DOCSLIB.ORG

Gallo-Cajiao, E., Hamman, E. and B. K. Woodworth. 2020. the International Institutional Framework for Seabird Conservation in the South Pacific

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Gallo-Cajiao, E., Hamman, E. and B. K. Woodworth. 2020. the International Institutional Framework for Seabird Conservation in the South Pacific Gallo-Cajiao, E., Hamman, E. and B. K. Woodworth. 2020. The international institutional framework for seabird conservation in the South Pacific. Pp. 93-123. In: Wewerinke-Singh, M. and E. Hamman. (eds). Environmental law and governance in the Pacific: climate change, biodiversity and communities. Routledge Earthscan. New York. 6 The international institutional framework for seabird conservation in the South Pacific Eduardo Gallo- Cajiao, Evan Hamman and Bradley K. Woodworth Introduction The South Pacific region is vitally important for seabirds, yet their conservation is currently at a crossroads.1 Human activities in the marine environment and its surroundings, including the South Pacific, have resulted in multiple threats to this group of birds.2 The scientific literature for conserving seabirds has thus far, and continues to be, primarily focused on the biological dimensions, such as population dynamics, migration, feeding, and breeding ecology.3 In addition, research has been conducted to understand the threats driving their declines, as well as approaches to lessen them (e.g. by-catch mitigation, invasive species eradication).4 While addressing these knowledge gaps is essential to advancing the conservation of seabirds by informing management and policy decisions, researching the governance dimensions, in their own right, is also vitally important. After all, governance is the set of mechanisms that steers society to achieve collective action goals, such as conserving biodiversity, by enabling coordination and cooperation between actors.5 Accordingly, this chapter seeks to contribute to addressing this lacuna by identifying and analysing the inter- 1 CN Jenkins and K Van Houtan, ‘Global and Regional Priorities for Marine Biodiversity Pro- tection’ (2016) 204 Biological Conservation: 333–339. 2 JP Croxall, SHM Butchart, B Lascelles, AJ Stattersfield, B Sullivan et al., ‘Seabird Conserva- tion Status, Threats and Priority Actions: A Global Assessment’ (2012) 22 Bird Conservation International 1–34. 3 R Lewison, D Oro et al., ‘Research Priorities for Seabirds: Improving Conservation and Management in the 21st Century’ (2012) 17 Endangered Species Research 93–121. 4 MP Dias, R Martin, EJ Pearmain, IJ Burfield, C Small et al., ‘Threats to Seabirds: A Global Assessment’ (2019) 237 Biological Conservation 525–537; B Jones et al., ‘Invasive Mammal Eradication on Islands Results in Substantial Conservation Gains’ (2016) 113 PNAS 4033–4038; LS Bull, ‘Reducing Seabird Bycatch in Longline, Trawl and Gillnet Fisheries’ (2007) 8 Fish and Fisheries 31–56. 5 N Bennett and T Satterfield, ‘Environmental Governance: A Practical Framework to Guide Design, Evaluation, and Analysis’ (2018) 11 Conservation Letters 1–13. 94 E. Gallo-Cajiao et al. national institutional framework relevant for seabird conservation in the South Pacific. This approach can potentially allow us to make recommendations based on identified gaps and strengths of such a framework. Seabirds are found at various degrees of temporal and spatial overlap within the South Pacific, thereby warranting governance mechanisms that can over- come jurisdictional fragmentation. Ecologically, these birds take advantage of dispersed, patchy and ephemeral resources by undertaking movements at different temporal and spatial scales.6 In doing so, many of them cross political boundaries within the South Pacific and some go even beyond. Similarly, many of the threats facing seabirds are not limited to a single jurisdiction but operate at ocean- scape scales or along human- induced threat pathways. Some of the drivers of population declines, like the spread of invasive species, are permeable across international borders.7 In response, conserving seabirds necessitates high levels of coordination and cooperation among their respective range states,8, 9 in this case, all national territories within the South Pacific. In this context, a full life- cycle approach is paramount to seabird conservation, which focuses on the need to consider all the demands of individual birds at all stages of their life- cycle essential for species persistence.10 The ‘flyway’ concept can be useful to operationalise such an approach, focusing on migratory birds,11 as it seeks to define the resulting aggregations of overlapping migratory ranges.12 Even though the flyway approach originated for waterfowl management,13 it has more recently been adopted for seabird conservation.14 6 JP Croxall (ed.) Seabirds: Feeding Biology and Role in Marine Ecosystems (Cambridge University Press, 1990). 7 D Simberloff, B Keitt, D Will, N Holmes, E Pickett and P. Genovesi‚ ‘Yes We Can! Excit- ing Progress and Prospects for Controlling Invasives on Islands and Beyond’ (2018) 78 Western North American Naturalist 942–958. For an overview of regulatory frameworks con- cerning invasive species, see Chapter 7 (Techera) in this volume. 8 PGR Jodice and RM Suryan, ‘The Transboundary Nature of Seabird Ecology’ in SC Trombulak and RF Baldwin (eds) Landscape- scale Conservation Planning (Springer Science+Business Media B.V., 2010) 139–165. 9 Range states are those states where migratory species breed, stop over, or rest and refuel at various stages of their life- cycle. The Convention on Migratory Species defines the term range as ‘all areas of land or water that a migratory species inhabits, stays in temporarily, crosses or overflies at any time on its normal migration route’. 10 CA Runge, TG Martin, HP Possingham, SG Willis and RA Fuller, ‘Conserving Mobile Species’ (2014) 12 Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 395–402. 11 CA Galbraith, T Jones, J Kirby and T Mundkur, ‘A Review of Migratory Bird Flyways and Priorities for Management’ CMS Technical Series No. 27 (UNEP/CMS Secretariat, 2014). 12 GC Boere and DA Stroud, ‘The Flyway Concept: What It Is and What It Isn’t.’ in GC Boere, CA Galbraith, and DA Stroud (eds) Waterbirds around the World (The Stationery Office, 2006), 40–47. 13 AS Hawkins, RC Hanson, HK Nelson and HM Reeves (eds) Flyways, Pioneering Waterfowl Management in North America (The United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1984). 14 The East Asian- Australasian Flyway Partnership is a transboundary institutional arrangement adopting a flyway conservation approach, including seabirds. Available at: www.eaaflyway. net/migratory- waterbirds/. Pacific seabird conservation 95 Despite evidence for the existence of available governance mechanisms to conserve seabirds in the South Pacific,15 empirical analysis of the international institutional framework to conserve these species in the region is yet to be undertaken. Hence, the main aim of this chapter is to assess the potential of existing international institutional arrangements to enable the coordination and cooperation required to conserve seabirds in the region. In our research for this chapter, we sought to answer the following questions: (1) what are the international institutional arrangements potentially relevant for conserving seabirds in the South Pacific?; (2) who are the actors participating in this international institutional framework?; (3) how has such an international insti- tutional framework emerged over time?; and (4) how well do existing arrangements match the conservation needs of seabirds in the region in rela- tion to spatial scope and main threats? This chapter is structured into five sections: (1) methods; (2) a brief review of the key concepts in governance and institutions; (3) the biologi- cal dimensions of seabirds; (4) a survey and analysis of the international institutional framework; and (5) concluding discussion. While this chapter focuses on international institutional arrangements relevant to seabird con- servation in the South Pacific, there are, of course, many national and sub- national laws and policies relevant to seabird conservation. Hence, we encourage readers to complement this chapter by reference to other chap- ters in this collection where relevant, especially Techera’s contribution on the domestic regulation of invasive species (Chapter 7) and Hamman and Jungblut’s study on the protection of atolls, mangroves and coastal wetlands under domestic law (Chapter 9). Methods The institutional analysis presented in this chapter was based primarily on a literature review and desktop search using mixed methods with a focus on the South Pacific. Our scale of analysis was the South Pacific region, defined here as all tropical islands, reefs, atolls and waters within the exclusive eco- nomic zones from as far east as the Pitcairn Islands to as far west as Palau but excluding Hawaii. In addition, we also included all international waters (i.e. the High Seas) enclosed within neighbouring exclusive economic zones. Sources searched for relevant international institutional arrangements included the Pacific Islands Treaty Series,16 ECOLEX17 and the International Environ- mental Agreements Database Project.18 We considered membership of 15 BirdLife International, Important Areas for Seabirds: Guiding Marine Conservation in the Pacific (BirdLife International, 2012). 16 See www.paclii.org/pits/en/subject.shtml. 17 See www.ecolex.org. 18 See www.iea.uoregon.edu. 96 E. Gallo-Cajiao et al. international institutional arrangements19 as either accession or ratification.20 Our identification of institutional arrangements relevant to seabird conserva- tion in the region was based on their provisions and programmatic activities in relation to the main threats affecting seabirds. Our empirical findings and conclusions have some limitations
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Web-Book Catalog 2021-05-10
    Lehigh Gap Nature Center Library Book Catalog Title Year Author(s) Publisher Keywords Keywords Catalog No. National Geographic, Washington, 100 best pictures. 2001 National Geogrpahic. Photographs. 779 DC Miller, Jeffrey C., and Daniel H. 100 butterflies and moths : portraits from Belknap Press of Harvard University Butterflies - Costa 2007 Janzen, and Winifred Moths - Costa Rica 595.789097286 th tropical forests of Costa Rica Press, Cambridge, MA rica Hallwachs. Miller, Jeffery C., and Daniel H. 100 caterpillars : portraits from the Belknap Press of Harvard University Caterpillars - Costa 2006 Janzen, and Winifred 595.781 tropical forests of Costa Rica Press, Cambridge, MA Rica Hallwachs 100 plants to feed the bees : provide a 2016 Lee-Mader, Eric, et al. Storey Publishing, North Adams, MA Bees. Pollination 635.9676 healthy habitat to help pollinators thrive Klots, Alexander B., and Elsie 1001 answers to questions about insects 1961 Grosset & Dunlap, New York, NY Insects 595.7 B. Klots Cruickshank, Allan D., and Dodd, Mead, and Company, New 1001 questions answered about birds 1958 Birds 598 Helen Cruickshank York, NY Currie, Philip J. and Eva B. 101 Questions About Dinosaurs 1996 Dover Publications, Inc., Mineola, NY Reptiles Dinosaurs 567.91 Koppelhus Dover Publications, Inc., Mineola, N. 101 Questions About the Seashore 1997 Barlowe, Sy Seashore 577.51 Y. Gardening to attract 101 ways to help birds 2006 Erickson, Laura. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, PA Birds - Conservation. 639.978 birds. Sharpe, Grant, and Wenonah University of Wisconsin Press, 101 wildflowers of Arcadia National Park 1963 581.769909741 Sharpe Madison, WI 1300 real and fanciful animals : from Animals, Mythical in 1998 Merian, Matthaus Dover Publications, Mineola, NY Animals in art 769.432 seventeenth-century engravings.
    [Show full text]
  • Report No. 201601Rp1(F) AMBROSE
    Report No. 201601rp1(f) AMBROSE ECOLOGICALSERVICES PTY. LTD (ABN: 34 097 016 496. ACN: 097 016 496) CLIENT ngh Environmental Pty Ltd, PO Box 470, Bega NSW 2550 Contact: Mr Nick Graham-Higgs, Mobile: 0427 260 819 Email: [email protected] This report has been prepared in accordance with the scope of services described in the contract or agreement between Ambrose Ecological Services Pty Ltd (Ambecol) and the Client. The report relies upon data, surveys, measurements and results taken at or under the particular times and conditions specified herein. Any findings, conclusions or recommendations only apply to the aforementioned circumstances and no greater reliance should be assumed or drawn by the Client. The products and services referred to in the report should not be regarded as Ambecol’s endorsement of specific manufacturers, distributors or brands. Furthermore, the report has been prepared solely for use by the Client and Ambecol accepts no responsibility for its use by other parties. Author: Dr Stephen Ambrose Position: Director, Ambrose Ecological Services Pty Ltd Signed: Date: 9 September 2016 2______________________________________AMBROSE ECOLOGICAL SERVICES PTY LTD Contents Sections Page No. 1 Introduction 5 2 Proposed Development 5 2.1 Subject Site 5 2.2 Proposed Turbine Development 10 3 Bird Survey and Assessment Methods 10 3.1 Overview 10 3.3 Existing Records 10 3.3 Field Surveys 14 4 Results 15 4.1 Overview 15 4.2 Field Studies 15 4.3 Threatened Bird Taxa 17 4.4 Migratory Bird Taxa 18 4.5 Island Endemics 19 5 Potential Impacts 52 5.1 Introduction 52 5.2 Analysis of Turbine Options for Lord Howe Island 52 5.3 Bird Impacts of Wind Turbines in Other Studies 59 5.4 Impacts on Threatened Bird Species 61 5.5 Impacts on Nationally-listed Migratory Bird Species 62 6 Recommendations 62 7 References 64 Appendices A Flesh-footed Shearwater Report ( & Carlile, 2015) 67 B Directions of Bird Flights Over Subject Site, February and March 77 2016 C Bird Flights Over Each Survey Area on Subject Site, February and 81 March 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • The Marine Biodiversity and Fisheries Catches of the Pitcairn Island Group
    The Marine Biodiversity and Fisheries Catches of the Pitcairn Island Group THE MARINE BIODIVERSITY AND FISHERIES CATCHES OF THE PITCAIRN ISLAND GROUP M.L.D. Palomares, D. Chaitanya, S. Harper, D. Zeller and D. Pauly A report prepared for the Global Ocean Legacy project of the Pew Environment Group by the Sea Around Us Project Fisheries Centre The University of British Columbia 2202 Main Mall Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6T 1Z4 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD ................................................................................................................................................. 2 Daniel Pauly RECONSTRUCTION OF TOTAL MARINE FISHERIES CATCHES FOR THE PITCAIRN ISLANDS (1950-2009) ...................................................................................... 3 Devraj Chaitanya, Sarah Harper and Dirk Zeller DOCUMENTING THE MARINE BIODIVERSITY OF THE PITCAIRN ISLANDS THROUGH FISHBASE AND SEALIFEBASE ..................................................................................... 10 Maria Lourdes D. Palomares, Patricia M. Sorongon, Marianne Pan, Jennifer C. Espedido, Lealde U. Pacres, Arlene Chon and Ace Amarga APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................... 23 APPENDIX 1: FAO AND RECONSTRUCTED CATCH DATA ......................................................................................... 23 APPENDIX 2: TOTAL RECONSTRUCTED CATCH BY MAJOR TAXA ............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • AOU Classification Committee – North and Middle America
    AOU Classification Committee – North and Middle America Proposal Set 2015-A 21 Jan 2015 No. Page Title 01 02 Revise the classification of the Pipridae 02 08 Add Bicolored Wren Campylorhynchus griseus to the Main List 03 11 Move Dusky Pigeon Patagioenas goodsoni from the Appendix to the Main List 04 14 Revise the classification of the Psittaciformes 05 19 Split Pterodroma heraldica and P. atrata from Herald Petrel P. arminjoniana 06 26 Transfer American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea to Spizelloides 07 28 Split Passerina pallidior from Painted Bunting P. ciris 08 32 Split Toxostoma arenicola from LeConte’s Thrasher T. lecontei 09 35 Correct the scientific names of (a) Leptotila cassini and (b) Amazilia saucerrottei 10 37 Split Laysan Honeycreeper from Apapane Himatione sanguinea and change its specific epithet to fraithii 11 40 Split Newell’s Shearwater Puffinus newelli from Townsend’s Shearwater P. auricularis, and consider Rapa Shearwater P. myrtae as a species separate from P. newelli 12 44 Correct the citation for Pterodroma solandri 2015-A-1 N&MA Classification Committee pp. 423-426 Revise the classification of the Pipridae Background: Our current classification of the Pipridae is as follows: Corapipo altera Chiroxiphia lanceolata Chiroxiphia linearis Xenopipo holochlora Dixiphia pipra Ceratopipra mentalis Ceratopipra erythrocephala Manacus candei Manacus aurantiacus Manacus vitellinus Lepidothrix coronata New information: Ohlson et al. (2013) investigated relationships within the family using DNA sequence data from three nuclear introns and one mitochondrial gene (ND2). They sampled all genera and most species. I have pasted in a screen grab of their tree below. Their results are largely consistent with those of previous studies except for the polyphyly of Chloropipo, members of which are in three parts of the tree.
    [Show full text]
  • Shearwatersrefs V1.10.Pdf
    Introduction I have endeavoured to keep typos, errors, omissions etc in this list to a minimum, however when you find more I would be grateful if you could mail the details during 2018 & 2019 to: [email protected]. Please note that this and other Reference Lists I have compiled are not exhaustive and are best employed in conjunction with other sources. Grateful thanks to Ashley Fisher (www.scillypelagics.com) for the cover images. All images © the photographer. Joe Hobbs Index The general order of species follows the International Ornithologists' Union World Bird List (Gill, F. & Donsker, D. (eds.) 2017. IOC World Bird List. Available from: http://www.worldbirdnames.org/ [version 7.3 accessed August 2017]). Version Version 1.10 (January 2018). Cover Main image: Great Shearwater. At sea 3’ SW of the Bishop Rock, Isles of Scilly. 8th August 2009. Picture by Ashley Fisher. Vignette: Sooty Shearwater. At sea off the Isles of Scilly. 14th August 2009. Picture by Ashley Fisher. Species Page No. Audubon's Shearwater [Puffinus lherminieri] 34 Balearic Shearwater [Puffinus mauretanicus] 28 Bannerman's Shearwater [Puffinus bannermani] 37 Barolo Shearwater [Puffinus baroli] 38 Black-vented Shearwater [Puffinus opisthomelas] 30 Boyd's Shearwater [Puffinus boydi] 38 Bryan's Shearwater [Puffinus bryani] 29 Buller's Shearwater [Ardenna bulleri] 15 Cape Verde Shearwater [Calonectris edwardsii] 12 Christmas Island Shearwater [Puffinus nativitatis] 23 Cory's Shearwater [Calonectris borealis] 9 Flesh-footed Shearwater [Ardenna carneipes] 21 Fluttering
    [Show full text]
  • Considering Nominations to Annex 1 of the Agreement – List of Candidate Species
    AC11 Inf 04 Agenda Item 10 & 14 Eleventh Meeting of the Advisory Committee Florianópolis, Brazil, 13 – 17 May 2019 Considering nominations to Annex 1 of the Agreement – list of candidate species Secretariat At AC3, 129 species of Procellariformes were assessed using a number of categories in order to provide Parties with an approximate priority list of new species that might be considered for nomination to Annex 1 of ACAP (AC3 Doc 18). Following discussions at AC8, six of the original eight categories were retained and the scoring system was adopted by the 5th session of the Meeting of Parties (MoP5 Doc 21). Subsequent to MoP5, the at-sea threats and migratory nature scores for all species were reviewed (SBWG7 Doc 25). The review recommended updates to those scores for 15 species, and noted the need for clarification regarding the categorization of at-sea threats, as well as the overlap between some of the categories. AC8 also asked the Taxonomy Working Group (TWG) to recommend a standard taxonomy to be used when considering new species for Annex 1 and for other ACAP purposes. At AC10, the TWG recommended the use of the International Ornithological Congress (IOC) listing based on its use of the widest evidence base and peer review process (AC10 Doc 22 Rev 1). AC10 endorsed this recommendation and advised MoP6 accordingly. The taxonomic treatment used currently for species already listed on Annex 1 remains unchanged (Thalassarche steadi remains on the list as a full species). Table 1 lists all procellariform species according to IOC World Bird List v9.1 taxonomy, together with the scores assigned to assess their suitability and priority for listing on Annex 1 of the Agreement.
    [Show full text]
  • AOU Check-List Supplement
    AOU Check-list Supplement The Auk 117(3):847–858, 2000 FORTY-SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO THE AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS’ UNION CHECK-LIST OF NORTH AMERICAN BIRDS This first Supplement since publication of the 7th Icterus prosthemelas, Lonchura cantans, and L. atricap- edition (1998) of the AOU Check-list of North American illa); (3) four species are changed (Caracara cheriway, Birds summarizes changes made by the Committee Glaucidium costaricanum, Myrmotherula pacifica, Pica on Classification and Nomenclature between its re- hudsonia) and one added (Caracara lutosa) by splits constitution in late 1998 and 31 January 2000. Be- from now-extralimital forms; (4) four scientific cause the makeup of the Committee has changed sig- names of species are changed because of generic re- nificantly since publication of the 7th edition, it allocation (Ibycter americanus, Stercorarius skua, S. seems appropriate to outline the way in which the maccormicki, Molothrus oryzivorus); (5) one specific current Committee operates. The philosophy of the name is changed for nomenclatural reasons (Baeolo- Committee is to retain the present taxonomic or dis- phus ridgwayi); (6) the spelling of five species names tributional status unless substantial and convincing is changed to make them gramatically correct rela- evidence is published that a change should be made. tive to the generic name (Jacamerops aureus, Poecile The Committee maintains an extensive agenda of atricapilla, P. hudsonica, P. cincta, Buarremon brunnein- potential action items, including possible taxonomic ucha); (7) one English name is changed to conform to changes and changes to the list of species included worldwide use (Long-tailed Duck), one is changed in the main text or the Appendix.
    [Show full text]
  • Birdlife Australia Rarities Committee Unusual Record Report Form
    BirdLife Australia Rarities Committee Unusual Record Report Form Section A: Submitter details Your name(s) David J. James, Lisa Preston, Hickson Ferguson, Andrew Sutherland, Joint submissions are fine Raja W. Stephenson and Nikolas K. Haass Your email, phone or address Section B: Record details Common and scientific names Baillon’s Shearwater Puffinus bailloni. Formerly called Tropical Shearwater. Sometimes called Mascarene Shearwater (see taxonomy section below for explanations). Site location Flying Fish Cove, Christmas Island. (with GPS if possible) Date(s) and time(s) of record 2017, 2018 and 2019: (First and last date of occurrence if known) In 2017 from at least 2 August to at least 2 September; In 2018 from at least 8 to 14 August; In 2019 from at least 21 to 24 October. Specific dates may not be comprehensive, because the bird was nocturnal and few people were able to check on it regularly. How many individuals were One individual bird is presumed to be involved, returning to the same location and there? behaving the same way in 3 consecutive years. Herein we will refer to this bird as the Kampong shearwater, because Kampong is the beach-front village where the bird showed up. What was the distance to the As close as a 1 m. bird(s)? Habitat description Foreshore area in residential zone of Flying Fish Cove, Christmas Island, in the Eastern Tropical Indian Ocean. Sighting conditions The bird was only seen and heard at night, usually when conditions were calm, dry and warm. How confident are you in the 100%. This bird, which is from the Audubon’s/Tropical shearwater complex, had a identification (as a %) and black face to below the eye, almost entirely white undertail coverts, entirely black why? primaries, and blue (not pink) legs and feet.
    [Show full text]
  • Ornithology 101 Part 1 – Taxonomy
    Ornithology 101 Part 1 – Taxonomy By Robert G. Fisher It is difficult to be a birder for long without wanting to know more about Ornithology. Our on- line text accessed by the links below provides the information we think beginning and intermediate birders need to start learning the science of studying birds. We call it “Ornithology 101" because it is just a beginning. ¹ I have drawn heavily on the following texts in preparing this course: Frank B. Gill, Ornithology, Second edition, W. H. Freeman & Co., 1994; J. Van Tyne & A. Berger, Fundamentals of Ornithology, John Wiley & Sons., 1961. Persons who want a more thorough grounding are encouraged to study the Gill text in conjunction with my written lectures. I Taxonomy and Nomenclature Experienced birders occasionally throw around Latin-sounding words like “Procellariforms” and “Icterids.” Sometimes they do it to show off, but more often it is just a shorthand way of designating a grouping of birds. For example, rather than say, “We may see birds in the family of auks, murres, puffins, guillemots, dovekies, auklets and murrelets on our pelagic trip today,” a knowledgeable birder could say, simply, “We may see alcids today.” He means that some of the birds seen on the ocean trip may belong to the family, “Alcidae,” which includes all of the auks, murres, puffins, guillemots, dovekies, auklets and murrelets. If you want to understand the talk of experienced birders, you need to have a basic knowledge of bird taxonomy, the science of classifying and naming birds. The Binomial System If you took high school General Science or Biology, you may remember that every animal and plant has a two-part Latin name according to the “binomial system.” The Swedish naturalist, Linnaeus, founded it in the 18th century.
    [Show full text]
  • WB3-Updateposted
    Scientific Name Common Name Book Sex N Mean S.D. Min Max Season Location Source Comments Family Apterygidae Status Apteryx australis Southern Brown Kiwi E M 15 2120 1720 2730 New Zealand Colbourne & Kleinpaste 1983 F 31 2540 2060 3850 Apteryx australis lawryi Southern Brown Kiwi B M 9 2720 2300 3060 Stewart Island, New ZealandMarchant & Higgins 1990 F 10 3115 267 2700 3500 Apteryx rowi Okarito Brown Kiwi N M 49 1924 157 1575 2250 South Island, New Zealand Tennyson et al. 2003 F 51 2650 316 1950 3570 Apteryx mantelli North Island Brown Kiwi N F 4 2725 2060 3433 New Zealand Marchant & Higgins 1990 split in Clements Family Tinamidae Nothocercus julius Tawny-breasted Tinamou N F 1 693 Peru Specimens Mus. SWern Biology Nothocercus nigrocapillus Hooded Tinamou N M 1 540 Gomes and Kirwan 2014a Crypturellus brevirostris Rusty Tinamou N M 2 221 209 233 Guyana Robbins et al. 2007 F 1 295 Crypturellus casiquiare Barred Tinamou N F 1 250 Columbia Echeverry-Galvis, unpublished Rhynchotus maculicollis Huayco Tinamou N U 10 868 860 900 Fiora 1933a split by Clements 2008 Tinamotis ingoufi Patagonian Tinamou N U 900 1000 Gomes & Kirwan 2014b Family Spheniscidae Eudyptes moseleyi Tristan Penguin N B 11 2340 517 1400 2950 B Amsterdam Is., Indian OceanDrabek & Tremblay 2000 split from E. chrysocome by Clements 2012 Family Diomedeidae Diomedea antipodensis gibsoni Wandering Albatross N M 35 6800 5500 8600 Auckland Islands Tickell 2000 split by del Hoyo et al. 2013 F 36 5800 4600 7300 Diomedea antipodensis Wandering Albatross N M 10 7460 Antipodes Islands Tickell 2000 split by del Hoyo et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Sources of Uncertainty in Petrel Surveys
    Appendix S1: Sources of uncertainty in petrel surveys Table S1: Sources of uncertainty in petrel surveys Source Description Survey adaptation Burrow Petrel nests are mostly hidden in underground Counting burrows requires active searching, either of an entire detection burrows whose entrances are irregularly site, or within plots or along transects. Approaches like distributed, often across challenging terrain and distance sampling are explicitly designed to account for often hidden obscured by dense vegetation uncertain detection (Marques et al., 2007). Others may include (Rayner et al., 2007). Burrow entrances are validation searches to estimate Type II error (e.g. Parker et al., inactive by day - birds are only active at the 2015). Aerial surveys using drones can achieve narrow colony at night (Warham, 1996). confidence intervals around burrow estimates, but are only effective in sparsely vegetated colonies (Albores-Barajas et al., 2018). Burrow Early population estimates typically assumed Different studies have applied grubbing (feeling with hands or occupancy every burrow entrance represented one sticks for an occupant; Schulz et al., 2006), recording of signs breeding attempt, but numerous studies have like feathers, scats, smell etc. (Jahncke and Goya, 1998), subsequently highlighted the variability in burrow playback (Barbraud and Delord, 2006), burrow-scopes (Carlile occupancy and the importance of including an et al., 2019), and inspection hatches (Cuthbert, 2004) to occupancy correction factor in final estimates. assess occupancy. Error rates are reported in some cases, Burrows can be long and/or narrow making and may include ground-truthing – for example playback inspection difficult (Carlile et al., 2019). response rates may be calibrated using a sample of inspection hatches so that the response data can be adjusted (Dilley et al., 2017) – but there has been little comparison of relative error rates achieved by different methods.
    [Show full text]
  • Hybridization and Back-Crossing in Giant Petrels (Macronectes Giganteus and M
    RESEARCH ARTICLE Hybridization and Back-Crossing in Giant Petrels (Macronectes giganteus and M. halli) at Bird Island, South Georgia, and a Summary of Hybridization in Seabirds Ruth M. Brown1, N. M. S. Mareile Techow2, Andrew G. Wood1, Richard A. Phillips1* 1 Ecosystems Programme, British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2 Percy FitzPatrick Institute, DST/NRF Centre of Excellence, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa * [email protected] Abstract Hybridization in natural populations provides an opportunity to study the evolutionary pro- cesses that shape divergence and genetic isolation of species. The emergence of pre-mat- ing barriers is often the precursor to complete reproductive isolation. However, in recently diverged species, pre-mating barriers may be incomplete, leading to hybridization between OPEN ACCESS seemingly distinct taxa. Here we report results of a long-term study at Bird Island, South Georgia, of the extent of hybridization, mate fidelity, timing of breeding and breeding suc- Citation: Brown RM, Techow NMSM, Wood AG, Phillips RA (2015) Hybridization and Back-Crossing cess in mixed and conspecific pairs of the sibling species, Macronectes halli (northern giant in Giant Petrels (Macronectes giganteus and M. halli) petrel) and M. giganteus (southern giant petrel). The proportion of mixed-species pairs var- at Bird Island, South Georgia, and a Summary of ied annually from 0.4–2.4% (mean of 1.5%), and showed no linear trend with time. Mean Hybridization in Seabirds. PLoS ONE 10(3): laying date in mixed-species pairs tended to be later than in northern giant petrel, and al- e0121688. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0121688 ways earlier than in southern giant petrel pairs, and their breeding success (15.6%) was Academic Editor: Hans-Ulrich Peter, Institute of lower than that of conspecific pairs.
    [Show full text]