Next Article in Journal
Applying System-Oriented Sustainability Scoring for Cruise Traffic Port Operators: A Case Study of Geiranger, Norway
Previous Article in Journal
The Thames: Arresting Ecosystem Decline and Building Back Better
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 11
10.3390/su13116044
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Habitat Quality and Social Behavioral Association Network in a Wintering Waterbirds Community

by
Muhammad Awais Rasool
1,2,†,
Muhammad Azher Hassan
3,†,
Xiaobo Zhang
1,2,
Qing Zeng
1,2,
Yifei Jia
1,2,
Li Wen
1,2,4,* and
Guangchun Lei
1,2,*
1
Center for East Asian Australasian Flyway Studies, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
2
School of Ecology and Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
3
Tianjin Key Laboratory of Indoor Air Environmental Quality Control, School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China
4
Science Division, NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, Parramatta, NSW 2124, Australia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Equal authors.
Sustainability 2021, 13(11), 6044; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116044
Submission received: 8 April 2021 / Revised: 18 May 2021 / Accepted: 19 May 2021 / Published: 27 May 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Social Ecology and Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Migratory waterbirds concentrated in freshwater ecosystems in mosaic environments rely on quality habitats for overwintering. At West Dongting Lake National Nature Reserve (WDLNNR), China, land-use change and hydrology alternation are compounding factors that have affected important wintering areas for migratory waterbirds. Presently, changes in the hydrology and landscape have reshaped natural wintering habitats and their availability, though the impact of hydrological management on habitat selection of wintering waterbirds is largely unknown. In this study, we classified differentially managed habitats and calculated their area using the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) to evaluate suitable habitat availability over the study period (2016–2017 and 2017–2018 wintering periods). We then used social behavioral association network (SBAN) model to compare habitat quality through species-species social interactions and species-habitat associations in lakes with different hydrological management. The results indicated that social interactions between and within species structured wintering waterbirds communities, which could be dominated by one or more species, while dominant species control the activities of other co-existing species. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests indicated significant differences in SBAN metrics between lakes (p = 0.0237) and habitat (p < 0.0001) levels. Specifically, lakes with managed hydrology were preferred by more species. The managed lakes had better habitat quality in terms of significantly higher habitat areas (p < 0.0001) and lower habitat transitions (p = 0.0113). Collectively, our findings suggest that proper hydrological management can provide continuous availability of quality habitats, especially mudflats and shallow waters, for a stable SBAN to ensure a wintering waterbirds community with more sympatric species in a dynamic environment.

1. Introduction

Variations in animal behavior and resource use in shared environments are identifying factors for understanding habitat suitability, community dynamics and animal interactions. In mixed species groups (MSGs), behavioral interaction networks can identify this variation to address habitat quality. Animals make decisions on habitat choices and resource use through behavioral communication, shared intentionally or unintentionally by other animals in the neighborhood. This continuously produced social information offers rich insight on the fitness and availability state of all the resources needed by co-existing animals in environments that animals select or occupy [1,2,3,4]. Despite its established fitness consequences on habitat ecology and resource dynamics, the use of such social information on community dynamics in varying environments remains poorly understood [5,6,7,8]. However, because social information is continuously produced, making use of it improves the ability to understand how animals make decisions to perceive and respond to environmental gradients [9] or threats [10].
Animals often use social information to acquire resources; for example, species or groups foraging in a location alert others to food [11] and to perceive and avoid competition [8,12]. Behavioral ecologists have been studying how social information shared between co-existing species turns into associations and can influence habitat selection and use. Behavioral communication can lead to inter- and intra-specific interactions [13,14,15]. These interactions among species can influence community assembly [16,17], alter ecosystem function and services [18,19,20,21]; hence, parameters describing species associations have become a bioindicator of ecosystem health, offering evaluations for success or failure of restoration and/or management treatments [8,13,14,19,22,23]. Species associations arise with repeated interactions between species and can be used to probe what are the consequences of these preferred interactions (e.g., community structure and resource use), and whether these patterns of associations create MSGs interaction networks [24,25,26].
MSGs represent a non-trophic social behavioral association network (SBAN) in varying environments [8]. Investigations of species association networks in varying environmental gradients are rare in animal MSGs, especially in migratory waterbirds. An important aspect of these species associations is how similar the networks are that they form in different environmental or land-uses conditions [27,28]. Recent application of network analysis to analyze species associations in MSGs offers evaluations for habitat suitability and habitat quality [8,13,19,29,30,31,32,33]. Behavioral network analysis: (1) allows comparisons of the habitat quality of targeted and reference sites that have fitness consequences for organisms [8,34,35]; (2) provides invaluable information about reasons for differences in species behavioral network structures [16,36]; (3) identifies critical resources (food and roosting sites) that make a site suitable or not through species-habitat associations [37]; and (4) provides information on the mechanisms through which species contribute to ecosystem functioning [18,21,38,39].
In wintering migratory waterbirds MSGs, two key behavioral domains (i.e., foraging and roosting) are dramatically influenced by anthropogenic alternation to landscape and hydrology. Landscape of wetland system structures habitat types [40] while fluctuation in hydrology determines the availability of these habitats for selection, resource exploitation and use [41]. Two other behaviors (aggression and competition) that drive sociality are central to community structure and community activity persistence in shared environments [8,29,42]. These antagonistic social behaviors play a pivotal role in communication between species [15,43]. This behavioral communication, if converted into network of connected nodes, offers insights on species-species and species-habitat associations [8]. Understanding the linkages of these associations with management aspects of the ecosystem gives invaluable information on available habitat quality and provides insights on community dynamics in shared environments [44,45,46].
West Dongting Lake National Nature Reserve (WDLNNR) in China is traditionally a key wintering ground for migratory waterbirds in the East Asian-Australasian Flyway [47]. However, the rapid land cover changes [48] and dramatic hydrological alternations [49] have threatened the conservation status of the lake for migratory waterbirds [50]. The decline in waterbirds population in recent years has prompted national conservation efforts to restore the Ramsar site [51] through hydrological control such as embankments. However, the effects of hydrological management on habitat selection of wintering waterbirds are largely unknown. In a previous study, we constructed social behavioral association networks (SBAN) of MSG in two managed (R1) and two unmanaged (R2) sub-lakes in WDLNNR using time series activity-based abundance data [8]. In this study, we aimed to explore how habitat quality influences the key aspects of these networks. Utilizing remotely sensed time series imagery in Google Earth Engine (GEE) and ArcGIS, we classified habitats using NDVI (the normalized difference vegetation index) and assessed their availability and transition in the sub-lakes. Key SBAN metrics i.e., number of nodes, number of edges, edge density, species interaction preferences (SIP) and behavior interaction preferences (BIP) were then used to compare habitat quality in an attempt to assess the success or failure of management treatments.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

West Dongting Lake National Nature Reserve (WDLNNR: 28°48′–29°07′ N, 111°57′–112°19′ E) is a Ramsar site and an important wintering ground for many migratory waterbird species in the East Asia Austrasia Flyway (EAAF). The lake comprises a seasonally flooded semi-mountainous flat landscape covering a 35,000 ha area, with a variety of sub-lakes being principally managed by controlling the hydrology. During the wintering period (mid-Oct–mid-Mar), WDLNNR converts to five main types of habitats: grassland, wet meadows, mudflats, shallow water, and open deep-waters. The hydrology of managed (R1) sub-lakes under restoration is controlled by maintaining the water-level throughout the wintering period that ensures the availability of above-mentioned heterogeneous habitats. The hydrology of un-managed (R2) sub-lakes is subject to the flooding in connected streams and “He” river, along with local rainfall [52].

2.2. Assessment of Habitat Availability

Differential hydrology has a significant impact on developing the wetland habitats of useful value for wintering migratory waterbird MSGs. To assess how fluctuations in hydrology impact habitat development or emergence at managed (R1) and unmanaged (R2) sub-lakes, Landsat satellite observation data and the GEE cloud platform were used to map land cover changes during the study period [53]. This change was then validated with daily water-depth fluctuation data by pre-deployed color calibrated PVC pipes and was finally correlated with species abundance and frequency of visits to address the suitability of managed and unmanaged habitats through selection and use.
Using GEE, an image collection was produced for a 6-month period window (Oct-March) comprising all images intersecting the study area for 2016–2017 and 2017–2018 wintering periods to produce cloud-free composite scenes with minimal snow cover. The entirety of the Sentinel 2 available for this area was also included in this analysis. After atmospheric and radiometric corrections, the resultant images were mosaic and masked with the study area and were classified into water areas, grassland, mudflat, reeds, forest land, barren land and others (settlement and cropland) using the unsupervised classification method in ArcGIS. The detailed land cover maps were validated using ground survey and aerial photos by DJI Inspire 2 [54,55].
Furthermore, we masked out agricultural land uses, poplar forest, reed plantations and settlements and focused grasslands, mudflats, deep water and shallow water types of habitats. However, due to the unavailability of high quality (e.g., free of cloud) imagery at regular intervals, we modeled the wintering habitat distribution on time series for Oct to March for the above mentioned wintering periods covering the specified dates that we had species abundance data for, using MODIS for the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) images at a 250 m resolution (MOD13Q1) [56,57]. We downloaded the MOD13Q1 imagery from the NASA Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center (LPDAAC) (http://lpdaac.usgs.gov/ (accessed on 14 November 2019)). This type of information can inform habitat availability by identifying how habitat composition and structure may influence animal behaviors critical to habitat selection and use [58].

2.3. Linking Habitat Quality with Species Behavior and Network Analysis

Hydrology dependent varied availability of habitats is subject to management and conservation and has serious implications for resource availability, resource selection and use by wintering migratory waterbirds. To better understand the qualification of prevalent habitat quality for selection, we used species key behaviors (foraging and roosting) relevant to habitat selection as bioindicators of habitat quality [59,60] and assumed the quality habitat definition as “it possesses all resources (food and resting sites) needed by wintering migratory waterbirds in sufficient quantity and is being repeatedly selected for any particular use (foraging or resting) throughout wintering period”.
We specifically focused on 3 basic themes by which available habitat quality, species-habitat and species-species associations can be linked: (1) direct and indirect anthropogenic factors that, in turn, impact habitat selection; (2) behavior-driven dominance of species, representing the use and consideration of behavior in structuring the community; and (3) the degree of sociality between co-occurring species, representing the use of behavior for activity persistence [44]. All three require knowledge and use of animal behavior.

2.4. Selection of Study Species

We selected five main groups of migratory waterbird species foraging during winter at WDLNNR with distinct diets [7,61] and habitat requirements (Table 1). Diet composition and availability at Dongting lake is well documented for the 14 species selected for this study [48,61,62,63]. While selecting species, we considered body size because large body size offers a species greater access to resources and helps to dominate over occupied habitats [64,65,66]. It also helps in easy and precise species identification using remote cameras. As the species were free to select any habitat and be a part of MSG, we could not control their equal representation in each group.

2.5. Data Collection on Activity-Based Habitat Selection Events

We used digital video recording cameras as a sampling tool to collect ethological data on the study population of wintering migratory waterbirds MSGs [74,75] (Figure 1A). We preliminary surveyed seven sub-lakes in West Dongting Lake National Nature Reserve (under restoration and hydrological control since 2015) to allocate four sub-lakes (2 + 2 managed and unmanaged (reference) lakes) with the highest species diversity and abundance. We then installed four digital video recording cameras (DS-2DY52XZ-QG by Hik Vision, Hangzhou, China) on watch towers at a 50 m height to ensure the detection zone and perspective covering of the study sites, as well as to record habitat selection events and species behavioral abundance for resource use. We also visited each study site every second day to collect water-depth and habitat-type information (which vary by changes in the water depth) through pre-deployed color-calibrated PVC pipes that were later on used to distinguish and validate habitat types in corresponding video records. In total, we recorded over 8640 h of video footages at four study lakes and filtered best quality videos for habitat selection events between mid-October to mid-March during the 2016–2017 and 2017–2018 wintering seasons. From each selection event, we recorded behavior-based abundance data when the population density and species diversity were highest, consistent for at least an hour and distributed between pre-validated five habitat types: deep water (DW), shallow water (SW), mudflat (MF), grassland (GL) and bare ground (BG: sub-lake areas that comprise stone piles and devoid of any vegetation). For each species in a habitat, we counted their numbers foraging and roosting, while events of intra- and inter-species aggression and competition behaviors were recorded during foraging and roosting. This provided us with abundance-based data on behaviors for each species every time they selected and used a habitat.

2.6. Social Behavioral Association Network Analysis

We applied social behavioral association network (SBAN) model to build species networks in habitats with a distinct hydrology and to calculate the degree of sociality between species (nodes). SBAN is a tetrapartite model with four parts involving: (a) habitat selection; (b) habitat overlap; (c) species-habitat associations; and (d) behavioral associations between species in shared environments. Please consult our previous study [8] for a detailed description and construction of the tetrapartite model. Based on the “conservation behavior” framework, the current study used quantitative SBAN network metrics of useful value to compare habitat quality and to answer the success extent of management treatments.
Employing the igraph [76] in R (R Development Core Team, 2016) for network construction, we allocated five nodes per species (i.e., five behaviors under study) and applied Eigenvector centrality to assign rankings to important species with their dominant behavior [77] accountable for community activity persistence or activity synchronization. Eigenvector centrality is extensively used in complex network theory to assess the significance of nodes in a network based on the eigenvector of the network adjacency matrix [77,78,79]. From an algebraic point, it is a more sophisticated view of centrality allowing for intelligentially capturing an eigenvector score that is closely related to the best rank-1 approximation for the connections to have a variable value. The PageRank algorithm used in our previous research [8] is a variant of Eigenvector centrality that could not explain the species behavioral network variation between the treatments that this study captured by utilizing Eigenvalue centrality. Using the corSparse function from Package ‘qlcMatrix’ [80] in R (R Development Core Team 2016), we computed Pearsons correlation and used its absolute values to draw network plots utilizing igraph. We estimated species’ importance as the number of times a species interacted with other species and ranges between 0 and 1, where 0 indicates that species never interact, and 1 indicates maximum possible interaction in the studied network [43,81,82]. The Pearsons correlation values were used as weighted edges between the sparse matrix columns to make undirected networking plots (Figure 1). As a species in MSGs shares habitat with other co-occurring community members for any given activity, this results in interactions that may outcome in competition, consequently arise dominance (keystoneness) of some species at given habitat. Thus, within a habitat, we defined a species as important if it interacts (directly or indirectly) with other species that are in turn important. To simplify network edge density, we applied a 0.4 cutoff on correlation value and converted networking plots to the ggnetwork [83] format to highlight important connections accountable for species dominance, activity persistence and activity synchronization.

2.6.1. Aims and Assumptions

Since the study was formulated for social associations between species (degree of sociality that SBAN model explains) and species’ associations with habitats, we wish to examine how well the species respond to each other and habitat quality, hence the effectiveness of management treatments.
  • We specifically hypothesized that:
  • Species are free to be or not to be part of an MSG at any time so that they can freely select or leave a pre-occupied habitat.
  • Community activity persistence solely depends upon the degree of sociality for activity synchronization within species {(i) or (j)} and between species {(i,j)}.
  • Activity synchronization in species is directly proportional to the activity (foraging and roosting) of keystone species within the community.
Species just select high quality habitats (managed or unmanaged) at random according to their need (foraging or roosting) as individual species or as MSGs with a constant probability, which is equal for both cases.
We applied this to a community of 14 species which may have up to 14 different flocks with five distinct foraging guilds (Table 1).

2.6.2. SBAN Attributes

Since we applied a networking model to calculate the interactions between the members of wintering waterbirds MSG, we specifically focused on the following attributes.

Density of the Network

We defined network edge density “d” as “the percentage of the ratio between the sum of edge weights and the number of total possible edges”. Instead of the actual number of edges used in [8], we considered the sum of the actual edges weights to calculate network density.
d = s u m   o f   a c t u a l   e d g e   w e i g h t s n u m b e r   o f   t o t a l   p o s s i b l e   v e r t i c e s × 100

Degree of the Network

Interactions between nodes in a network is called the network degree [84,85]. Assume that species i and j in MSG select some habitat. Let It and Jt be flocks at shared time t. Species flocks meet randomly and form MSG of size n. This MSG may break up into individual species flocks in response to the behavioral coordination (aggression and/or competition with keystone species may drive a species to leave a habitat or switch to different activity). This fission and fusion of species to form or break MSG is a dynamic process that can be explained by the network degree and informs activity persistence and synchronization. We used this degree of sociality between species as the species interaction preference (SIP) and behavioral interaction preference (BIP), which can be described as:
S I P = l o g 2   ( S u m   o f   E d g e ′ s   w e i g h t s   w i t h i n   s p e c i e s S u m   o f   E d g e ′ s   w e i g h t s   b e t w e e n   s p e c i e s )
and
B I P = l o g 2   ( S u m   o f   E d g e ′ s   w e i g h t s   w i t h i n   b e h a v i o r S u m   o f   E d g e ′ s   w e i g h t s   b e t w e e n   b e h a v i o r )
where SIP can be defined as the interactions with conspecifics or between co-existing species (MSG) based on whether species i interacted with species i or j. The value of SIP is less than zero when the interaction is between co-existing species (i,j), while its value is greater than zero if conspecifics interact (i,i; self-interactions). In comparison, BIP is based on the proportion of MSG members or individual species behavior presenting how two species (i,j) responded to each other’s behavior. The value of BIP is less than zero if there is inter-behavior interaction (species i and j interact with different behaviors and drive activity synchronization) within the MSG. The positive value for self-interactions in BIP (intra-behavior: different species interact with same behavior) is not accountable for activity synchronization between species.

2.7. Statistical Analysis

We acknowledge that multivariate analysis is increasingly important for investigating questions related to community ecology and dynamics [86,87]. However, these methods call for repeated measures of environmental variables that need to be standardized and correlated with species presence or absence. Having behavior-based abundance data, we therefore used Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) as the most suitable and indirect approach to produce an ordination-based distance or dissimilarity matrix [88,89,90,91]. We also applied analysis of variance test (2-way ANOVA) on studied igraph network attributes and antagonistic behaviors that drive sociality, remotely sensed habitat availability and habitat transition data to compare means using GraphPad Prism software (version 8.0.2).

3. Results

3.1. Habitat Selection, Species Richness and Abundance Estimates

Habitat selection by MSGs greatly differed between managed (R1) and unmanaged (R2) lakes. In managed lakes, a maximum of 56 selection events were recorded in shallow water during the study period, followed by mudflats (44), grassland (30), deep water (20) and just 3 visits in bare ground habitat. At unmanaged lakes, deep water topped with 30 selection events, followed by shallow water (27), mud flats (20), grassland (7) and four selection events at bare ground habitat (Figure 2A). Species richness also varied greatly between managed and unmanaged lakes. Comparing the number of species (n) in R1 and R2 lakes, mudflats at R1 lakes were the most preferred habitats that attracted all 14 species for habitat selection. Among other habitats at R1 lakes, shallow water followed by grassland, deep water and bare grounds were found to be suitable for 13, 10, six and eight species, respectively. In R2 lakes, species richness was 11 in mudflats and shallow waters, six species in both grassland and deep water, while just three species were found at bare grounds (Table 2, Figure 2B). In R1 lakes, shallow water was the most abundant habitat where 5364 birds were recorded, followed by mudflats (4945), grassland (3155), deep water (2198) and bare ground with just 370 birds. Contrarily in R2 lakes, 2684 birds were recorded in deep water, 2347 in mudflats, 2226 in shallow water, 934 in grassland habitat and just 424 at bare grounds (Figure 2C). This variation was further supported by a significant difference in all measured attributes between R1 and R2 lakes at lake (p = 0.0237) and habitat (p < 0.0001) levels (Table 3).

3.2. Species Keystoneness and Activity Synchrony Through Species Interaction Preference (SIP) and Behavior Interaction Preference (BIP)

In managed lakes, Anser albifrons was the keystone at grassland and three species (Area alba, Ardea cinerea and Ciconia nigra) were keystones at mudflat habitats. Anser albifrons, Anser fabalis and Ciconia nigra were keystones at bare-ground type of habitats. Contrarily at unmanaged lakes, Anser fabalis and Ardea alba were keystones at grasslands, while Anser fabalis and Platalea leucorodea were keystones in mudflat habitat while Anser cygnoides was the keystone at bare grounds. However, Cygnus columbianus appeared as keystone species in deep water and shallow water habitats at both R1 and R2 lakes. These findings were further supported by NMDS ordination where besides deep-water habitats, other habitats were far dissimilar in terms of species network composition and degree of sociality at both managed and unmanaged lakes (Table 2, Figure 2D).
Besides deep water (0.25) habitats at managed lakes, species interacted with other species and maximum interaction scores (SIP) were found in bare grounds (−2.46) followed by mudflats, shallow waters and grassland habitats with −1.94, −1.89 and −1.05 scores, respectively. At unmanaged lakes, shallow waters (−2.15) followed by mudflats, deep water and grassland showed inter-species (SIP) interactions with −1.89, −1.22 and −0.39 scores, respectively. Among both control regimes, bare ground (1.36) in unmanaged lakes had maximum intra-species SIP interactions (Table 2). The BIP score at deep water habitat was −2.64, which was the maximum among all habitats in managed lakes, followed by grassland (1.66), shallow water (−1.58) and mudflat (−1.39). At unmanaged lakes, BIP ranged a maximum of −3.51 in bare ground habitat, followed by grassland, deep water mudflat and shallow water (−2.41, −2.08, −1.77 and −1.55), respectively (Table 2).

3.3. Habitat Structure over Time

The normalized difference vegetation index was used to calculate the habitat area for deep water, shallow water, mudflat and grassland for two wintering periods (Figure 3a,b). At managed lakes (R1), the grassland habitat area was increased by 46.69%, deep water was increased by 20.88%, while shallow water and mudflat habitat areas were decreased by 54.31% and 19.54%, respectively, over the study period. At unmanaged lakes (R2), mudflat, grassland and deep-water areas were increased by 53.89%, 20.20% and 8.26%, respectively, while shallow water area was decreased by 57.72% (Figure 3d). Using a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, we found a significant difference (p < 0.0001) in habitat areas at both treatment levels but no difference was found among two wintering seasons (2016–2017 and 2017–2018) in both treatments. We then checked transition in habitat areas between one habitat to another and found that habitat conversion significantly differed (p = 0.0113) between the treatments during the study period (Table 3, Figure 3c).

4. Discussion

4.1. Habitat Quality Alters Species Behavior and Network Structure

One way to compare habitat quality is to observe species behavioral response under the null hypothesis of species independence to select a habitat [61,92,93]. In unmanaged lakes, our findings demonstrate that species richness, species abundance and frequency of habitat selection remained lower than that of at managed lakes. Besides Anser fabalis, Ciconia boyciana and Ciconia nigra, all other species were abundant in managed sub-lakes, indicating better quality habitats at R1. In community ecology, good habitat conditions invite certain species to share the resources and reduce community composition when conditions decline [34]. In this situation, information is shared by the activities of a species, so that knowing the location of one species location with activity at a particular point in a shared environment provides strong insights into the contemporary presence of other species and their activities at same location. For instance, this claim was supported by our finding of Cygnus columbianus, which was found to be dominant in deep water and shallow water habitats of both managed and unmanaged lakes, shared shallow habitats with almost same species in both R1 and R2 lakes (Table 2). Species that take seasonal population-migrations are likely to exhibit this kind of information sharing [27,43,94].
We also witnessed higher species richness and abundance at managed lakes that pointed to better quality habitats and their continuous availability throughout wintering season than at unmanaged lakes (Figure 2B,C). The MSGs structure for wintering waterbirds extensively relied upon social interactions between species. Mammides et al. [28] described differences in MSGs structure and composition for a function of social interactions and habitat quality that generate nonrandom organizations of flocks and communities in varying environments. Meanwhile, keystone or more dominant species play a pivotal role in structuring community, habitat selection and exploitation. The frequent habitat selection by a particular species or MSG increases the probability of habitat suitability [71], particularly for foraging and roosting, which in our case was seen in mudflat and shallow water habitats at managed lakes (Figure 2A).
Martin et al. [95] said habitat selection by animals at shared spatial and temporal scales reveals suitability features more important to fitness than selection made at finer scales. The shared spatial scale (heterogeneous habitat) examined in this study showed the same robust pattern, suggesting that habitat heterogeneity, their continued availability, and management are important predictors of habitat selection for migratory waterbirds MSGs at wintering grounds. Zhu et al. [7] and Bennet et al. [96] demonstrated resource selection in species as an important component of habitat ecology while animal behavior in a particular environment reflects the state of available resource quality and availability. As we hypothesized, results on frequency of habitat selection indicate that behaviors centered at habitat selection (foraging and roosting) have revelation with available habitat quality. At managed sub-lakes, species abundance and repeated mudflat habitat selection and use by 14 species indicated its high quality, suitability and continuous availability of resources (food and shelter) throughout the wintering period (Figure 2A,B; Table 2).

4.2. Social Interactions Alter Network Structure

Species behavioral interaction networks offer insights on habitat quality and community dynamics in differentially managed ecosystems. Social interactions shape the structure of MSGs and relationships between species adjust the response to available habitat for exploitation in shared environments [8,93]. Confirming these relationships, we identified body size as a factor that explains interaction patterns for dominance, both between the closely related species and phylogeny. Large body size of Cygnus columbianus helped the species to dominate over deep water and shallow water habitats and to control the activities of peripheral c-existing species in both lake types (Figure 4). This overall mass-to-dominance relationship has been previously demonstrated in birds and animals [3,66,97,98]. It is prevalent through literature that intransitivity in dominance relationships promotes species coexistence [3,99]. In mudflats and shallow water habitats of managed lakes, we found few well-supported intransitive relationships between plausible spatial competitors at the 3-, 4- and 5-species subnetwork clusters. Specifically, we found the Grus leucogeranus, Grus monacha, Ciconia nigra and Anser albifrons subnetwork to be intransitive in managed lakes and shallow water habitats. Ciconia nigra was dominant to Grus monacha and Anser albifrons, while Grus leucogeranus was dominant to Anser albifrons. This dominancy was a function pattern of social interactions, especially aggression, that made subordinate species synchronize activities (foraging and roosting) with dominant species (Figure 4).
Another intransitive subnetwork of 5-species comprised of Ardea alba, Cygnus columbianus, Grus leucogeranus, Grus monacha and Platalea leucorodea was seen in mudflats at R1. Here, Cygnus spp. dominated over Ardea alba, while Grus monacha behaved like a central hub which along with Platalea spp. were dominated by Grus leucogeranus. In the same way as for a shallow water habitat, the dominance here was also a function of animal personality (sociality) for foraging and roosting activities mutually synchronized between these species to avoid competition. This activity regulatory paradigm (synchronization) is a state where changes are initiated within small networks (within and between species or within and between behaviors) due to community activity. These regulatory mechanisms are prevalent throughout nature, occurring in vastly different systems and levels of organization [28,100,101].

4.3. Hydrology as Key Element for Structuring and Development of Wintering Habitats

Our results indicate effects of hydrology, even uncontrolled, considerably contribute to habitat availability and ultimately impact selection. Managing hydrology is especially effective for maintaining wintering waterbirds’ whole metapopulation through maintaining a heterogeneous habitat [34,102]. Based on our results, controlled water levels improved the effectiveness of management and conservation efforts. In mosaic landscapes like WDLNNR, controlling and management of water-levels could successfully offer a desired habitat distribution suitable for wintering waterbirds (Figure 3). Land use practices are likely the most important human-mediated processes influencing habitat selection by waterbirds [93,103]. Therefore, we sought to understand how the current composition and distribution of habitats were impacting the selection, use and temporal availability of wintering grounds. Our findings revealed that water depth is an important driver in shaping habitat availability and distribution in the managed as well as at unmanaged lakes, as stated by [40,48,49,63,93,104,105,106]. We found that uncontrolled events of flooding had the strongest negative effect on mudflat and shallow water habitat availability and selection. Preceded by the effects of controlling water depth, habitat diversity at managed lakes attracted more species diversity and abundance, but overriding numbers resulted in more competition and aggression events (Figure 2C, Table 2). It was surprising to find that Ciconia nigra numbers at unmanaged lakes (142) was higher than that of at managed lakes (121) (see Appendix A for habitat wise species abundance data for R1 and R2). This might be a reason how lower species diversity and abundance may pose less competition to the co-existing species and offer increased availability of food in natural streams.
Although broad-scale processes like land use or climate gradients almost certainly influence distributions of many species, the ability to detect their effects is often limited by sampling constraints [17,106]. Behavior based abundance data at each lake offered relatively fine scale samples, leading to increasingly reliable results for wintering waterbirds’ preferred habitats. Closer examination of social behavioral association network clusters suggested that activities of waterbirds on managed lakes were fairly consistent across available habitat types (Figure 4), with foraging and roosting accounting for the highest proportions of behaviors. Except for reduced species richness and frequency of selection of bare grounds, all habitat types supported the finding that wintering waterbirds use properly managed habitats that assure adequate resources (food and shelter) throughout the wintering period. Resources within each habitat type, however, are likely to fulfill different dietary requirements [7,47,93]; we identified heterogeneous habitats of suitable selection value that order selection by wintering waterbirds’ MSGs.

5. Conclusions

Management’s impact on wintering habitat quality and use by wintering migratory waterbirds was studied by utilizing social behavioral association network approach. The complex behavioral networks of species in differentially managed lakes differed in structure, composition and species-habitat associations. Utilizing behavior as a bioindicator of ecosystem health, we examined how experimental restoration treatments (hydrological control) influenced habitat selection, species behavior and habitat use and evaluated the success of restoration/management treatments. This study provided a unique opportunity to understand the connections between restoration ecology, behavioral ecology and habitat ecology using a conservation behavior framework. Integrating information as well as insights gained in this study can help make management more effective, efficient and responsive to environmental changes.

Author Contributions

M.A.R.: Conceptualization, Data collection and curation, Formal analysis, Writing-original draft; Writing-review & editing. M.A.H.: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing-review & editing X.Z.: Project administration, data curation and Writing-review. Q.Z.: Conceptualization & Methodology. Y.J.: Project administration L.W.: Methodology and Writing-review & editing. G.L.: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Project administration and Supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by National Key Research and Development Program of China, Grant/Award Number: 2017YFC0405300.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of Beijing Forestry University, China.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data used to construct SBAN can be accessed on google drive via the link provided: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kF7EnUnVM0uc8A-xQYe2C165exu1Vfsm, accessed on: 4 February 2021.

Acknowledgments

We thank all the staff and management of West Dongting Lake National Nature Reserve for their logistical and other forms of support for conducting this study.

Conflicts of Interest

We do not have any conflict of interest to declare.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Species abundance and distribution in habitats at managed lakes (R1).
Table A1. Species abundance and distribution in habitats at managed lakes (R1).
SpeciesShallow WaterDeep WaterMud FlatGrass LandBarren LandTotal
Anser albifrons3408830515691272429
Anser cygnoides433919051574861
Anser fabalis16N/A2074145642
Ardea alba58324305128191059
Ardea cinerea7667179837171689
Ciconia boyciana1N/A19N/AN/A20
Ciconia nigra25N/A8826121
Cygnus columbianus234820451180403966072
Grus grus3N/A542N/A50
Grus leucogeranus20N/A11412N/A146
Grus monacha6N/A723N/A81
Larus ichthyaetus ichthyaetus26916N/A253
Pelecanus onocrotalusN/AN/A5N/AN/A5
Platalea leucorodia1580N/A1409N/AN/A2989
Table
Table A2. Species abundance and distribution in habitats at Unmanaged lakes (R2).
Table A2. Species abundance and distribution in habitats at Unmanaged lakes (R2).
SpeciesShallow WaterDeep WaterMud FlatGrass LandBarren LandTotal
Anser albifrons32327716649N/A815
Anser cygnoides30N/A12019875423
Anser fabalis24N/A83138N/A245
Ardea alba20615120846N/A611
Ardea cinerea3421014265N/A874
Ciconia boyciana4N/A6N/AN/A10
Ciconia nigra38N/A104N/AN/A142
Cygnus columbianus136623956483423335084
Grus leucogeranus9N/A60N/AN/A69
Larus ichthyaetus ichthyaetus10114N/AN/A25
Platalea leucorodia2072345N/AN/A554

References

  1. Morse, D.H. Ecological aspects of some mixed-species foraging flocks of birds. Ecol. Monogr. 1970, 40, 119–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Balaban-Feld, J.; Mitchell, W.A.; Kotler, B.P.; Vijayan, S.; Tov Elem, L.T.; Rosenzweig, M.L.; Abramsky, Z. Individual willingness to leave a safe refuge and the trade-off between food and safety: A test with social fish. Proc. R. Soc. B 2019, 286, 20190826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Levine, J.M.; Bascompte, J.; Adler, P.B.; Allesina, S. Beyond pairwise mechanisms of species coexistence in complex communities. Nature 2017, 546, 56–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Miller, E.T.; Bonter, D.N.; Eldermire, C.; Freeman, B.G.; Greig, E.I.; Harmon, L.J.; Lisle, C.; Hochachka, W.M.; Stephens, D. Fighting over food unites the birds of North America in a continental dominance hierarchy. Behav. Ecol. 2017, 28, 1454–1463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Gil, M.A.; Hein, A.M.; Spiegel, O.; Baskett, M.L.; Sih, A. Social information links individual behavior to population and community dynamics. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2018, 33, 535–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Balasubramaniam, K.N.; Beisner, B.A.; Berman, C.M.; De Marco, A.; Duboscq, J.; Koirala, S.; Majolo, B.; MacIntosh, A.J.; McFarland, R.; Molesti, S. The influence of phylogeny, social style, and sociodemographic factors on macaque social network structure. Am. J. Primatol. 2018, 80, e22727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zhu, Z.; Zhou, L.; Yu, C.; Cheng, L.; Xu, W.; Song, Y. Do Geese Facilitate or Compete with Wintering Hooded Cranes (Grus monacha) for Forage Resources? Diversity 2020, 12, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Rasool, M.A.; Zhang, X.; Hassan, M.A.; Hussain, T.; Lu, C.; Zeng, Q.; Peng, B.; Wen, L.; Lei, G. Construct social-behavioral association network to study management impact on waterbirds community ecology using digital video recording cameras. Ecol. Evol. 2021, 11, 2321–2335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Berdahl, A.; Torney, C.J.; Ioannou, C.C.; Faria, J.J.; Couzin, I.D. Emergent sensing of complex environments by mobile animal groups. Science 2013, 339, 574–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Dudgeon, D.; Arthington, A.H.; Gessner, M.O.; Kawabata, Z.-I.; Knowler, D.J.; Lévêque, C.; Naiman, R.J.; Prieur-Richard, A.-H.; Soto, D.; Stiassny, M.L. Freshwater biodiversity: Importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol. Rev. 2006, 81, 163–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Spiegel, O.; Crofoot, M.C. The feedback between where we go and what we know—Information shapes movement, but movement also impacts information acquisition. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 2016, 12, 90–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Hein, A.M.; McKinley, S.A. Sensing and decision-making in random search. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 12070–12074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Hagen, M.; Kissling, W.D.; Rasmussen, C.; De Aguiar, M.A.; Brown, L.E.; Carstensen, D.W.; Alves-Dos-Santos, I.; Dupont, Y.L.; Edwards, F.K.; Genini, J. Biodiversity, species interactions and ecological networks in a fragmented world. In Advances in Ecological Research; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012; Volume 46, pp. 89–210. [Google Scholar]
  14. Pike, T.W.; Samanta, M.; Lindström, J.; Royle, N.J. Behavioural phenotype affects social interactions in an animal network. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2008, 275, 2515–2520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Aplin, L.M.; Farine, D.R.; Morand-Ferron, J.; Cole, E.F.; Cockburn, A.; Sheldon, B.C. Individual personalities predict social behaviour in wild networks of great tits (Parus major). Ecol. Lett. 2013, 16, 1365–1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gotelli, N.J.; McCabe, D.J. Species co-occurrence: A meta-analysis of JM Diamond’s assembly rules model. Ecology 2002, 83, 2091–2096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wisz, M.S.; Pottier, J.; Kissling, W.D.; Pellissier, L.; Lenoir, J.; Damgaard, C.F.; Dormann, C.F.; Forchhammer, M.C.; Grytnes, J.A.; Guisan, A. The role of biotic interactions in shaping distributions and realised assemblages of species: Implications for species distribution modelling. Biol. Rev. 2013, 88, 15–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Potts, S.G.; Biesmeijer, J.C.; Kremen, C.; Neumann, P.; Schweiger, O.; Kunin, W.E. Global pollinator declines: Trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2010, 25, 345–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Creamer, R.; Hannula, S.; Van Leeuwen, J.; Stone, D.; Rutgers, M.; Schmelz, R.; De Ruiter, P.; Hendriksen, N.B.; Bolger, T.; Bouffaud, M.-L. Ecological network analysis reveals the inter-connection between soil biodiversity and ecosystem function as affected by land use across Europe. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2016, 97, 112–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Naeem, S. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in restored ecosystems: Extracting principles for a synthetic perspective. In Foundations of Restoration Ecology; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2006; pp. 210–237. [Google Scholar]
  21. Harvey, E.; Gounand, I.; Ward, C.L.; Altermatt, F. Bridging ecology and conservation: From ecological networks to ecosystem function. J. Appl. Ecol. 2017, 54, 371–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Borrett, S.R. Throughflow centrality is a global indicator of the functional importance of species in ecosystems. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 32, 182–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Dice, L.R. Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species. Ecology 1945, 26, 297–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Seppänen, J.-T.; Forsman, J.T.; Mönkkönen, M.; Thomson, R.L. Social information use is a process across time, space, and ecology, reaching heterospecifics. Ecology 2007, 88, 1622–1633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Allesina, S.; Levine, J.M. A competitive network theory of species diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 5638–5642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Carter, K.D.; Brand, R.; Carter, J.K.; Shorrocks, B.; Goldizen, A.W. Social networks, long-term associations and age-related sociability of wild giraffes. Anim. Behav. 2013, 86, 901–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bock, C.E.; Jones, Z.F. Avian habitat evaluation: Should counting birds count? Front. Ecol. Environ. 2004, 2, 403–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mammides, C.; Chen, J.; Goodale, U.M.; Kotagama, S.W.; Goodale, E. Measurement of species associations in mixed-species bird flocks across environmental and human disturbance gradients. Ecosphere 2018, 9, e02324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Bastolla, U.; Fortuna, M.A.; Pascual-García, A.; Ferrera, A.; Luque, B.; Bascompte, J. The architecture of mutualistic networks minimizes competition and increases biodiversity. Nature 2009, 458, 1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Dakin, R.; Ryder, T.B. Reciprocity and behavioral heterogeneity govern the stability of social networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 2993–2999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Pinter-Wollman, N.; Hobson, E.A.; Smith, J.E.; Edelman, A.J.; Shizuka, D.; De Silva, S.; Waters, J.S.; Prager, S.D.; Sasaki, T.; Wittemyer, G. The dynamics of animal social networks: Analytical, conceptual, and theoretical advances. Behav. Ecol. 2014, 25, 242–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Snijders, L.; Blumstein, D.T.; Stanley, C.R.; Franks, D.W. Animal social network theory can help wildlife conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2017, 32, 567–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kaiser-Bunbury, C.; Blüthgen, N. Integrating network ecology with applied conservation: A synthesis and guide to implementation. In Aob Plants; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2015; p. 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Aharon-Rotman, Y.; McEvoy, J.; Zhaoju, Z.; Yu, H.; Wang, X.; Si, Y.; Xu, Z.; Yuan, Z.; Jeong, W.; Cao, L. Water level affects availability of optimal feeding habitats for threatened migratory waterbirds. Ecol. Evol. 2017, 7, 10440–10450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Morris, D.W. Toward an ecological synthesis: A case for habitat selection. Oecologia 2003, 136, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Alahuhta, J.; Toivanen, M.; Hjort, J.; Ecke, F.; Johnson, L.B.; Sass, L.; Heino, J. A comparative analysis of the species richness and taxonomic distinctness of lake macrophytes in four regions: Similarities, differences and randomness along environmental gradients. In Proceedings of the Oikos Finland Conference for Ecologists and Evolutionary Biologists, Helsinki, Finland, 31 January–1 February 2017. [Google Scholar]
  37. Doligez, B.; Boulinier, T.; Fath, D. Habitat selection and habitat suitability preferences. In Encyclopedia of Ecology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2008; Volume 5, pp. 1810–1830. [Google Scholar]
  38. Croll, D.A.; Maron, J.L.; Estes, J.A.; Danner, E.M.; Byrd, G.V. Introduced predators transform subarctic islands from grassland to tundra. Science 2005, 307, 1959–1961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Fath, B.D.; Asmus, H.; Asmus, R.; Baird, D.; Borrett, S.R.; de Jonge, V.N.; Ludovisi, A.; Niquil, N.; Scharler, U.M.; Schückel, U. Ecological network analysis metrics: The need for an entire ecosystem approach in management and policy. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2019, 174, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Li, C.; Li, H.; Zhang, Y.; Zha, D.; Zhao, B.; Yang, S.; Zhang, B.; de Boer, W.F. Predicting hydrological impacts of the Yangtze-to-Huaihe Water Diversion Project on habitat availability for wintering waterbirds at Caizi Lake. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 249, 109251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Shankman, D.; Liang, Q. Landscape changes and increasing flood frequency in China’s Poyang Lake region. Prof. Geogr. 2003, 55, 434–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Laird, R.A.; Schamp, B.S. Does local competition increase the coexistence of species in intransitive networks. Ecology 2008, 89, 237–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Farine, D.R.; Aplin, L.M.; Sheldon, B.C.; Hoppitt, W. Interspecific social networks promote information transmission in wild songbirds. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2015, 282, 20142804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Berger-Tal, O.; Polak, T.; Oron, A.; Lubin, Y.; Kotler, B.P.; Saltz, D. Integrating animal behavior and conservation biology: A conceptual framework. Behav. Ecol. 2011, 22, 236–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Pomara, L.Y.; Cooper, R.J.; Petit, L.J. Mixed-species flocking and foraging behavior of four Neotropical warblers in Panamanian shade coffee fields and forests. Auk 2003, 120, 1000–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ortega-Álvarez, R.; Lindig-Cisneros, R. Feathering the scene: The effects of ecological restoration on birds and the role birds play in evaluating restoration outcomes. Ecol. Restor. 2012, 30, 116–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Guan, L.; Wen, L.; Feng, D.; Zhang, H.; Lei, G. Delayed flood recession in central Yangtze floodplains can cause significant food shortages for wintering geese: Results of inundation experiment. Environ. Manag. 2014, 54, 1331–1341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Jing, L.; Lu, C.; Xia, Y.; Shi, L.; Zuo, A.; Lei, J.; Zhang, H.; Lei, G.; Wen, L. Effects of hydrological regime on development of Carex wet meadows in East Dongting Lake, a Ramsar Wetland for wintering waterbirds. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  49. Lu, C.; Jia, Y.; Jing, L.; Zeng, Q.; Lei, J.; Zhang, S.; Lei, G.; Wen, L. Shifts in river-floodplain relationship reveal the impacts of river regulation: A case study of Dongting Lake in China. J. Hydrol. 2018, 559, 932–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lei, J.; Jia, Y.; Wang, Y.; Lei, G.; Lu, C.; Saintilan, N.; Wen, L. Behavioural plasticity and trophic niche shift: How wintering geese respond to habitat alteration. Freshw. Biol. 2019, 64, 1183–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Dong, R.; Wang, Y.; Lu, C.; Lei, G.; Wen, L. The seasonality of macroinvertebrate β diversity along the gradient of hydrological connectivity in a dynamic river-floodplain system. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 121, 107112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lai, X.; Jiang, J.; Huang, Q. Effects of the normal operation of the Three Gorges Reservoir on wetland inundation in Dongting Lake, China: A modelling study. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2013, 58, 1467–1477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Wiegand, T.; Naves, J.; Garbulsky, M.F.; Fernández, N. Animal habitat quality and ecosystem functioning: Exploring seasonal patterns using NDVI. Ecol. Monogr. 2008, 78, 87–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Woodget, A.S.; Austrums, R.; Maddock, I.P.; Habit, E. Drones and digital photogrammetry: From classifications to continuums for monitoring river habitat and hydromorphology. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 2017, 4, e1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Gross, F.; Etter, K.; Held, P.; Schneider von Deimling, J. Shallow water UAV based habitat monitoring of seagrass meadows in the Baltic Sea. In Proceedings of the EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts, Online, 4–8 May 2020; p. 7510. [Google Scholar]
  56. Clerici, N.; Weissteiner, C.J.; Gerard, F. Exploring the use of MODIS NDVI-based phenology indicators for classifying forest general habitat categories. Remote Sens. 2012, 4, 1781–1803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Wen, L.; Saintilan, N.; Yang, X.; Hunter, S.; Mawer, D. MODIS NDVI based metrics improve habitat suitability modelling in fragmented patchy floodplains. Remote Sens. Appl. Soc. Environ. 2015, 1, 85–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ventura, D.; Bonifazi, A.; Gravina, M.F.; Ardizzone, G.D. Unmanned aerial systems (UASs) for environmental monitoring: A review with applications in coastal habitats. In Aerial Robots-Aerodynamics, Control and Applications; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2017; pp. 165–184. [Google Scholar]
  59. Kristan, I.; William, B. The role of habitat selection behavior in population dynamics: Source–sink systems and ecological traps. Oikos 2003, 103, 457–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Lindell, C.A. The value of animal behavior in evaluations of restoration success. Restor. Ecol. 2008, 16, 197–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Wang, C.; Dong, B.; Zhu, M.; Huang, H.; Cui, Y.-H.; Gao, X.; Liu, L.-P. Habitat selection of wintering cranes (Gruidae) in typical lake wetland in the lower reaches of the Yangtze River, China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 8266–8279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Zhang, X.; Guo, K.; Lu, C.; Awais, R.M.; Jia, Y.; Zhong, L.; Liu, P.; Dong, R.; Liu, D.; Zeng, W. Effects of origin and water depth on morphology and reproductive modes of the submerged plant Vallisneria natans. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2020, 24, e01330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Wang, M.; Gu, Q.; Liu, G.; Shen, J.; Tang, X. Hydrological condition constrains vegetation dynamics for wintering waterfowl in China’s East Dongting Lake wetland. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Neumann, C.; Duboscq, J.; Dubuc, C.; Ginting, A.; Irwan, A.M.; Agil, M.; Widdig, A.; Engelhardt, A. Assessing dominance hierarchies: Validation and advantages of progressive evaluation with Elo-rating. Anim. Behav. 2011, 82, 911–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Wright, E.; Galbany, J.; McFarlin, S.C.; Ndayishimiye, E.; Stoinski, T.S.; Robbins, M.M. Male body size, dominance rank and strategic use of aggression in a group-living mammal. Anim. Behav. 2019, 151, 87–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Woodward, G.; Ebenman, B.; Emmerson, M.; Montoya, J.M.; Olesen, J.M.; Valido, A.; Warren, P.H. Body size in ecological networks. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2005, 20, 402–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Myers, P.; Espinosa, R.; Parr, C.S.; Jones, T.; Hammond, G.S.; Dewey, T.A. The Animal Diversity Web (Online). 2021. Available online: https://animaldiversity.org (accessed on 4 February 2021).
  68. Son, J.-K.; Sung, H.-C.; Kang, B.-H. The Study on the Selection of Suitable site for Palustrine Wetland Creation at Habitat Restoration Areas for Oriental stork (Ciconia boyciana). J. Wetl. Res. 2011, 13, 95–104. [Google Scholar]
  69. Zhou, L.; Xue, W.; Zhu, S.; Shan, K.; Chen, J. Foraging habitat use of oriental white stork (Ciconia boyciana) recently breeding in China. Zool. Sci. 2013, 30, 559–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Zhang, W.; Liu, N.; Liu, X. Habitat utilization of common crane (Grus grus) during winter in Lashi Lake, Yunnan Province. Sichuan J. Zool. 2008, 27, 356–362. [Google Scholar]
  71. Tortosa, F.S.; Villafuerte, R. Habitat selection by flocking wintering common cranes (Grus grus) at los Pedroches valley, Spain. Etologia 2000, 8, 21–24. [Google Scholar]
  72. Sullender, B.K.; Barzen, J.; Silbernagel, J. Foraging success and habitat selection of the Eurasian Spoonbill (Platalea leucorodia) at Poyang Lake, China. Waterbirds 2016, 39, 356–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Guo-Gang, Z.; Dong-Ping, L.; Yun-Qiu, H.; Hong-Xing, J.; Ming, D.; Fa-Wen, Q.; Jun, L.; Tian, M.; Li-Xia, C.; Zhi, X. Migration routes and stopover sites of Pallas’s Gulls Larus ichthyaetus breeding at Qinghai Lake, China, determined by satellite tracking. Forktail 2014, 30, 104–108. [Google Scholar]
  74. Bridges, A.S.; Noss, A.J. Behavior and activity patterns. In Camera Traps in Animal Ecology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 57–69. [Google Scholar]
  75. Caravaggi, A.; Banks, P.B.; Burton, A.C.; Finlay, C.M.; Haswell, P.M.; Hayward, M.W.; Rowcliffe, M.J.; Wood, M.D. A review of camera trapping for conservation behaviour research. Remote Sens. Ecol. Conserv. 2017, 3, 109–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Csardi, G.; Nepusz, T. The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal Complex Syst. 2006, 1695, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  77. Hansen, D.L.; Shneiderman, B.; Smith, M.A.; Himelboim, I. Social network analysis: Measuring, mapping, and modeling collections of connections. In Analyzing Social Media Networks with NodeXL; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 31–51. [Google Scholar]
  78. Laporta, L.; Afonso, J.; Mesquita, I. The need for weighting indirect connections between game variables: Social Network Analysis and eigenvector centrality applied to high-level men’s volleyball. Int. J. Perform. Anal. Sport 2018, 18, 1067–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Laporta, L.; Afonso, J.; Mesquita, I. Interaction network analysis of the six game complexes in high-level volleyball through the use of Eigenvector Centrality. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0203348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  80. Cysouw, M.; Cysouw, M.M.; Matrix, D.; Suggests, M. Package ‘qlcMatrix’ 2018. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/qlcMatrix/qlcMatrix.pdf (accessed on 4 February 2021).
  81. Croft, D.P.; James, R.; Krause, J. Exploring Animal Social Networks; Princeton University Press: Woodstock, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  82. Croft, D.P.; Krause, J.; Darden, S.K.; Ramnarine, I.W.; Faria, J.J.; James, R. Behavioural trait assortment in a social network: Patterns and implications. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2009, 63, 1495–1503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Briatte, F. Ggnetwork: Geometries to Plot Networks with’ggplot2′; R Package Version 0.5; CCSD: Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2016; p. 1. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ggnetwork/index.html (accessed on 4 February 2021).
  84. Kurvers, R.H.; Krause, J.; Croft, D.P.; Wilson, A.D.; Wolf, M. The evolutionary and ecological consequences of animal social networks: Emerging issues. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2014, 29, 326–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Sih, A.; Hanser, S.F.; McHugh, K.A. Social network theory: New insights and issues for behavioral ecologists. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2009, 63, 975–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Shafii, B.; Price, W.J.; Minshall, G.W.; Holderman, C.; Anders, P.J.; Lester, G.; Barrett, P. Characterizing benthic macroinvertebrate community responses to nutrient addition using NMDS and BACI analyses. In Applied Statistics in Agriculture; Kansas State University: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 64–79. [Google Scholar]
  87. Legendre, P.; Legendre, L. Numerical Ecology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  88. Valdes, M.A. Non-Metric Multidimensional Scaling (NMDS) as a Basis for a Plant Functional Group Classification and a Bayesian Belief Network Formulation for California Oak Woodlands; University of California: Davis, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  89. Cao, Y.; Hawkins, C.P. Simulating biological impairment to evaluate the accuracy of ecological indicators. J. Appl. Ecol. 2005, 42, 954–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Kenkel, N. On selecting an appropriate multivariate analysis. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2006, 86, 663–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Faith, D.P.; Minchin, P.R.; Belbin, L. Compositional dissimilarity as a robust measure of ecological distance. Vegetatio 1987, 69, 57–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Harmon, J.P.; Barton, B.T. On their best behavior: How animal behavior can help determine the combined effects of species interactions and climate change. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2013, 1297, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Boggie, M.A.; Collins, D.P.; Donnelly, J.P.; Carleton, S.A. Land Use, anthropogenic disturbance, and riverine features drive patterns of habitat selection by a wintering waterbird in a semi-arid environment. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0206222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Wilman, H.; Belmaker, J.; Simpson, J.; de la Rosa, C.; Rivadeneira, M.M.; Jetz, W. EltonTraits 1.0: Species-level foraging attributes of the world’s birds and mammals: Ecological Archives E095-178. Ecology 2014, 95, 2027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Martin, A.E.; Fahrig, L. Habitat specialist birds disperse farther and are more migratory than habitat generalist birds. Ecology 2018, 99, 2058–2066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Bennett, V.A.; Doerr, V.A.; Doerr, E.D.; Manning, A.D.; Lindenmayer, D.B.; Yoon, H.-J. Habitat selection and behaviour of a reintroduced passerine: Linking experimental restoration, behaviour and habitat ecology. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e54539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. French, A.R.; Smith, T.B. Importance of body size in determining dominance hierarchies among diverse tropical frugivores 1. Biotropica J. Biol. Conserv. 2005, 37, 96–101. [Google Scholar]
  98. Barnagaud, J.Y.; Daniel Kissling, W.; Sandel, B.; Eiserhardt, W.L.; Şekercioğlu, Ç.H.; Enquist, B.J.; Tsirogiannis, C.; Svenning, J.C. Ecological traits influence the phylogenetic structure of bird species co-occurrences worldwide. Ecol. Lett. 2014, 17, 811–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Laird, R.A.; Schamp, B.S. Competitive intransitivity promotes species coexistence. Am. Nat. 2006, 168, 182–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Isope, P.; Dieudonne, S.; Barbour, B. Temporal organization of activity in the cerebellar cortex: A manifesto for synchrony. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2002, 978, 164–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. de Solages, C.; Szapiro, G.; Brunel, N.; Hakim, V.; Isope, P.; Buisseret, P.; Rousseau, C.; Barbour, B.; Léna, C. High-frequency organization and synchrony of activity in the Purkinje cell layer of the cerebellum. Neuron 2008, 58, 775–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  102. Kruse, K.L.; Collins, D.P.; Conring, C.M.; Grisham, B.A.; Conway, W.C.; Knetter, J.M. Summer habitat selection of the Lower Colorado River Valley Population of greater sandhill cranes. J. Fish Wildl. Manag. 2017, 8, 436–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Wang, Y.; Jia, Y.; Guan, L.; Lu, C.; Lei, G.; Wen, L.; Liu, G. Optimising hydrological conditions to sustain wintering waterbird populations in Poyang Lake National Natural Reserve: Implications for dam operations. Freshw. Biol. 2013, 58, 2366–2379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Xia, S.; Liu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Chen, B.; Jia, Y.; Liu, G.; Yu, X.; Wen, L. Wintering waterbirds in a large river floodplain: Hydrological connectivity is the key for reconciling development and conservation. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 573, 645–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Zhang, C.; Yuan, Y.; Zeng, G.; Liang, J.; Guo, S.; Huang, L.; Hua, S.; Wu, H.; Zhu, Y.; An, H. Influence of hydrological regime and climatic factor on waterbird abundance in Dongting Lake Wetland, China: Implications for biological conservation. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 90, 473–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Northrup, J.M.; Rivers, J.W.; Yang, Z.; Betts, M.G. Synergistic effects of climate and land-use change influence broad-scale avian population declines. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2019, 25, 1561–1575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 13 06044 g001 550
Figure 1. (A) Digital video recording cameras were deployed in four study lakes to collect behavior-based abundance data for each habitat they used, (B) data were then merged and converted to input data files, (C) Pearsons correlation for each study behavior was calculated for each species, (D) correlation values were used to plot an undirected networking diagram utilizing igraph and (E) results on network metrics and keystone species were derived. Please consult Rasool et al. [8]: Figure 5 as reference for a detailed explanation of data collection.
Figure 1. (A) Digital video recording cameras were deployed in four study lakes to collect behavior-based abundance data for each habitat they used, (B) data were then merged and converted to input data files, (C) Pearsons correlation for each study behavior was calculated for each species, (D) correlation values were used to plot an undirected networking diagram utilizing igraph and (E) results on network metrics and keystone species were derived. Please consult Rasool et al. [8]: Figure 5 as reference for a detailed explanation of data collection.
Sustainability 13 06044 g001
Sustainability 13 06044 g002 550
Figure 2. (A) Overall frequency of habitat selection by all species of MSGs at managed (R1) and unmanaged (R2) lakes, (B) species richness at any given habitat, (C) overall abundance of species (D) activity-based species abundance data used to calculate interactions (degree of sociality) to plot SBAN, was used to plot NMDS ordination, shows the difference in network composition and habitat use (activity) at R1 and R2 lakes.
Figure 2. (A) Overall frequency of habitat selection by all species of MSGs at managed (R1) and unmanaged (R2) lakes, (B) species richness at any given habitat, (C) overall abundance of species (D) activity-based species abundance data used to calculate interactions (degree of sociality) to plot SBAN, was used to plot NMDS ordination, shows the difference in network composition and habitat use (activity) at R1 and R2 lakes.
Sustainability 13 06044 g002
Sustainability 13 06044 g003 550
Figure 3. Habitat areas calculated from classified NDVI maps developed for 2016–2017 (a) and 2017–2018 (b) wintering periods were analyzed to detect change or conversion of one habitat type to another in each study lake (c). (d) change in habitat areas plotted for each study lake during study duration.
Figure 3. Habitat areas calculated from classified NDVI maps developed for 2016–2017 (a) and 2017–2018 (b) wintering periods were analyzed to detect change or conversion of one habitat type to another in each study lake (c). (d) change in habitat areas plotted for each study lake during study duration.
Sustainability 13 06044 g003
Sustainability 13 06044 g004 550
Figure 4. Undirected network graphs plotted using igraph were converted to ggnetwork format for independent assessment of all 5 habitat types in both managed and unmanaged lakes to relate keystone species personality for control or dominance over peripheral co-existing species. Regime-wise comparison was carried out for network composition based on Pearson’s centrality measures with an arbitrary cutoff of 0.4 to highlight activity-based important nodes and their connections.
Figure 4. Undirected network graphs plotted using igraph were converted to ggnetwork format for independent assessment of all 5 habitat types in both managed and unmanaged lakes to relate keystone species personality for control or dominance over peripheral co-existing species. Regime-wise comparison was carried out for network composition based on Pearson’s centrality measures with an arbitrary cutoff of 0.4 to highlight activity-based important nodes and their connections.
Sustainability 13 06044 g004
Table
Table 1. Species coding, foraging guild description and habitat requirements of wintering waterbirds species covered in this study. Colored cubes identify species groups in SBAN network plots.
Table 1. Species coding, foraging guild description and habitat requirements of wintering waterbirds species covered in this study. Colored cubes identify species groups in SBAN network plots.
Spp. Code Color CodeDescriptionPotential Wintering HabitatSpecies
A Sustainability 13 06044 i001Fish, clam and invertebrate eatersMarshes and swaps along Yangzi [67]Anser cygnoides
BMudflats and freshwater marshes [67]Ardea alba
CShallow waters in lakes and streams [67]Ardea cinerea
DWetlands, lakes, marshes [68,69]Ciconia boyciana
EMarshy wetlands and rivers [67]Ciconia nigra
F Sustainability 13 06044 i002Tuber feederLakes, grasslands and marshes [67]Cygnus columbianus
GMarshes and shallow fresh water [67]Grus leucogeranus
HMudflats, marshes and shallow water [67]Grus monacha
I Sustainability 13 06044 i003Sedge/grass foragerShallow fresh water and marshes [67]Anser albifrons
JLakes and marshes [67]Anser fabalis
KCropland and praires [70,71]Grus grus
L Sustainability 13 06044 i004Invertebrate eaterShallow water lakes [72]Platalea leucorodea
M Sustainability 13 06044 i005Fish eaterLakes and rivers [73]Larus spp.
NShallow waters at freshwater lakes [67]Pelecanus onocrotalus
Table
Table 2. Social-behavioral association network metrics for activity synchrony and keystoneness at R1 and R2 lakes where “n” indicates species richness in each habitat.
Table 2. Social-behavioral association network metrics for activity synchrony and keystoneness at R1 and R2 lakes where “n” indicates species richness in each habitat.
Control RegimeHabitatnNo. of NodesNo. of EdgesEigen ValueEdge DensitySIPBIPCompetitionAggressionKeystone Species
Managed lakes (R1)Bare ground812662.1630.25−2.460.02014A. albifrons, A. fabalis, C. nigra
Deep water611551.9180.330.25−2.645598C. columbianus
Grass land10232532.4790.95−1.05−1.6671126A. albifrons
Shallow water13335284.4982.6−1.89−1.5853238C. columbianus
Mud flat14407803.8342.9−1.94−1.3998176A. alba, A. cinerea, C. nigra
Unmanaged lakes (R2)Bare ground36150.7000.061.36−3.51012A. cygnoides
Deep water6171362.4950.73−1.22−2.08119177C. columbianus
Grass land6171361.9690.6−0.39−2.41852A. fabalis, A. alba
Shallow water11273512.2341.18−2.15−1.5582128C. columbianus
Mud flat11335283.4312.05−1.89−1.7710778A. fabalis, P. leucorodea
Table
Table 3. A 2-way analysis of variance test was employed to compare means of constructed SBAN networks and to check significant difference at the treatment level (R1 and R2) and habitat level within treatments, NDVI based habitat areas between treatments and within treatments as well as habitat transitions in both treatments for habitat availability.
Table 3. A 2-way analysis of variance test was employed to compare means of constructed SBAN networks and to check significant difference at the treatment level (R1 and R2) and habitat level within treatments, NDVI based habitat areas between treatments and within treatments as well as habitat transitions in both treatments for habitat availability.
Source of VariationDFSum of SquaresMean Squarep ValueSignificance Level
Interaction 11125,7532341.2p = 0.0249*
Network metrics 111759,26069,024p < 0.0001****
Lakes 115530.95530.9p = 0.0237*
Habitats 148575,43511,988p < 0.0001****
Interaction 2713.581.939p = 0.0001***
Habitat areas between treatments 2759.748.534p < 0.0001****
Wintering periods 210.65470.6547p = 0.0285*
Habitat Areas among wintering periods 280.36650.04581p = 0.8281Not significant
Habitat transition between treatments 31633.652.103p = 0.0113*
1 We employed 2-way ANOVA to check the significant difference between network attributes at the lake and habitat level, 2 between habitat area at the treatment level and study duration and 3 habitat transitions at treatment level over the study duration. * significant; *** very significant, **** highly significant.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rasool, M.A.; Hassan, M.A.; Zhang, X.; Zeng, Q.; Jia, Y.; Wen, L.; Lei, G. Habitat Quality and Social Behavioral Association Network in a Wintering Waterbirds Community. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6044. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116044

AMA Style

Rasool MA, Hassan MA, Zhang X, Zeng Q, Jia Y, Wen L, Lei G. Habitat Quality and Social Behavioral Association Network in a Wintering Waterbirds Community. Sustainability. 2021; 13(11):6044. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116044

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rasool, Muhammad Awais, Muhammad Azher Hassan, Xiaobo Zhang, Qing Zeng, Yifei Jia, Li Wen, and Guangchun Lei. 2021. "Habitat Quality and Social Behavioral Association Network in a Wintering Waterbirds Community" Sustainability 13, no. 11: 6044. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116044

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop