DOI: 10.5061/dryad.n89d4gg
title: Data from: Multiple habitat use by declining migratory birds necessitates joined-up conservation

description: Many species depend on multiple habitats at different points in space and
 time. Their effective conservation requires an understanding of how and
 when each habitat is used, coupled with adequate protection. Migratory
 shorebirds use intertidal and supratidal wetlands, both of which are
 affected by coastal landscape change. Yet the extent to which shorebirds
 use artificial supratidal habitats, particularly at highly developed
 stopover sites, remains poorly understood leading to potential
 deficiencies in habitat management. We surveyed shorebirds on their
 southward migration in southern Jiangsu, a critical stopover region in the
 East Asian-Australasian Flyway (EAAF), to measure their use of artificial
 supratidal habitats and assess linkages between intertidal and supratidal
 habitat use. To inform management, we examined how biophysical features
 influenced occupancy of supratidal habitats, and whether these habitats
 were used for roosting or foraging. We found that shorebirds at four of
 five sites were limited to artificial supratidal habitats at high tide for
 ~11–25 days per month because natural intertidal flats were completely
 covered by seawater. Within the supratidal landscape, at least 37
 shorebirds species aggregated on artificial wetlands, and shorebirds were
 more abundant on larger ponds with less water cover, less vegetation, at
 least one unvegetated bund, and fewer built structures nearby. Artificial
 supratidal habitats were rarely used for foraging and rarely occupied when
 intertidal flats were available, underscoring the complementarity between
 supratidal roosting habitat and intertidal foraging habitat. Joined-up
 artificial supratidal management and natural intertidal habitat
 conservation is clearly required at our study site given the simultaneous
 dependence by over 35,000 migrating shorebirds on both habitats. Guided by
 observed patterns of habitat use, there is a clear opportunity to improve
 habitat condition by working with local land custodians to consider
 shorebird habitat requirements when managing supratidal ponds. This
 approach is likely applicable to shorebird sites throughout the EAAF.
description: Jackson et al_Multiple
 habitat use by declining migratory birds necessitates joined-up
 conservationField data comprising
 shorebird counts and biophysical survey variables, used in generalised
 linear mixed-effects models described in the manuscript. Survey month: 1 =
 July or August, 2 = September, 3 = October; Tide Height: tide height in cm
 at the highest or lowest tide point during the survey; Intertidal flats
 cover: 1 = seawater was against the seawall during the count, 0 = seawater
 did not reach the seawall during the count; Water cover: % cover of water
 over the surface area of the whole pond; Distance: distance to seawall
 measured in kilometres using Google Earth; Vegetation cover: estimated
 non-water surface area covered by vegetation, measured as &lt;10%, 10-30%,
 30-50%, 50-70% or &gt;70%; Bund: number of unvegetated bunds (i.e. the
 bank surrounding the pond, sometimes called berms) for each pond, 1= at
 least one unvegetated bund, 0 = no unvegetated bunds; Structures: number
 of structures (telephone/electricity poles/wires, buildings and trees)
 within 10m of the perimeter of the pond; Size: pond size measured in
 hectares using Google Earth; Total Count: count of total shorebird
 abundance (all individuals of all species).