Introduction
Millions of birds migrate annually along global flyways around the world. With nearly 400 migratory landbird species, the East Australian–Asian Flyway (EAAF) is the most diverse of the world’s flyways (Yong et al. Reference Yong, Heim, Chowdhury, Choi, Ktitorov and Kulikova2021). It is also the least understood, particularly with regards to species decline (Yong et al. Reference Yong, Heim, Chowdhury, Choi, Ktitorov and Kulikova2021) and non-breeding behaviour (Basso et al. Reference Basso, Horstmann, Rakhimberdiev, Abad-Gómez, Masero and Gutiérrez2023). The decline of migratory species is a global conservation concern (Wilcove and Wikelski Reference Wilcove and Wikelski2008) across all the world’s major flyways (Beresford et al. Reference Beresford, Sanderson, Donald, Burfield, Butler and Vicker2019; Galbraith Reference Galbraith, Jones, Kirby and Mundkur2014). Drivers described for decline primarily include anthropogenic changes to habitat such as loss and fragmentation compounded by climate change (Gilroy et al. Reference Gilroy, Gill, Butchart, Jones and Franco2016; Vickery et al. Reference Vickery, Ewing, Smith, Pain, Bairlein and Škorpilová2014). This is further exacerbated as internationally migratory species are dependent on distinct habitats in vastly different geographical areas, and changes in one habitat can influence outcomes in other habitats and thereby, entire population trajectories (Zurell et al. Reference Zurell, Graham, Gallien, Thuiller and Zimmermann2018). To mitigate and manage the drivers of decline, an understanding of movement and behaviour of a range of different waterbird species is critical (McGinness et al. Reference McGinness, Lloyd-Jones, Robinson, Langston, O’Neill and Rapley2024).
One bird that is not well understood is Latham’s Snipe Gallinago hardwickii, which is a cryptic migratory wader that breeds in Japan and Russia and spends its non-breeding season in eastern Australia, with most birds passing through New Guinea and Northern Australia (Hansen et al. Reference Hansen, Ura, Tajiri, Dutson and Garnett2020). Latham’s Snipe is one of 18 Gallinago species worldwide (family Scolopacidae), although only three species are known to visit Australia, i.e. Latham’s Snipe, Pin-tailed Snipe G. stenura, and Swinhoe’s Snipe G. megala. Little has been published about the movement behaviour of these birds, although they are relatively well understood from a biological perspective (Naarding Reference Naarding1985).
As with so many other migratory bird species, Latham’s Snipe is thought to be in decline worldwide (BirdLife International 2022). It is considered under threat in Australia from habitat loss and disturbance in relation to urban development, large-scale overgrazing, increased scale, intensity or frequency of fire, and on-going drought (Hansen et al. Reference Hansen, Ura, Tajiri, Dutson and Garnett2020). It is also threatened by habitat loss in their breeding grounds in Japan (BirdLife International 2022). Foxes and cats may also pose a threat, although more information is required for confirmation (Hansen et al. Reference Hansen, Ura, Tajiri, Dutson and Garnett2020). Early in 2024, Latham’s Snipe was listed as “Vulnerable” under the Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) 1999, which has offered them some legislative protection in Australia (Australian Government 2025). They are also one of 66 species listed under the Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA), which is a bilateral agreement to offer protection to migratory birds and their habitat Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT 1974).
Latham’s Snipe are thought to fly directly from their breeding sites in Japan to regular non-breeding sites in eastern Australia where, upon reaching their destination, they return to the same sites and engage in predictable behavioural patterns (Hansen et al. Reference Hansen, Ura and Tajiri2022). The term “site attachment” has been used to describe processes leading to the formation of a bird’s preference for a location which involves learning and memory (Chan et al. Reference Chan, Chan, Tibbitts, Hassell and Piersma2023; Ketterson and Nolan Reference Ketterson, Nolan and Gwinner1990; Piper Reference Piper2011). “Site fidelity” is also another term that describes a preference for a particular area. It is defined as the act of returning to a location occupied in an earlier season or year (Ketterson and Nolan Reference Ketterson, Nolan and Gwinner1990). In this paper we explore behaviour once Latham’s Snipe reach their non-breeding sites, including their preference to remain at a particular site for the duration of their non-breeding season. We therefore use the term “intra-year” site fidelity. Neither inter- nor intra-site fidelity behaviours have previously been described for Latham’s Snipe.
To explore intra-season site fidelity and behaviour in Latham’s Snipe during their non-breeding season in Australia, we tracked individual bird movements via GPS telemetry, to test the hypotheses that (1) individual Latham’s Snipe remain in the same non-breeding sites in Australia for the duration of each season, and (2) Latham’s Snipe display distinct patterns of behaviour for roosting and foraging. This information will enable land managers and decision-makers to better manage habitat for conservation outcomes for Latham’s Snipe and potentially other migratory birds in the face of urban development, loss of non-breeding habitat, physical disturbance, and climate change.
Methods
Site description
Jerrabomberra Wetlands is a nationally important 174-ha wetland in Canberra, the capital city of Australia (Figure 1). It is a designated nature reserve and is bound by the human-made Lake Burley Griffin to the west, farmland and a woodland nature reserve to the north, industrial and urban areas to the south, and a sewerage treatment plant and turf farm to the east. The study location was originally the Jerrabomberra Wetlands Nature Reserve and the nearby turf farm but was subsequently adjusted to include an area to the north due to the results of tracking data as the research progressed.
Figure 1. Location of the Jerrabomberra Wetlands Nature Reserve in Canberra, ACT, Australia. Green represents nature reserved areas and purple shows the project boundary.
Jerrabomberra Wetlands is an unusual nature reserve in that it is considered a “novel” ecosystem (Hobbs et al. Reference Hobbs, Higgs and Harris2009), lacking many of the “native” elements that typically define a nature reserve. Specifically, it is highly developed, dominated by non-native species, and has experienced a high level of disturbance in relation to the creation of Lake Burley Griffin and development of the city of Canberra. Despite this, the wetlands support a large diversity of native wildlife and over 200 bird species have been recorded (ACT Government 2024). Jerrabomberra Wetlands also boasts the highest population of recorded Latham’s Snipe in the Canberra region (Gould Reference Gould2016; Weller et al. Reference Weller, Kidd, Lee, Klose, Jaensch and Driessen2020). It is for this reason, and the ever-expanding Canberra urban footprint that Jerrabomberra Wetlands was chosen as a study site.
Catching and tagging methods
Latham’s Snipe were captured at Jerrabomberra Wetlands using mist nets over two non-breeding seasons in 2022/3 and 2023/4. To understand the areas the birds were using and to prioritise net placement locations, dusk counts were conducted on the evening of each net set and for a minimum of one week prior to a planned capture date. Arrival and departure times of birds were used to guide timing of net placement (i.e. in the periods when snipe were absent).
The mist nets were erected in the wetlands after sunset, once the birds had departed to night-time foraging sites. Birds were captured by flushing them into the nets just after their pre-dawn arrival. Extracted birds were placed in cloth bags and returned to the nearby wetland centre for processing. Standard measurements for Latham’s Snipe (Ura et al. Reference Ura, Azuma, Hayama and Higashi2005) were taken including age (juvenile age 1 or adult age 1+), exposed culmen length, head-bill length, wing length, tarsus length, weight, primary wing moult, tail length, and number of retrices. Every bird was fitted with a metal leg band supplied by the Australian Bird and Bat Banding Scheme (Australian Government 2024), as well as an orange engraved leg flag with a unique alpha-numeric or numeric-numeric combination.
Druid solar Bluetooth NANO GPS satellite transmitters weighing 3.6 g were fitted to 32 individuals between December 2022 and January 2024 using leg-loop harnesses made of elastic jewellery thread (0.7 mm). The jewellery thread was chosen as a temporary attachment method as it degrades over time. It is unknown exactly how long it lasts but it is thought to degrade over a period of less than two years. These devices were chosen after a thorough review of electronic devices suitable for small to medium waders (Gould et al. Reference Gould, Manning, McGinness and Hansen2024). Due to their light weight, small size, accuracy, and the ability to construct a receiver tower in the study location, they were determined to be the most appropriate for researching local movement. Harness fit was checked by careful “preening” of material into feathers and under legs and was undertaken by handlers experienced in harness fitting of a range of waterbird species including Snipe. These birds were held briefly prior to release. The NANO transmitters use the Interlink satellite network’s Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) location system, with an accuracy of ~5 m (Gould et al. Reference Gould, Manning, McGinness and Hansen2024). Tracking locations were obtained over two sampling periods from 10 December 2022 to 22 March 2023 (14,363 records from 17 birds), and from the 10 December 2023 to 16 March 2024 (6,605 records from 15 birds).
Device programming
The Druid NANO GPS devices were programmed to collect location data every four hours. A boost function was set so that if the battery charge exceeded 4.12 V, data were collected every 900 seconds and at 3.9 V every 3,600 seconds. As the settings were able to be remotely manipulated (using the manufacturer’s web-based application Ecotopia), there was some experimentation with two of the devices in the 2022/3 season to see the effect on battery charge, and the boost function was set to “off” for eight devices during the 2023/4 season to conserve battery life. The settings were reviewed throughout the two seasons to ensure the devices were working effectively. Bluetooth data acquisition was made using a HUB (relay) receiver installed on a 5-m pole at the highest point in the wetlands complex (with a Bluetooth range up to 800 m), and via the mobile phone Ecotopia application (range within 80 m).
Data processing and analysis
Data from 32 birds collected in the 2022/3 and 2023/4 seasons were processed and analysed. All records associated with device testing (prior to the date and time of bird release) were removed and other anomalous data were excluded as follows. To assess positional accuracy (+/-10 m) of tracking locations, coordinates from the same known location were tested across all devices for a minimum of 14 days prior to deployment. Comparison across devices suggested fixes based on four or more satellites had an acceptable positional accuracy (+/-10 m), whereas fixes based on fewer satellites had poor positional accuracy, so these were excluded. Removal of data resulted in 11,938 fixes being dropped due to filtering.
Cleaned data were stratified into behavioural states (roosting and foraging) based on observed roost departure and arrival times collected during on-site surveys, which enabled a time range to be determined for the arrival and departure of the earliest and latest birds. Roosting was determined as occurring during daylight hours, from 06h51–19h30 Australian Eastern Daylight Time (AEDT), and foraging occurred overnight, from 21h04–04h51 AEDT. Data outside the assigned roosting and foraging time periods were assigned as “travel”. Assigned travel time also accounted for the fact that sunset and sunrise varied each day across the season, and therefore a minimum and maximum time of possible travel was assigned to take this into account. “Foraging” timing was assigned based on (1) several opportunistic spotlighting night surveys where birds were detected foraging, and (2) visual observations of two tracked birds feeding away from the roost between midnight and 01h00 and where other non-tracked birds were also in the vicinity. There was also a high level of probing in the mud where the birds were observed to be feeding. Overall Dynamic Body Acceleration (OBDA) data from tracked birds showed a higher level of activity between 16h00 and 06h00 confirming likely foraging behaviour (as opposed to long stationary periods indicating roosting behaviour). All data re-processing, analysis, and plotting were performed in R (Pebesma Reference Pebesma2018). Photographs of a Latham’s Snipe foraging at night and probe marks, and ODBA data from one Snipe indicated night-time activity.
Behaviour states assigned to all bird tracking locations collected by the NANO devices were exported as shapefiles using the package sf in R (Pebesma Reference Pebesma2018), then inspected spatially in ArcGIS Pro (ESRI 2023) to confirm the accuracy of the behaviour classification process. Maps of roosting versus foraging locations for each bird were created using ArcGIS Pro (ESRI 2023).
Bird behaviour states were assigned to specific days, the combination of which was termed a “behaviour event”, i.e. roosting by bird X on day Y. The location where birds spent the most time was derived for each behaviour event using the mode, or the most common fixes for roosting and foraging behaviour per bird. Modal data for roosting and foraging of each bird were paired to be able to determine distance between roost and forage sites sequentially. For each paired sequential modal location, the distance travelled was derived using geosphere (Hijmans Reference Hijmans2022). Summary statistics of the daily distances travelled by birds were derived using dplyr (Wickham et al. Reference Wickham, Francois, Henry and Muller2022). The distribution of daily distances travelled, shown as a ridgeline plot was generated using ggplot2 (Wickham Reference Wickham2016) and ggridges (Wilke Reference Wilke2021). Data for two birds which travelled interstate to an Australian southern east coast town called Nowra in 2023 and an inland town in the south-east of the state of New South Wales called Gunning in 2024, showed that both birds set up a similar pattern of roosting and foraging behaviour in their new temporary destinations as that observed at Jerrabomberra Wetlands. These data were excluded from local movement analysis (as outliers) and instead are presented via mapping.
Home range sizes were estimated from kernel density estimates (KDE) using the eks package in R (Duong Reference Duong2024). To ensure sufficient sampling for KDE, all observations for a single behaviour (i.e. roosting versus foraging) from each bird were pooled within a survey year. Home range sizes were derived from KDE based on polygons representing the 95% confidence intervals determined for each bird behaviour. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and multiple comparison tests – Tukey Honestly Significant Difference (Tukey HSD) were used to test whether home range sizes varied significantly by behaviour, or over time.
Results
A total of 32 birds were captured and fitted with transmitters – 17 were tracked in the 2022/3 season and 15 during the 2023/4 season. The weight of the birds ranged from 136 g to 173 g (average 149 g) and all birds were adults based on their wing feather patterns except for one bird which was undetermined. The exact ages of the birds were unknown, but at least three birds were recaptures from previous years and aged between four and six years. All birds were captured in the middle of the moulting period for the Canberra Snipe population and were mostly in active moult at the time with one exception, which was captured late December and had not yet started moulting (thought to be the juvenile mentioned above). The birds were unable to be sexed with any degree of accuracy due to variability in tail count and bill length data. Specifically, the methods currently used to sex Latham’s Snipe do not seem to be reliable when applied to our data analysis. Further modelling work is being undertaken to try to resolve this, and it will be written up in a future paper.
Movement timing and distance
The number of days of tracking data acquisition was variable at 2–29 days/bird. We found the tracked birds remained at Jerrabomberra Wetlands for the duration of their non-breeding season and formed distinctive patterns of roosting and foraging (Figure 2). The birds left at civil twilight to forage and returned to roosting sites at first light the following morning. The distance range between roosting and foraging sites did not differ significantly between seasons using ANOVA and multiple comparison tests (Tukey HSD). Around 75% of birds roosted and foraged within 2.25 km (Figure 3). Approximately one third (31%) of tracked birds travelled up to 30 km overnight before returning to the wetlands, and two birds (6%) travelled up to 140 km for up to three days before returning (Figure 4).
Figure 2. (a). Daily Latham’s Snipe movements between roosting and foraging sites 2022/3. Foraging site modes are shown in green and roosting site modes in purple. The full data set “all data” for each has been included in grey (pale dots). The lower right-hand box shows the behaviour of one bird (21FC) that travelled to the New South Wales south coast (Nowra) for three nights and set up a similar pattern of behaviour in a different location. (b) Daily Latham’s Snipe movements between roosting and foraging sites 2023/4. The lower right-hand box shows the behaviour of one bird (0509) that travelled north from Canberra to a location near a small inland town called Gunning for two nights and displayed a similar pattern of behaviour in a different location.
Figure 3. (a) Daily distances travelled between roosting and foraging areas based on modes during the 2022/3 season. Most birds foraged within 2.5 km of roosting sites, but six birds travelled up to 6 km to forage. Note that one outlier (21f3) has been excluded from this data set because it travelled more than 140 km, but once at its new location it set up similar roosting/feeding patterns of less than 6 km between sites. (b) Daily distances travelled between roosting and foraging areas based on modes during the 2023/4 season. Most birds foraged within 2 km of roosting sites, but two birds travelled up to 6 km to forage.
Figure 4. Regional movements of 10 birds that left Jerrabomberra Wetlands. Most stayed within 30 km and were only away overnight, however two birds travelled north and north-east for two and three days, respectively.
Occasional larger movements were made outside the Canberra region. One bird flew 140 km away to the south coast of New South Wales (Nowra) for a period of up three days (4–6 February 2023), after which time it returned to Jerrabomberra Wetlands. Another bird flew 54 km north to the inland town of Gunning, New South Wales where it stayed for two days (18 and 19 January 2024) before returning to Jerrabomberra Wetlands. Interestingly, this bird returned to the Gunning site on 7 February and remained there for one week prior to migrating northwards on 14 February 2024. The pattern of behaviour for roosting and foraging observed at Jerrabomberra Wetlands was also observed for the birds that travelled to Nowra in 2023 (Figure 2a inset) and Gunning in 2024 (Figure 2b inset), where they set up the same day–night movement routine.
Home ranges
Home ranges for combined roosting and foraging behaviour (daily movements) ranged from 0.1 ha to 100 ha (Figure 5). The average home range area was 19 ha (n = 32 birds) with 72% (23 birds) using an area of less than 20 ha. ANOVA and Tukey HSD showed that no pairwise groups were significantly different (all P values <0.5) (Figure 6). Although some birds travelled further afield for short periods, there were no statistically significant differences between home range sizes for foraging versus roosting behaviour within years or between years, and they used the same areas in both seasons and within each season.
Figure 5. Area of use (home ranges) for all 32 birds over the 2022/3 and 2023/4 seasons. Note there is a high level of overlap between individuals with some birds roosting and foraging in separate areas and others roosting and foraging in the same area. There were no statistically significant differences in home range area of use within years or between years.
Figure 6. Violin plot showing seasonal home range estimates in hectares for different behaviour types (roosting and foraging) over the 2022/3 and 2023/4 seasons depicted as 2223 and 2324 on the x-axis for each behaviour. The width of each curve corresponds with the frequency of data for each behaviour per year, with all birds using a relatively small area for roosting and larger areas for foraging.
The birds were observed to have travelled overnight to one or more of the following locations before returning to their roost sites pre-dawn: (1) a turf farm where they were specifically recorded foraging on the edge of couch grass Cynodon dactylon paddocks which had minimal pesticide application (Canturf Lawns staff, personal communication); (2) an area known as the “paleo-channels” within Jerrabomberra Wetlands where cattle are rotationally grazed and where there is a diversity of wetland habitat and stock dams; (3) farmland to the north known as the Majura Valley; (4) stayed within the same area as their roost sites. The characteristics of these roosting and foraging habitats (in terms of vegetation type and structure) are the subject of a current analysis.
Discussion
This study represents the first high-resolution movement data acquisition from this species and has allowed us to investigate several aspects of previously undescribed Latham’s Snipe movement behaviour. Overall, we found that most individual Latham’s Snipe displayed a high level of intra-year site fidelity, remaining at the study site for the duration of their non-breeding season and using a relatively small home range area for roosting. It was assumed that once the birds were unable to be detected, they had begun their migration north. The timing of non-detection aligned with observational records, and full migration data from six of the birds that returned to the wetlands after migrating to Japan and Russia also confirmed this. The birds showed discernible and predictable patterns of roosting and feeding at this important non-breeding site. Daily commuting distances between roosting and foraging sites were typically small (<2.5 km for around 75% of birds) and, consistent with this, home range sizes were also relatively small (average of 19 ha).
Movement patterns
Although their behavioural patterns varied, all tracked Latham’s Snipe remained within the Jerrabomberra Wetlands study area for the duration of their 2022/3 and 2023/4 non-breeding season and used the same habitat areas within each season and between seasons. There were two individuals that undertook longer-distance movements of 54 km and 140 km over short time periods (both into the neighbouring state of New South Wales) and on arrival established the same pattern of behaviour of roosting in one area and foraging at another. Birds undertaking regional travel only used the destination habitat and did not stop off on route. This was similar for the birds that travelled shorter distances overnight whereby they flew directly to their destination and back again the next morning. It is thought that this might be exploratory behaviour but is yet undetermined. Subsequent tracking data showed that the bird that travelled to Gunning, NSW, returned to the same site for more than a week on its migration north. While interesting, it is not enough data to be able to be able to draw conclusions nor is it the subject of this paper.
While the population size at Jerrabomberra Wetlands is modest, i.e. 4–146 Snipe with a mean of 26 birds (A. Smith and B. Hansen, unpublished data), it is likely these movement patterns apply to the whole Canberra population and potentially other urban populations. Radio-tracking of Latham’s Snipe in south-west Victoria between 2016 and 2017 revealed a similar pattern of movement between locations during dusk and dawn, although these findings have not been formally analysed (Hansen Reference Hansen2020). Therefore, comparisons of behaviour between different non-breeding locations requires further investigations.
Intra-year site fidelity and distinctive roosting and foraging patterns have not been previously described for Latham’s Snipe, although these behaviours are common in other shorebirds. Many waterbirds in Australia occur in temporary wetlands and move around as conditions change (Kingsford et al. Reference Kingsford, Roshier and Porter2010). It is possible that Latham’s Snipe may move around the landscape more in the absence of permanent resources such as Jerrabomberra Wetlands, which are protected for conservation, and an irrigated turf farm that the birds regularly use for foraging. More research on other Australian non-breeding sites is required to answer this question.
Research on other Gallinago species is limited, but studies on the Great Snipe Gallinago gallinago have found that these birds nest and forage in separate and distinct habitat areas (Korniluk et al. Reference Korniluk, Bialomyzy, Grygoruk, Kozub, Sielezniew and Swietochowski2020) and, therefore, provision of a mosaic of different land management types is required to support them. Bar-tailed Godwits Limosa lapponica at non-breeding sites showed similar distinctive behavioural patterns of roosting and foraging, a high level of site fidelity, and a relatively small home range compared with other shorebirds thought to be related to food availability (Jourdan et al. Reference Jourdan, Fort, Pinaud, Delaporte, Gernigon and Guenneteau2021). Many other migratory birds show high levels of inter- and intra-site fidelity to non-breeding sites (Burton and Evans Reference Burton and Evans1997; Catry et al. Reference Catry, Catry, Catry and Martins2003; Jourdan et al. Reference Jourdan, Fort, Pinaud, Delaporte, Gernigon and Guenneteau2021; Leyrer et al. Reference Leyrer, Spaans, Camara and Piersma2006), which is thought to be related to prior residence and a knowledge of resources, which in some cases is so strong it may even limit the ability of individuals to move away from degradation (Lourenço et al. Reference Lourenço, Alves, Reneerkens, Loonstra, Potts and Granadeiro2016). Routine movements within a restricted area are thought to be advantageous for long-distance migratory birds spending the non-breeding season in predictable environments (Basso et al. Reference Basso, Horstmann, Rakhimberdiev, Abad-Gómez, Masero and Gutiérrez2023).
Home ranges
Homes ranges for Latham’s Snipe at Jerrabomberra Wetlands varied from less than 1 ha up to 100 ha, with 72% of birds using an area of less than 20 ha. These home ranges did not differ significantly between 2022/3 and 2023/4. Interestingly, three of the birds having among the smallest home ranges (3.0 ha, 5.9 ha, and 7.5 ha) were recaptures from previous years and therefore, were known-age birds of 4–6 years minimum age, which is greater than the stated generation time for this species (Hansen et al. Reference Hansen, Ura, Tajiri, Dutson and Garnett2020). Only one of these three birds went on exploratory trips. While the age structure of the population is not known, this suggests that older birds potentially move less throughout the non-breeding season and (presumably) occupy the highest quality habitats (thus requiring smaller home ranges). Although these data are not a large enough sample to draw strong conclusions about age-related site fidelity, other research has shown that there may be a link between exploration and age, as juvenile animals of most species exhibit dispersive and/or exploratory behaviours during which they search for places to ultimately settle (Clobert et al. Reference Clobert, Ims, Rousset, Hanski and Gaggiotti2004). For example, a study on Western Sandpipers Calidris mauri showed that first-year birds had larger home ranges than adults (Warnock and Takekawa Reference Warnock and Takekawa1996), and another showed weaker homing behaviour in juveniles (Baccetti et al. Reference Baccetti, Serra, Cherubini and Magnani1999).
Drivers of home range are thought to be primarily habitat and food availability (Dossman et al. Reference Dossman, Rodewald and Marra2024; Peng et al. Reference Peng, Choi, Ma, Bijleveld, Melville and Piersma2023). At Jerrabomberra Wetlands, Snipe are observed roosting during the day in dense tussocky grasses interspersed with mud and surface water, and forage at night in areas with sparser vegetative cover and larger areas of mud and shallow surface water (L. Gould, personal observation). This includes modified landscapes such as grazing areas, stock water dams, altered wetland flood-plains, and the adjacent turf farm. The turf farm has been in its present location for over 50 years and provides a reliable source of mud and surface water due to constant irrigation (including during drought). Latham’s Snipe are known to forage in sediments with firm mud containing the larvae and adults of Coleoptera and Diptera, their preferred food source (Todd Reference Todd2000). Anecdotal observations made by turf farm staff have indicated that the couch-growing areas where tracked Snipe were recorded received less pesticide application than other grass types (Canturf Lawns staff, personal communication), suggesting that foraging birds may be preferentially targeting more productive and less contaminated sediments.
Conservation applications
Understanding the distances travelled between foraging and roost sites, and the use of home range areas, is important for conservation decision-making and to enable development of thresholds or management guidance for ensuring availability of suitable roosting and foraging areas (McGinness et al. Reference McGinness, Lloyd-Jones, Robinson, Langston, O’Neill and Rapley2024). This is particularly important in the face of increased urban development and climate change that is expected to result in more extreme weather conditions. The use of modified landscapes by shorebirds is not a new phenomenon. Research has shown that migratory shorebirds often adapt to artificial habitats, especially for foraging. For example, grazed areas seem to be highly preferred by Great Snipe males in their breeding grounds (Korniluk et al. Reference Korniluk, Bialomyzy, Grygoruk, Kozub, Sielezniew and Swietochowski2020), and the Buff-breasted Sandpiper Calidris subruficollis showed a high level of adaptability to intensively managed crops (sod fields) (Rodkey et al. Reference Rodkey, Ballard, Tibbitts and Lanctot2024). Creation of artificial roosting and foraging habitat is a conservation tool available for the management of shorebirds (Jackson et al. Reference Jackson, Choi, Amano, Estrella, Lei, Moores, Mundkur, Rogers and Fuller2020) and is likely to benefit this species, given that it will readily occupy highly modified wetland habitat (Naarding Reference Naarding1985). However, the characteristics of the modified habitats that support Latham’s Snipe are not known and warrant further investigation, as this has implications for the role of modified habitat like turf farms in providing additional habitat in drought periods. Planning and policy instruments need to better consider the full home range of shorebirds such as Latham’s Snipe and, specifically, aim to conserve foraging areas as well as core roosting areas. Sites regularly supporting 18 or more Latham’s Snipe are considered nationally important habitat and require impact assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Survey methodologies that focus solely on daytime census will overlook the importance of nearby foraging habitat, which we have shown to extend up to 6 km and possibly more for a small proportion of the population. Critical habitat used by Latham’s Snipe in our study extended well beyond the protected area of the Jerrabomberra Wetlands Nature Reserve into nearby farmlands and a turf farm, even though the core roosting sites were almost entirely contained within the reserve. As tracked individuals varied in their use of areas outside core roosting habitats, their susceptibility to impacts may also vary depending on resource availability. The high degree of intra-year site fidelity to roosting sites suggests that loss or significant disturbance of habitat in these areas may have an adverse impact on a large proportion of the local population despite their apparent level of tolerance to disturbance (e.g. being captured and tagged or changes in seasonal conditions). Therefore, these areas should be prioritised for protection here and elsewhere across Australia to ensure habitat availability.
Meeting the full suite of requirements for shorebirds at different movement scales across their whole life-cycle is critical for future safeguarding of populations (McGinness et al. Reference McGinness, Lloyd-Jones, Robinson, Langston, O’Neill and Rapley2024). Management of habitat becomes even more complex when non-breeding and breeding areas occur in different countries, with different characteristics and where birds may exhibit different behavioural types. For example, Latham’s Snipe were found to be more active in the daytime than at night-time in Japan (Nakamura and Shigemori Reference Nakamura and Shigemori1990) in complete contrast to their behaviour in Australia. Provision for the range of habitats that support non-breeding as well as migration and breeding areas is essential for all migratory shorebirds, particularly those with a high level of both intra- and inter-site fidelity and in areas that support high number of birds.
Conclusions
Traditionally, conservation activities for Latham’s Snipe have been limited to restricted locations where birds are observed during daytime surveys (L. Gould, personal observation). Tracking data have significantly expanded our understanding of Latham’s Snipe behaviour and show that they utilise a much greater area in their non-breeding sites than previously understood. This study is constrained to one geographical location and habitat type which may differ in other parts of Australia, although, based on the limited data we do have, it is likely that they follow similar behavioural patterns in other non-breeding areas. It also raises the possibility that other cryptic migratory shorebirds may also exhibit similar behavioural patterns. This requires a shift in management and planning to consider the broader landscape when making decisions about migratory shorebird habitat, especially where these occur in expanding urban environments and other highly modified landscapes.
Acknowledgements
We thank all the Latham’s Snipe project volunteers for assistance with catching birds: Chris Davey, Harvey Perkins, Nicki Taws, Emily Scott, Annabelle Scott, Miriam Fokker, John Chianchi, Kristy Gould, Kelly Bateup, Lily Mills, Sophie Gould, Olivia Bateup, Wayne Bateup, David Cunningham, Michael Maconachie, Tess Maconachie, Anouk Maconachie, Grant Battersby, Freja Cianchi, Indigo Cianchi, Saffron Cianchi, Edward Gould, Prof. Adrian Manning, Gillian Gould, Tatsuya Ura, Satoshi Nakamura, Alastair Smith, Alison Russell-French, Jason Cummings, Mieko Katagiri, Miki Murray, Tristan Derwick, Nick Thorne, Kyuji Ota, Yosuke Ota, Yuki Ota, Millie Sutherland Saines, Jeannine Fromholtz, Adam Leavesley, John Harris, Neil Hermes, Phillip Veerman, Geoffrey Dabb, George Wilson, Moeka Furuki, Sue Lashko, Tatsushi Furuki, Satoshi Kasai, Siwan Lovett, Sandra Henderson, Craig Woodfield, Robyn Hall, Bill Graham, David McDonald, John Bundock, Kumiko Callaway, Archer Callaway, Mia Callaway, Yumi Callaway, Masa Kasai, Lia Battisson, Jack Holland, Don Fletcher, Gail Neumann, Duncan McCaskill, Belinda Wilson, Brittney Brockett, Sho Rapley, Fusako Kasai, Mark Jenkins, Connor Graham, Rebecca Graham, Carol Kowalski, Sophie Constable, Mark Lintermans, Kym Birgan, Lucy Wenger, Lauren Brown, Andy Lowes, Arianna Lowe, Bindu Johnson, Raw Shorty, Maree Gilbert, Ruby Gilbert, Jake Gilbert, Margaret Strong, Richard Chamberlain, Jodie Honan, Mark Clayton, Valerie Caron, Aurelia, Hugh Coppell, Emily Birks Towler, Inka Veltheim, Jimmy Choi, Linden Chalmers, Daniel Jackson, Fusako Kasai, Margaret Oorebeek, Ray Turnbull, Angie Ouyang, Alyssa Huo, Danielle Page, Erin McCullagh, Evan Hamman, Duncan Bullock, Finn Jones, Craig Cormick, Caelan Cormick, Sharon Ding, Elyssa Castles, Dylan Castles, Doug Watkins, Micha Jackson. Thanks to Jenny Newport for project support with contracting, ethics, and licensing, and Jason Cummings for facilitating funding support. We would like to thank the following organisations for their support: Canberra Ornithologists Group, ACT Government, Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development, ACT Parks and Conservation Service, Jerrabomberra Wetlands and Mulligans Flat Woodland Sanctuary (Woodland and Wetlands Trust), Australian River Restoration Centre, Australia-Japan Foundation, Australian National University, Federation University Australia, Wild Bird Society of Japan, South Beach Wetlands & Landcare Group – Port Fairy Rotary Club of Canberra, Canturf Lawns. The Latham’s Snipe Project is conducted under Federation University Animal Ethics Committee approvals 15-005, 18-004 and 23-005. ACT Government scientific licences WT201617, LT2017955, LT2016893, LT202126, LT202029, LT201833. The original research that formed the basis of this paper was co-funded by the Woodlands and Wetlands Trust, BirdLife Australia, and the ACT Government. The data sets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. LG was the recipient of an Australian Government Research Training Program PhD stipend from the ANU. LG also received student research support from the Fenner School of Environment and Society. Authors contributions: LAG wrote the manuscript. BH was a major contributor to content, references, and manuscript editing. ADM and HM provided significant editing and input to references. JM was a significant contributor to data analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Open access
