are a “Species of Concern” in US waters and little is known about their movements and stock structure. Recent stock assessments drew attention to the paucity of information for assessing and managing this stock. To investigate movement patterns and stock structure, halibut were tagged off Massachusetts and Maine within US waters of the Gulf of Maine region using pop-up satellite archival tags and data storage tags. A hidden Markov model (HMM) geolocation method previously developed for other groundfish species was adapted to estimate the movement tracks of the tagged halibut (n = 25) based on the tag-recorded depth and temperature. Total distance travelled based on geolocation ranged from 36 to 1701 km, whereas straight line distance between tagging and end locations ranged from 0.4 to 440.7 km. Estimated movement rates varied between 2.7 and 10 km day−1. Two tagged halibut made long-distance movements to putative spawning habitat in the Northeast Channel off Georges Bank. Thirteen (13) out of 25 geolocated individuals were estimated to have reached Canadian waters. Geolocation results revealed home range, return movement, and seasonal migration movement patterns exhibited by the tagged halibut. The HMM geolocation method could be a useful tool in providing information on halibut movements that can inform stock assessment and management decisions.


Author(s):  
Manne Godhe ◽  
Örjan Ekblom ◽  
Maria Ekblom ◽  
Marjan Pontén ◽  
MD Eva Andersson

Mammal Study ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 165-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshihiro Sakamoto ◽  
Takashi Kunisaki ◽  
Isao Sawaguchi ◽  
Toshiki Aoi ◽  
Koji Harashina ◽  
...  

1977 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 223-241
Author(s):  
Forrest R. Pitts

1979 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guy N. Cameron ◽  
W. Bradley Kincaid ◽  
Cathy A. Way ◽  
J. O. Woodrow

2006 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 531-545 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles H. Calisher ◽  
James E. Childs ◽  
Hume E. Field ◽  
Kathryn V. Holmes ◽  
Tony Schountz

SUMMARY Bats (order Chiroptera, suborders Megachiroptera [“flying foxes”] and Microchiroptera) are abundant, diverse, and geographically widespread. These mammals provide us with resources, but their importance is minimized and many of their populations and species are at risk, even threatened or endangered. Some of their characteristics (food choices, colonial or solitary nature, population structure, ability to fly, seasonal migration and daily movement patterns, torpor and hibernation, life span, roosting behaviors, ability to echolocate, virus susceptibility) make them exquisitely suitable hosts of viruses and other disease agents. Bats of certain species are well recognized as being capable of transmitting rabies virus, but recent observations of outbreaks and epidemics of newly recognized human and livestock diseases caused by viruses transmitted by various megachiropteran and microchiropteran bats have drawn attention anew to these remarkable mammals. This paper summarizes information regarding chiropteran characteristics and information regarding 66 viruses that have been isolated from bats. From these summaries, it is clear that we do not know enough about bat biology; we are doing too little in terms of bat conservation; and there remain a multitude of questions regarding the role of bats in disease emergence.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document