Observational analysis shows minimal impact on waterbird behaviour due to varying swan densities, suggesting webcam utility.
Wildlife research has benefitted from the development of new methods that allow data to be collected remotely, with less disturbance to focal animals. The proliferation of livestreaming webcams, for example, those used by nature reserves for public engagement purposes, have offered new possibilities for the study of wildlife behaviour. However, there are still relatively few webcam‐based studies compared with those using traditional in‐person data collection methods, which limits opportunities to further develop and refine the use of webcams as a wildlife research tool. In this study, we used a live‐streaming webcam to address an emerging wildlife management issue, namely whether the behaviour of different waterbird taxa changed in response to different densities of swans, which allowed us to evaluate the impact that swans might have on the behaviour of overwintering waterbirds. Using the webcam, we obtained a total of 197 focal observations of four waterbird taxa (ducks, geese, rails, and swans). All four behaviours (aggression, foraging, preening, and resting) showed variation with waterbird taxonomic group, both the month and time of day of observation, and prevailing weather conditions. Swan density showed negative relationships with the time spent on aggression and resting, a positive relationship with time spent preening, and no relationship with the time spent on foraging. However, even at high swan densities (up to 181.8 ind. ha −1 ), the times spent on aggression, preening, and resting behaviours typically remained within the ranges reported for waterbirds, suggesting that any impacts of swans on waterbird behaviour were limited. Our findings suggest that the impacts of rising swan numbers on the behaviour of waterbirds are likely to be low. Moreover, our study highlights how live‐streaming webcams can be used to answer emerging questions in wildlife behaviour research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wood et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: