Content uploaded by Thomas K. Lameris
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Thomas K. Lameris on Dec 01, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Received: April Revised: September Accepted: October
DOI: ./conl.
LETTER
Wild goose chase: Geese flee high and far, and with
aftereffects from New Year’s fireworks
Andrea Kölzsch1,2,3Thomas K. Lameris4,5Gerhard J. D. M. Müskens6
Kees H. T. Schreven4Nelleke H. Buitendijk4Helmut Kruckenberg3
Sander Moonen6,7Thomas Heinicke8Lei Cao9Jesper Madsen10
Martin Wikelski1,2Bart A. Nolet4,11
Department of Migration, Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior, Radolfzell, Germany
Department of Biology, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany
Institute for Wetlands and Waterfowl Research (IWWR) e.V., Verden, Germany
Department of Animal Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW), Wageningen, The Netherlands
NIOZ Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research and Utrecht University, Den Burg, The Netherlands
Team Animal Ecology, Wageningen Environmental Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands
Institute of Avian Research, Wilhelmshaven, Germany
International Bean Goose project, Samtens, Germany
State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
Department of Ecoscience, Aarhus University, Rønde, Denmark
Department of Theoretical and Computational Ecology, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands
Correspondence
Andrea Kölzsch, Department of
Migration, Max Planck Institute of
Animal Behavior, Am Obstberg ,
Radolfzell, Germany.
Email: akoelzsch@ab.mpg.de
Funding information
National Geography Society, Grant/Award
Number: GEFNE-; Svalbard
Environmental Protection Fund,
Grant/Award Number: /; Dutch
Research Council, Grant/Award Number:
ALWPP..; Federal German
Ministry of Education and Research,
Grant/Award Number: FKZJR;
Province of Fryslân, Grant/Award
Number: ; Lower Saxony
Ministry for Food, Agriculture and
Consumer Protection, Grant/Award
Abstract
In the present Anthropocene, wild animals are globally affected by human
activity. Consumer fireworks during New Year (NY) are widely distributed in W-
Europe and cause strong disturbances that are known to incur stress responses
in animals. We analyzed GPS tracks of wild migratory geese of four species
during eight NYs quantifying the effects of fireworks on individuals. We show
that, in parallel with particulate matter increases, during the night of NY geese
flew on average – km further and – m higher, and more often shifted to
new roost sites than on previous nights. This was also true during the –
fireworks ban, despite fireworks activity being reduced. Likely to compensate for
extra flight costs, most geese moved less and increased their feeding activity in
the following days. Our findings indicate negative effects of NY fireworks on wild
birds beyond the previously demonstrated immediate response.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited.
© The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Conservation Letters. ;e. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/conl 1of11
https://doi.org/./conl.
1755263x, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12927 by Cochrane Netherlands, Wiley Online Library on [01/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2of11 KÖLZSCH .
Number: -/-/;
Naturschutzfonds Brandenburg,
Grant/Award Number:
KEYWORDS
anthropause, Arctic breeding geese, compensatory feeding, GPS tracking, human disturbance,
New Year fireworks, roost behavior
1 INTRODUCTION
In the present Anthropocene, wild animals are globally
affected by human activity (Tucker et al., ). Even if
no harm is intended, animals can perceive human pres-
ence or actions as predation risk (Frid & Dill, ; Gill,
) and react accordingly in their “landscape of fear”
(Laundré et al., ). As a result, animals often avoid areas
with local and frequent, yet unpredictable disturbances
(van der Kolk et al., ). If disturbances are large in
magnitude (Commander & White, )oroccurataland-
scape scale (Shilton et al., ), they may have large-scale
demographic consequences (Gill, ). To mitigate such
disturbance effects, global and local conservation direc-
tives (e.g., EU Birds Directive) have to be enforced with the
help of detailed insights in short- and long-term effects.
Fireworks explosions with colorful lighting and loud
acoustic effects for entertainment (Kukulski et al., )
are known to have strong immediate effects on animals,
causing fear and anxiety in pets (Gähwiler et al., )
and stress responses in wild birds (Shamoun-Baranes et al.,
; Stickroth, ; Bosch & Lurz, ). During New
Year (NY; the night from December to January ), fire-
works are lit in cities and in the countryside across large
areas of the Western world (Sijimol & Mohan, ). In
W-Europe, the main fireworks activity is not by organized,
local fireworks displays, but by widespread, unconstrained
lighting of huge quantities of consumer fireworks by the
public on streets, backyards, and fields (ten Brink et al.,
). An especially large response to those fireworks has
been measured in the Netherlands, where waterfowl take
flight en masse from night-time roosting sites for at least
min following NY’s midnight (Shamoun-Baranes et al.,
).
However, possible longer term behavioral effects and
potential fitness consequences of such large-scale distur-
bances on birds have not been quantified. When animals
experience higher energetic costs due to disturbance, they
will need to forage more to compensate (Nolet et al., ).
In order to gain a better understanding of such longer term
effects, measurements at the individual level are needed.
Fox et al. () tracked five individual white-fronted geese
and showed a modest flight response to a single evening,
organized fireworks display, with birds returning to their
roosts within min. However, this local event is proba-
bly incomparable to the large-scale effects of NY fireworks
that can hardly be escaped due to their omnipresence.
Here, we used tracking data from four Arctic, migra-
tory goose species wintering in W-Europe to quantify the
effects of NY fireworks on their behavior. All species spend
their nights on small lakes or coastal sites and are sen-
sitive to disturbance there, leading to flight responses
(Nolet et al., ). In parallel with estimated fireworks
intensities, we studied changes in nightly flight distance
and roost site use, energetic costs, and foraging behavior
in the days/nights before NY, during NY, and the
days/nights after NY. We compared results from NY
to with NY , during the COVID- pandemic,
when fireworks were banned in most countries covered by
this investigation, expecting no disturbance response in the
latter.
2METHODS
2.1 GPS tracking data
We analyzed GPS data from December to January
of years (–), from a total of individ-
ual geese of four different species (greater white-fronted
goose Anser albifrons, bean goose Anser fabalis,bar-
nacle goose Branta leucopsis, pink-footed goose Anser
brachyrhynchus), equipped with backpack or neckband
GPS transmitters (Kölzsch et al., ). We only included
data from migratory adults, and when these had carried a
transmitter for > weeks to minimize tag effects (Lameris
et al., ; Clausen et al., ). Data resolution varied due
to different fix rates (between and min; Table S)and
by weather conditions often leading to low battery charges.
The median interval between positions was . min dur-
ing the day (% confidence interval [CI]: .–. min)
and . min at night (% CI: .–. min).
2.2 Night movement
All GPS positions were split into night and day posi-
tions, delineated by sunrise and sunset + min (as geese
tend to stay at foraging sites until min after sunset;
Supporting Information). For each night and individ-
ual, we calculated the proportion of locations in flight
(GPS ground speed above m/s), the maximum pairwise
distance (Vincenty approximation), and the maximum
altitude (height above mean sea level; outliers removed,
Supporting Information).
1755263x, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12927 by Cochrane Netherlands, Wiley Online Library on [01/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
KÖLZSCH . 3of11
2.3 Night roosting and roost switches
Geese usually spend the night on one safe roosting site with
little disturbance, and tend to return to the same site for
nights in a row (Giroux, ). However, when disturbed
they fly up and may switch roost site between nights or
even within a night. We extracted all roosts per full night
(December / to January /) and individual from the
night GPS positions (Kölzsch, ). Roosts were defined
as all sites at night where a goose stayed at least h within
a radius of km, not moving faster than m/s (GPS ground
speed). We then calculated how many roosts were detected
per night and for how long each individual stayed in the
roost(s) of each night.
To explore successive roost use and switching between
nights, we extracted the minimum pairwise distance
between roosts of successive nights, the number of succes-
sive days in the future during which the last roost of each
night was used, and the number of geese that switched
roosts (i.e., > km away) and returned to it within our
time frame. Note that the latter values are affected by the
relatively short duration of our time frame, but compar-
isons between NY and nights before and shortly after NY
are still meaningful.
2.4 Fireworks intensity at roosts
To link fireworks intensity with goose movement and
explore if the birds moved away from it during and after
NY, we quantified the spatial–temporal variation of esti-
mated fireworks use. The most direct approximation of
intensity of consumer fireworks lit by the public is particu-
late matter in the air PM (Khaparde et al., ;tenBrink
et al., ). We annotated each roost with the maximum
PM measurement of the respective night within a circle
of km around the central roost position (accessed from
https://sensor.community).
As the availability of PM measurements was limited
and the spatial distribution of PM is strongly influenced
by wind and rain, we additionally tested for an effect of
human population density. Each roost was annotated
with the maximum adjusted human population density
within a circle of km around its central position (data
resolution km; downloaded from the NASA SEDAC
[Center for International Earth Science Information Net-
work [CIESIN], Columbia University, ]). Relations
between the two measurements were tested with linear
mixed models (random factor “year,” see below) for all
roosts used during NY.
2.5 Testing the effect of NY
To test for effects of NY fireworks (or NY in short) on
goose behavior, all movement, roost, firework intensity,
and foraging measurements (see below) were grouped into
“before NY” (all nights before NY), “during NY” (night of
December to January ), and “after NY” (all nights after
NY). Using linear mixed models (lmer in R package lme)
with random factors “individual” and “year,” we compared
them per species between the three time periods (before,
during, and after NY). Using the model estimates, we cal-
culated relative changes of the movement properties by
dividing the NY effect size estimate by the before NY model
intercept.
2.6 Flight energetics and costs
To judge how the additional flight movement during NY
potentially impacted the geese’ energy budget, we related
the cost per distance flown to each species’ daily energy
expenditure. Flight costs were calculated from chemical
power (Table S; Pennycuick et al., ), based on liter-
ature values and estimates of body mass, basal metabolic
rate (BMR), ground speed, wing span, and wing area
(Cramp et al., ; Baveco et al., ). On days without
extra flights, daily energy expenditure was estimated as a
multiple (factor .) of BMR (Stahl et al., ; Baveco et al.,
). Finally, we calculated the proportional increase of
daily energy intake (approximated by daily energy expen-
diture) required to compensate for the extra flight costs of
NY (model average) for each species.
2.7 Compensation by more foraging
We explored whether goose foraging behavior changed as a
reaction to the disturbance of NY by characterizing the use
of feeding sites. To identify feeding sites, we extracted all
sites during daytime (Kölzsch, ), where a goose stayed
for at least h within a radius of km with GPS ground
speeds below m/s (no outliers allowed). For each individ-
ual and year, we calculated the cumulative daily duration
at feeding sites, the number of distinct daily feeding sites,
and the pairwise distance between all feeding sites of the
same day.
2.8 Disturbances during NY fireworks
ban
During the first full winter of the COVID- pandemic,
–, the sale and/or ignition of fireworks were
banned in all W-European countries where our tagged
geese were present, with the exception of Denmark
(Bundesministerium des Innern und für Heimat, ;
Rijksoverheid, ). Using this anthropause (Rutz et al.,
) as a likely control case, we calculated and tested
the NY effect on a selection of variables, namely, flight
1755263x, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12927 by Cochrane Netherlands, Wiley Online Library on [01/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
4of11 KÖLZSCH .
FIGURE 1 Roost sites (dots) and night tracks (lines) of the tagged geese of four species (see color legend) of all eight analyzed years (a)
during the night of December / (as a “normal” night) and (b) during New Year (NY)
activity, maximum distance, and altitude for that year only,
and compared findings with those of the complete dataset.
3RESULTS
The compiled GPS dataset consisted of tracks of a -
night period around NY, including , night positions
(Table S). All individuals spent their winter in W-Europe,
mostly concentrated in the Netherlands, Northern Ger-
many, and Denmark (Figure ).
3.1 Night movement
The immediate response of most geese to NY fireworks was
high and far flying behavior. In comparison to previous
nights, for greater white-fronted, bean, and barnacle geese,
our data showed an added %–% (minimum–maximum
species value) of GPS locations with flight behavior dur-
ing NY, amounting to a %–% relative increase of flight
behavior (Figure a;Table). These geese increased their
movement distances during NY by – km on average
(relative increase by %–%; Figure b;Table), with
extremes of up to km (Figure ). Interestingly, pink-
footed geese did not show significant increases in flight
behavior and distance moved. However, maximum flight
heights increased for all four species during NY: they
flew on average – m higher than in previous nights
(relative increase of %–%; Figure c;Table),
amounting to about – m flight height, with extremes
of m, which is similar to radar measurements of
waterfowl flight during NY (Shamoun-Baranes et al., ).
3.2 Night roosting and roost switches
Before NY, geese roosted about – h per night, but dur-
ing NY pink-footed geese and barnacle geese decreased
their average cumulative roost duration by . and . h,
respectively (Figure a;Table), while the cumulative
roost duration did not change for greater white-fronted
geese and bean geese during NY. Even so, the number
of used roosts per night did increase significantly for all
species from .–. roosts per night to .–. (Figure b;
Table ).
Before NY, roosts were used for .–. successive
days. This revisitation decreased due to NY by .–.
days (Figure c;Table). Nightly averages of minimum
distances between roosts of successive nights were .–
. km, but increased significantly between NY and the
night of January by .–. km (Figure Sa;Table).
Interestingly, already roosts of December / and NY
were further apart than before for bean geese. Before NY,
geese revisited previously used roosts at average rates of
.–., which decreased by . and . for roosts
used on NY for greater white-fronted geese and barna-
cle geese (Figure Sb;Table). Similar to above, strong
1755263x, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12927 by Cochrane Netherlands, Wiley Online Library on [01/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
KÖLZSCH . 5of11
FIGURE 2 Averages of night movement per species. The
underlying colors indicate the nights before NY (gray), NY (rose),
and the nights after NY (beige). The nightly averages (dots) of the
four species (colors as in Figure , i.e., orange: greater white-fronted
goose, green: pink-footed goose, red: bean goose, blue: barnacle
goose) are augmented with half standard errors (vertical dotted
lines). Night = indicates NY (i.e., night of December /January )
and night = the night of December /, also in leap years
decreases of use duration and revisitation were already
notable between December and NY (Figures c and
Sb).
3.3 Fireworks intensity at roosts
During NY, maximum PM was significantly related to
human population density at roosts (n=, effect size:
., p=.). Depending on the regions in which
the species wintered, before NY, maximum PM values
and maximum human population densities around the
roosts ranged between . and . μg/mand and
people/km, respectively (Table ). For all species
and regions, PM at used roosts rose drastically dur-
ing NY, with relative increases of %–% (Figure a;
Table ). This increase remained after NY for bean geese
and barnacle geese (Table ). Greater white-fronted, bean,
and barnacle geese selected roosts with less surrounding
maximum human population densities during and after
NY, namely, decreased by – people/kmand –
people/km, respectively (Figure b;Table). Only pink-
footed geese used roosts of similar surrounding human
population density during NY.
3.4 Flight energetics and costs
Energetic costs due to additional flights during NY were
estimated to increase the daily energy expenditure of geese
by %–% (Tables and S). Costs were especially high for
geese that flew longer distances during NY (greater white-
fronted geese) and those that are heavy and have high flight
costs (bean geese).
3.5 Compensation by more foraging?
Cumulative foraging durations increased by .–. h dur-
ing and after NY (Table ; Figure a). The consequent
relative increase of %–% daily foraging duration lasted
(at least) until the end of our observation period ( days),
indicating a longer term effect. The number of and distance
between feeding sites per day did not differ before, during,
and after NY (Table ;Figuresb and S).
3.6 Disturbances during NY fireworks
ban
The analyses of goose tracks during the fireworks ban of
– show that the geese still reacted with increased
flight activity, distance, and altitude during NY (Table S;
Figure S). Greater white-fronted geese and bean geese
showed high increases, whereas pink-footed geese and bar-
nacle geese showed lower responses to NY during the
– ban than during the previous NYs, with no
increase in flight height.
4DISCUSSION
Adding to previous insights into the immediate effect of
fireworks on wild animals (Shamoun-Baranes et al., ;
Fox et al., ), we have demonstrated that NY fireworks
1755263x, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12927 by Cochrane Netherlands, Wiley Online Library on [01/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
6of11 KÖLZSCH .
TABLE 1 Linear mixed model results of night movements, roost properties, firework intensity estimates, and foraging properties for the four species
Greater white-fronted goose Pink-footed goose Bean goose Barnacle goose
nBefore NY NY effect nBefore NY NY effect nBefore NY NY effect nBefore NY NY effect
Proportion of night
locations in flight
. +.*** . (+.) . +.*** . +.**
Maximum night distance
(km)
. +.*** . (+.) . +.*** . +.***
Maximum night altitude
(m)
. +.*** . +.*** . +.*** . +. ***
Cumulative nightly roost
duration (h)
. (–.) . +.** . (–.) . –.***
Number of roosts used per
night
. +.*** . +.*** . +.* . +.***
Minimum distance to next
roost (km)
. +.*** . +.** . +.** . +.***
Number of successive days
roost used
. –.* . –.*** . –.*** . –.***
Roost revisit probability
after switch
. –.*** . (−.) . (−.) . –.***
Particulate matter
concentration PM
around roost (μg/m)
. +.***
<(+.)>
. +.***
<(−.)>
. +.***
<+.***>
. +.***
<+.**>
Maximum human
population density
around roost (/km)
. –.*
<(−.)>
. (−.)
<(+.)>
. –.***
<–.*>
. –. ***
<–.**>
Foraging duration on next
day (h)
. +.***
<+.***>
. +.***
<+.***>
. (+.)
<(+.)>
. +.**
<+.**>
Number of foraging sites
per day
. (−.)
<(+.)>
. (−.)
<(+.)>
. (−.)
<(+.)>
. (−.)
<(+.)>
Distance between foraging
sites of the same day
(km)
. (−.)
<(−.)>
. (−.)
<(−.)>
. (−.)
<(−.)>
. (−.)
<(−.)>
(Continues)
1755263x, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12927 by Cochrane Netherlands, Wiley Online Library on [01/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
KÖLZSCH . 7of11
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Greater white-fronted goose Pink-footed goose Bean goose Barnacle goose
nBefore NY NY effect nBefore NY NY effect nBefore NY NY effect nBefore NY NY effect
Cost per km flight at
ground speed =air speed
(J/km)
,
Daily energy expenditure,
DEE (J/day)
,, ,, ,, ,
Proportion of DEE for
estimated NY extra flight
cost
. . . .
Note: Provided are sample sizes, model intercepts (“before NY”), and NY effect sizes with significances given by ***p<., **p<., *p<. and parentheses for nonsignificant effects. For the fireworks intensity
estimates and foraging properties, the effect of “after NY” is added in angle brackets. At the end, see flight cost estimates.
1755263x, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12927 by Cochrane Netherlands, Wiley Online Library on [01/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
8of11 KÖLZSCH .
FIGURE 3 Nightly averages of roost properties per species.
Note data truncation effect in panel (c). Colors and symbols as in
Figures and
are intensive disturbances lasting beyond the duration of
the fireworks. The increased night movement of the geese
during NY potentially depletes energy supplies that they
need in order to survive the winter in W-Europe (Béchet
et al., ), leading to two notable aftereffects: () long-
lasting increased foraging and () roost shifts.
To compensate for the extra flight costs, the geese must
forage more, notably on agricultural lands (Clausen et al.,
; Pot et al., ) adding to a recently strong conflict
with W-European farmers (Fox & Madsen, ). We found
an increase of daily foraging in all analyzed days after NY,
which might indicate that the short winter days prevent
the geese to quickly compensate (Lameris et al., ). The
long-lasting increased foraging might furthermore relate
to yet additional costs of settlement in new roosting and
FIGURE 4 Nightly averages of fireworks intensity measures
around the different species’ roosts. Colors and symbols as in
Figures and
FIGURE 5 Daily averages of foraging site properties per
species. Colors and symbols as in Figures and
1755263x, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12927 by Cochrane Netherlands, Wiley Online Library on [01/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
KÖLZSCH . 9of11
foraging areas during and after NY, as initial intake rates
in unfamiliar sites are usually low (Béchet et al., ;
Shamoun-Baranes et al., ). However, the geese seem
to have been successful in avoiding human disturbance, as
their new roosts were situated in less humanly populated
areas.
All species responded to NY fireworks, yet some
responses differed by species, most likely due to differ-
ing local conditions (Table S): Pink-footed geese showed
higher but not further flight movements during NY and,
even though they experienced highest PM values during
NY, they did not show a shift to less humanly popu-
lated areas for roosting after NY. The former might be
due to often stagnant weather causing naturally higher
PM concentration in coastal areas (ten Brink et al., ).
The latter can be explained by a stronger stationarity due
to heavy hunting outside the species’ usually protected
roosts (Clausen et al., ), which is also in line with
their shorter movements during NY. Furthermore, the far-
ther roost displacements of greater white-fronted geese
might be caused by the immense fireworks activity in their
most used wintering sites in the densely populated Nether-
lands (Shamoun-Baranes et al., ). PM values did not
portray this activity, which might be caused by relatively
strong winds in the Netherlands dispersing the particles.
Notably, cumulative roost duration decreased only for
some species and not with a large effect size (. and . h);
still, the number of used roosts increased only somewhat
(by . to .), indicating that several individuals did not
shift to new roosts during NY. Between .% (barnacle
geese) and .% (pink-footed geese) of maximum nightly
distances were below km (Figure ), indicating that some
geese stayed at their roost all NY. In some examples, these
roosts were surrounded by forest, likely with less distur-
bance. Thus, staying put might be an alternative strategy to
NY disturbance. About half of those geese displaced their
roost the next night, indicating a delayed response.
Different from passerines that were less disturbed dur-
ing the fireworks ban of – than during previous
NYs (Bosch & Lurz, ), disturbance effects were still
visible in at least two of our four goose species. Migra-
tory geese may be more reactive than other birds as they
are hunted in part of their ranges, and the ban appeared
not completely effective, as, for example, in the Nether-
lands fireworks activity was estimated about % of that
of the years before (RIVM Team Samenmeten, ). We
have noticed fireworks activity during NY – also
in other countries, indicating that it is not easy to ban
this usually unconstrained, public custom (ten Brink et al.,
). In addition, fireworks are (illegally) often already
lighted the night before NY, which explains our findings of
differing roost use already following the night of December
/. Thus, NY fireworks activity in W-Europe is difficult
to predict and animals cannot adapt their reactions to it
(van der Kolk et al., ).
In conclusion, on top of the already demonstrated nega-
tive immediate impacts of fireworks on wild animals, pets,
humans, and the environment (Shamoun-Baranes et al.,
; Kukulski et al., ; Gähwiler et al., ), we show
that NY fireworks also have aftereffects, lasting longer than
the fireworks themselves, on wild geese. According to the
EU Birds Directive (Directive //EC, ), mem-
ber states shall take steps to avoid deliberate disturbance
of birds in protected areas. We believe people are not inten-
tionally disturbing wild geese by lighting NY fireworks, but
our results show that they disturb many of them away from
their roosts.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank all people that helped catching and tagging
geese, in particular the Dutch Society of Goose Catchers,
Kees Polderdijk, Petr Glazov, and Stefan Sand. For help
with data download, we are grateful to a large group of
volunteers. We thank the tag suppliers for logistic and
technical support, especially Theo Gerrits (†) and Willem
Bouten. Permits to catch and tag geese were obtained by
the local and national authorities in all involved countries
(see Supporting Information).
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The used GPS tracks are uploaded to Movebank (www.
movebank.org), available in the study “Goose flight around
New Year in W-Europe —” and published in the
Movebank Data Repository (https://doi.org/.//.
gfsjv; Kölzsch et al., ). The workflow “Roost and
Foraging Site Extraction” with the main analysis func-
tions is available on MoveApps and published in the
Movebank Data Repository (https://doi.org/.//.
hv; Kölzsch, ).
REFERENCES
Baveco, J. M., Kuipers, H., & Nolet, B. A. (). A large-scale multi-
species spatial depletion model for overwintering waterfowl.
Ecological Modelling,222, –.
Béchet, A., Giroux, J.-F., & Gauthier, G. (). The effects of distur-
bance on behaviour, habitat use and energy of spring staging snow
geese. Journal of Applied Ecology,41, –.
Bosch, S., & Lurz, P. (). Reactions of cavity-roosting passer-
ine birds to fireworks (in German). Ornithol Mitt,71,–
.
Bosch, S., & Lurz, P. (). The COVID--lockdown leads to
reduced disturbance of cavity-nesting birds during New Year’s Eve
fireworks (in German). Vogelwarte,59, –.
Bundesministerium des Innern und für Heimat. (). 2020
kein Verkauf von Silvesterfeuerwerk.https://www.bmi.bund.de/
SharedDocs/pressemitteilungen/DE///silvesterfeuerwerk.
html
1755263x, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12927 by Cochrane Netherlands, Wiley Online Library on [01/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
10 of 11 KÖLZSCH .
Center for International Earth Science Information Network
(CIESIN), Columbia University. (). Gridded Population of
the World, Version (GPWv): Population density adjusted to
match 2015 revision UN WPP country totals, revision 11.NASA
Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC).
Clausen, K. K., Madsen, J., & Tombre, I. M. (). Carry-over or com-
pensation? The impact of winter harshness and post-winter body
condition on spring-fattening in a migratory goose species. PLoS
ONE,10,e.
Clausen, K. K., Schreven, K. H. T., & Madsen, J. (). Effects
of capture and marking on the behaviour of moulting Pink-
footed Geese Anser brachyrhynchus on Svalbard. Wildfowl,70,–
.
Clausen, P., Petersen, I. K., Bregnballe, T., & Nielsen, R. D. ().
Trækfuglebestande i de danske fuglebeskyttelsesområder, 2004 til
2017 (in Danish). Teknisk rapport. DCE Nationalt Center for Miljø
og Energi, Aarhus Universitet.
Commander, C. J. C., & White, J. W. (). Not all disturbances
are created equal: disturbance magnitude affects predator–prey
populations more than disturbance frequency. Oikos,129,–.
Cramp, S., Simmons, K. E. L., Ferguson-Lees, I. J., Nicholson, E. M.,
Olney, M. A., Voous, K. H., & Wattel, J. (). The birds of the
Western Palearctic. Oxford University Press.
Directive //EC. (). Directive //EC of the Euro-
pean Parliament and of the Council of November on the
conservation of wild birds. Official Journal of the European Union,
20,–.
Fox, A. D., & Madsen, J. (). Threatened species to super-
abundance: The unexpected international implications of success-
ful goose conservation. Ambio,46,–.
Fox, A. D., Walsh, A. J., & Weegman, M. D. (). Effects of the
Wexford Opera Festival firework display on roosting Greenland
White-fronted Geese Anser albifrons flavirostris. Irish Birds,11,
–.
Frid, A., & Dill, L. (). Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a
form of predation risk. Conserv Ecol,6,.
Gähwiler, S., Bremhorst, A., Tóth, K., & Riemer, S. (). Fear
expressions of dogs during New Year fireworks: a video analysis.
Sci Rep,10,.
Gill, J. A. (). Approaches to measuring the effects of human
disturbance on birds. Ibis,149,–.
Giroux, J. - F. (). Roost fidelity of Pink-footed Geese Anser
brachyrhynchus in north-east Scotland. Bird Study,38,–.
Khaparde, V. V., Pipalatkar, P. P., Pustode, T., Rao, C. V. C., &
Gajghate, D. G. (). Influence of burning of fireworks on par-
ticle size distribution of PM and associated Barium at Nagpur.
Environ Monit Assess,184,–.
Kölzsch, A. (). Roost and foraging site extraction. Movebank Data
Repository, MoveApps Workflow.
Kölzsch, A., Lameris, T. K., Müskens, G. J. D. M., Schreven, K. H. T.,
Buitendijk, N. H., Kruckenberg, H., Moonen, S., Heinicke, T., Cao,
L., Madsen, J., Wikelski, M., & Nolet, B. A. (). Data from: Wild
goose chase: geese flee high, far and with energetic losses from New
Year’s fireworks. Movebank Data Repository.
Kukulski, B., Mleczko, D., & Wszołek, T. (). The impact of fire-
works noise on the acoustic climate in urban areas. Archives of
Acoustics,43(), –.
Lameris, T. K., Dokter, A. M., vander Jeugd, H. P., Bouten, W., Koster,
J., Sand, S. H. H., Westerduin, C., & Nolet, B. A. (). Nocturnal
foraging lifts time constraints in winter for migratory geese but
hardly speeds up fueling. Behav Ecol,32,–.
Lameris, T. K., Müskens, G. J. D. M., Kölzsch, A., Dokter, A. M., Van
der Jeugd, H. P., & Nolet, B. A. (). Effects of harness-attached
tracking devices on survival, migration, and reproduction in three
species of migratory waterfowl. Anim Biotelem,6,.
Laundré, J. W., Hernández, L., & Altendorf, K. B. (). Wolves, elk,
and bison: reestablishing the “landscape of fear” in Yellowstone
National Park, U.S.A. Can J Zool,79, –.
Nolet, B. A., Kölzsch, A., Elderenbosch, M., & Noordwijk, A. J.
(). Scaring waterfowl as a management tool: how much
more do geese forage after disturbance? J Appl Ecol,53,–
.
Pennycuick, C. J., Griffin, L. R., Colhoun, K., & Angwin, R. ().
A trial of a non-statistical computer program for monitoring fuel
reserves, response to wind and other details from GPS tracks of
migrating geese. JOrnith,152, –.
Pot, M. T., Koning, S., Westerduin, C., Boer, W. F., Shariati, M., &
Lameris, T. K. (). Wintering geese trade-off energetic gains
and costs when switching from agricultural to natural habitats.
Ardea,107,–.
Rijksoverheid. (). Verboden vuurwerk vanaf 2020.
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/vuurwerk/verboden-
vuurwerk-vanaf-
RIVM TeamSamenmeten. (). Oud, & Nieuw 2020–2021 (in Dutch)
(Project overview). Bilthoven.
Rutz, C., Loretto, M. - C., Bates, A. E., Davidson, S. C., Duarte, C. M.,
Jetz, W., Johnson, M., Kato, A., Kays, R., Mueller, T., Primack, R.
B., Ropert-Coudert, Y., Tucker, M. A., Wikelski, M., & Cagnacci,
F. (). COVID- lockdown allows researchers to quantify the
effects of human activity on wildlife. Nature Ecology, & Evolution,
4,–.
Shamoun-Baranes, J., Dokter, A. M., van Gasteren, H., van Loon, E.
E., Leijnse, H., & Bouten, W. (). Birds flee en mass from New
Year’s Eve fireworks. Behav Ecol,22,–.
Shilton, L. A., Latch, P. J., Mckeown, A., Pert, P., & Westcott, D. A.
(). Landscape-scale redistribution of a highly mobile threat-
ened species, Pteropus conspicillatus (Chiroptera, Pteropodidae),
in response to Tropical Cyclone Larry. Austral Ecol,33,–
.
Sijimol, M. R., & Mohan, M. (). Environmental impacts of per-
chlorate with special reference to fireworks—A review. Environ
Monit Assess,186,–.
Stahl, J., Veeneklaas, R. M., Van der Graaf, A. J., Loonen, M., &
Drent, R. H. (). Conversion factors for energetic expendi-
ture of actively foraging brent and barnacle geese obtained by
non-invasive heart rate telemetry. In J. Stahl (Ed.), Limits to the
co-occurrence of avian herbivores: how geese share scarce resources
(pp. –). Groningen.
Stickroth, H. (). Effects of fireworks on birds – A critical overview
(in German). Ber. z. Vogelschutz,52,–.
ten Brink, H., Otjes, R., & Weijers, E. (). Extreme levels and
chemistry of PM from the consumer fireworks in the Netherlands.
Atmospheric Environment,212,–.
Tucker, M. A., Böhning-Gaese, K., Fagan, W. F., Fryxell, J. M.,
Moorter, B. V., Alberts, S. C., Ali, A. H., Allen, A. M., Attias,
N., Avgar, T., Bartlam-Brooks, H., Bayarbaatar, B., Belant, J. L.,
Bertassoni, A., Beyer, D., Bidner, L., Beest, F. M. v., Blake, S.,
Blaum, N., ... Mueller, T. (). Moving in the Anthropocene:
1755263x, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12927 by Cochrane Netherlands, Wiley Online Library on [01/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
KÖLZSCH . 11 of 11
Global reductions in terrestrial mammalian movements. Science,
359, –.
van der Kolk, H. - J., Ens, B. J., Oosterbeek, K., Jongejans, E., & van
de Pol, M. (). The hidden cost of disturbance: Eurasian Oys-
tercatchers (Haematopus ostralegus) avoid a disturbed roost site
during the tourist season. Ibis,164,–.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information can be found online
in the Supporting Information section at the end of this
article.
How to cite this article: Kölzsch, A., Lameris, T.
K., Müskens, G. J. D. M., Schreven, K. H. T.,
Buitendijk, N. H., Kruckenberg, H., Moonen, S.,
Heinicke, T., Cao, L., Madsen, J., Wikelski, M., &
Nolet, B. A. (). Wild goose chase: Geese flee
high and far, and with aftereffects from New Year’s
fireworks. Conservation Letters,e.
https://doi.org/./conl.
1755263x, 0, Downloaded from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12927 by Cochrane Netherlands, Wiley Online Library on [01/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
