DOCSLIB.ORG

Thalasseus Sandvicensis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Thalasseus Sandvicensis Thalasseus sandvicensis -- (Latham, 1787) ANIMALIA -- CHORDATA -- AVES -- CHARADRIIFORMES -- LARIDAE Common names: Sandwich Tern; Sterne caugek European Red List Assessment European Red List Status LC -- Least Concern, (IUCN version 3.1) Assessment Information Year published: 2015 Date assessed: 2015-03-31 Assessor(s): BirdLife International Reviewer(s): Symes, A. Compiler(s): Ashpole, J., Burfield, I., Ieronymidou, C., Pople, R., Tarzia, M., Wheatley, H. & Wright, L. Assessment Rationale European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC) EU27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC) In Europe this species has a very large range, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the range size criterion (Extent of Occurrence 10% in ten years or three generations, or with a specified population structure). The population trend appears to be fluctuating, and hence the species does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population trend criterion (30% decline over ten years or three generations). For these reasons the species is evaluated as Least Concern in Europe. Within the EU27, although this species may have a restricted range, it is not believed to approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the range size criterion (Extent of Occurrence 10% in ten years or three generations, or with a specified population structure). The population trend appears to be increasing, and hence the species does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population trend criterion (30% decline over ten years or three generations). For these reasons the species is evaluated as Least Concern in the EU27. Occurrence Countries/Territories of Occurrence Native: Albania; Azerbaijan; Belgium; Bulgaria; Croatia; Cyprus; Denmark; Estonia; France; Germany; Greece; Ireland, Rep. of; Italy; Latvia; Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of; Malta; Netherlands; Norway; Poland; Portugal; Romania; Russian Federation; Slovenia; Spain; Sweden; Switzerland; Turkey; Ukraine; United Kingdom; Gibraltar (to UK) Vagrant: Bosnia and Herzegovina; Czech Republic; Faroe Islands (to DK); Finland; Hungary; Iceland; Montenegro; Svalbard and Jan Mayen (to NO); Serbia; Slovakia Population The European population is estimated at 79,900-148,000 pairs, which equates to 160,000-295,000 mature individuals. The population in the EU27 is estimated at 53,900-63,600 pairs, which equates to 108,000-127,000 mature individuals. For details of national estimates, see Supplementary PDF. Trend In Europe the population size is estimated to be fluctuating. In the EU27 the population size is estimated to be increasing. For details of national estimates, see Supplementary PDF. Habitats and Ecology During the breeding season the species forms colonies on sandy islands, rocky calcareous islets, sand-spits, sand-dunes, shingle beaches and extensive deltas with immediate access to clear waters with shallow sandy substrates rich in surface-level fish (Snow and Perrins 1998). It shows a preference for raised, open, unvegetated sand, gravel, mud or bare coral substrates for nesting. Outside of the breeding season the species frequents sandy or rocky beaches, estuaries, harbours and bays, often feeding over inlets and at sea. It breeds from May to June in dense colonies with other terns or Black-headed Gulls (Larus ridibundus). The nest is a shallow scrape on raised, open, unvegetated sand, gravel, mud or bare coral substrates preferably far from upright vegetation (Gochfeld and Burger 1996) on sandy islands, rocky calcareous islets, sand-spits, sand- dunes and shingle beaches (Snow and Perrins 1998). Clutches are one or two eggs. The species forms very dense colonies during the breeding season in which the eggs of neighbouring pairs may only be 20 cm apart. Its diet consists predominantly of surface-dwelling marine fish (Snow and Perrins 1998) 9–15 cm long, as well as small shrimps, marine worms and shorebird nestlings. This species is migratory, undergoing post- breeding dispersive movements north and south to favoured feeding grounds before migrating southward (Gochfeld and Burger 1996). Habitats & Altitude Habitat (level 1 - level 2) Importance Occurrence Marine Intertidal - Mud Flats and Salt Flats suitable breeding Marine Intertidal - Rocky Shoreline major non-breeding Marine Intertidal - Sandy Shoreline and/or Beaches, Sand Bars, Spits, Etc major breeding Marine Intertidal - Sandy Shoreline and/or Beaches, Sand Bars, Spits, Etc major non-breeding Marine Intertidal - Shingle and/or Pebble Shoreline and/or Beaches major breeding Marine Neritic - Estuaries suitable breeding Marine Neritic - Estuaries suitable non-breeding Marine Neritic - Macroalgal/Kelp major breeding Marine Neritic - Macroalgal/Kelp major non-breeding Marine Neritic - Pelagic suitable breeding Marine Neritic - Pelagic suitable non-breeding Marine Neritic - Seagrass (Submerged) major breeding Marine Neritic - Seagrass (Submerged) major non-breeding Marine Neritic - Subtidal Loose Rock/pebble/gravel major breeding Marine Neritic - Subtidal Loose Rock/pebble/gravel major non-breeding Marine Neritic - Subtidal Rock and Rocky Reefs major breeding Marine Neritic - Subtidal Rock and Rocky Reefs major non-breeding Marine Neritic - Subtidal Sandy major breeding Marine Neritic - Subtidal Sandy major non-breeding Marine Neritic - Subtidal Sandy-Mud major breeding Marine Neritic - Subtidal Sandy-Mud major non-breeding Marine Oceanic - Epipelagic (m) marginal resident Altitude max. 50 m Occasional altitudinal limits Threats The species is particularly vulnerable to human disturbance (Gochfeld and Burger 1996) (e.g. from tourists) especially near breeding colonies on beaches early in the breeding season (Bourne and Smith 1974). It is also sensitive to disturbance from coastal wind farms (wind turbines) (Garthe and Huppop 2004). It is threatened by the loss or degradation of its favoured breeding habitats through inundation, wind-blown sand and erosion (Gochfeld and Burger 1996), and has suffered previous local declines from exposure to bioaccumulated organochlorine pollutants in marine fish (Koeman et al. 1967, Gochfeld and Burger 1996). Other serious threats include recreational disturbance, coastal developments, pollution, land-use affecting vegetation and predation (Garthe and Flore 2007). Threats & Impacts Threat (level 1) Threat (level 2) Impact and Stresses Agriculture & Marine & Timing Scope Severity Impact aquaculture freshwater Ongoing Unknown Causing/Could Unknown aquaculture (scale cause fluctuations unknown/ unrecorded) Stresses Indirect ecosystem effects Biological resource Fishing & harvesting Timing Scope Severity Impact use aquatic resources Ongoing Majority (50-90%) Slow, Significant Medium Impact (unintentional Declines effects: (large scale) [harvest]) Stresses Indirect ecosystem effects Threats & Impacts Threat (level 1) Threat (level 2) Impact and Stresses Biological resource Hunting & trapping Timing Scope Severity Impact use terrestrial animals Ongoing Minority (<50%) Slow, Significant Low Impact (intentional use - Declines species is the target) Stresses Species mortality Climate change & Droughts Timing Scope Severity Impact severe weather Ongoing Unknown Causing/Could Unknown cause fluctuations Stresses Indirect ecosystem effects Climate change & Habitat shifting & Timing Scope Severity Impact severe weather alteration Ongoing Unknown Unknown Unknown Stresses Indirect ecosystem effects Climate change & Storms & flooding Timing Scope Severity Impact severe weather Ongoing Unknown Rapid Declines Unknown Stresses Indirect ecosystem effects; Species mortality Energy production Renewable energy Timing Scope Severity Impact & mining Ongoing Minority (<50%) Causing/Could Low Impact cause fluctuations Stresses Indirect ecosystem effects; Species mortality; Species disturbance Human intrusions & Recreational Timing Scope Severity Impact disturbance activities Ongoing Unknown Unknown Unknown Stresses Species disturbance Invasive and other Unspecified species Timing Scope Severity Impact problematic Ongoing Majority (50-90%) Causing/Could Medium Impact species, genes & cause fluctuations diseases Stresses Species mortality; Reduced reproductive success Natural system Other ecosystem Timing Scope Severity Impact modifications modifications Ongoing Unknown Unknown Unknown Stresses Ecosystem degradation; Indirect ecosystem effects Pollution Garbage & solid Timing Scope Severity Impact waste Ongoing Whole (>90%) Unknown Unknown Stresses Species mortality Pollution Herbicides and Timing Scope Severity Impact pesticides Ongoing Unknown Unknown Unknown Stresses Species mortality Pollution Industrial & military Timing Scope Severity Impact effluents (type Ongoing Majority (50-90%) Unknown Unknown unknown/ unrecorded) Stresses Ecosystem degradation; Indirect ecosystem effects Pollution Oil spills Timing Scope Severity Impact Past, Likely to Majority (50-90%) Rapid Declines Past Impact Return Stresses Species mortality Transportation & Shipping lanes Timing Scope Severity Impact service corridors Ongoing Majority (50-90%) No decline Low Impact Threats & Impacts Threat (level 1) Threat (level 2) Impact and Stresses Stresses Species disturbance Conservation Conservation Actions Underway CMS Appendix II. EU Birds Directive Annex I. Bern Convention Appendix II. A conservation scheme for the protection of gull and tern breeding colonies in coastal lagoons and deltas (Po Delta, Italy) involves protection from human disturbance, prevention of erosion of islet complexes, habitat maintenance and the creation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • TREND NOTE Number 021, October 2012
    SCOTTISH NATURAL HERITAGE TREND NOTE Number 021, October 2012 SEABIRDS IN SCOTLAND Prepared by Simon Foster and Sue Marrs of SNH Knowledge Information Management Unit using results from the Seabird Monitoring Programme and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee Scotland has internationally important populations of several seabirds. Their conservation is assisted through a network of designated sites. Figure 1 shows the distribution of the 50 Special Protection Areas (SPA) which have seabirds listed as a feature of interest. The map shows the widespread nature of the sites and the predominance of important seabird areas on the Northern Isles (Orkney and Shetland), where some of our largest seabird colonies are present. The most recent estimate of seabird populations was obtained from Birds of Scotland (Forrester et al., 2007). Table 1 shows the population levels for all seabirds regularly breeding in Scotland. Table 1: Population Estimates for Breeding Seabirds in Scotland. Figure 1: Special Protection Areas for Seabirds Breeding in Scotland. Species* Unit** Estimate Key Points Northern fulmar 486,000 AOS Manx shearwater 126,545 AOS Trends are described for 11 of the 24 European storm-petrel 31,570+ AOS species of seabirds breeding in Leach’s storm-petrel 48,057 AOS Scotland Northern gannet 182,511 AOS Great cormorant c. 3,600 AON Nine have shown sustained declines European shag 21,500-30,000 PAIRS over the past 20 years. Two have Arctic skua 2,100 AOT remained stable. Great skua 9,650 AOT The reasons for the declines are Black headed
    [Show full text]
  • Aspects of Breeding Behavior of the Royal Tern (Sterna Maxima) with Particular Emphasis on Prey Size Selectivity
    W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 1984 Aspects of Breeding Behavior of the Royal Tern (Sterna maxima) with Particular Emphasis on Prey Size Selectivity William James Ihle College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd Part of the Zoology Commons Recommended Citation Ihle, William James, "Aspects of Breeding Behavior of the Royal Tern (Sterna maxima) with Particular Emphasis on Prey Size Selectivity" (1984). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539625247. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/s2-4aq2-2y93 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ASPECTS OF BREEDING BEHAVIOR OF THE ROYAL TERN (STERNA MAXIMA) n WITH PARTICULAR EMPHASIS ON PREY SIZE SELECTIVITY A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Biology The College of William and Mary in Virginia In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts by William J. Ihle 1984 APPROVAL SHEET This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts 1MI \MLu Author Approved, April 1984 Mitchell A. Byrd m Stewart A. Ware R/ft R. Michael Erwin DEDICATION To Mom, for without her love and encouragement this thesis would not have been completed. FRONTISPIECE. Begging royal tern chick and its parent in the creche are surrounded by conspecific food parasites immediate!y after a feeding.
    [Show full text]
  • Sandwich Terns to Isla Rasa, Gulf of California, Mexico, with Our Observations of Single Individuals in 1986 and Again in 2008
    NOTES SANDWICH TERNS ON ISLA RASA, GULF OF CALIFORNIA, MEXICO ENRIQUETA VELARDE, Instituto de Ciencias Marinas y Pesquerías, Universidad Veracruzana, Hidalgo 617, Col. Río Jamapa, Boca del Río, Veracruz, México, C.P. 94290; [email protected] MARISOL TORDESILLAS, Álvaro Obregón 549, Col. Poblado Alfredo V. Bonfi l, Cancún, Quintana Roo, México, C.P. 77560; [email protected] In North America the Sandwich Tern (Thalasseus sandvicensis) breeds locally along marine coasts and offshore islands primarily of the southeastern United States and Caribbean (AOU 1998). In these areas it commonly nests in dense colonies of the Royal Tern (T. maximus) and Laughing Gull (Leucophaeus atricilla; Shealer 1999). It winters along the coasts of the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico from Florida to the West Indies, more rarely as far south as southern Brazil and Uruguay. It also winters on the Pacifi c coast, mainly from Oaxaca, Mexico, south to Panama (Howell and Webb 1995), occasionally to Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru (AOU 1998). As there are no breeding colonies on the Pacifi c coast, all birds wintering there are believed to represent migrants from Atlantic and Caribbean colonies (Collins 1997, Hilty and Brown 1986, Ridgely 1981, Ridgely and Greenfi eld 2001). Sandwich Terns have occasionally wandered as far north as eastern Canada (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland) and inland to Minnesota, Michigan, and Illinois (AOU 1998, Clapp et al. 1983). In the Pacifi c vagrants are known from California and the Hawaiian Islands (Hamilton et al. 2007, AOU 1998). Here we report vagrancy of Sandwich Terns to Isla Rasa, Gulf of California, Mexico, with our observations of single individuals in 1986 and again in 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • Lady's Island Lake Tern Report 2011
    Lady’s Island Lake Tern Report 2011. David Daly, C.J.Wilson & Tony Murray 1 The author and the area ranger, on behalf of the National Parks and Wildlife Service (Department of Arts, Heritage & and the Gaeltacht), wish to acknowledge the support of the landowners and rights holders of Our Ladys Island Lake with the management of the tern conservation project throughout the year. 2 Contents page Site synopsis…………………………………………………………….. 4 Acknowledgements………………………………………………………… 5 Site map…………………………………………………………………… 6 Lady’s Island Tern Report Summary…………………………………………………………………… 7 Methods Preparatory work…………………………………………………………… 8 Vegetation management Predator control…………………………………………………………… 9 Monitoring of disturbance…………………………………………………. 13 Feral Greylag Geese……………………………………………………….. 14 Location of island and colonies Censusing ………………………………………………………………. 15 Water levels……………………………………………………………. 19 Weather…………………………………………………………………. 21 Location of colonies…………………………………………………… 22 Productivity & feeding biology of Roseate & Sandwich terns ………… 23 Species accounts . Black-headed Gulls……………………………………………………… 24 Mediterranean Gulls…………………………………………………….. 27 Common Gulls………………………………………………………….. 30 Sandwich Terns………………………………………………………… 31 Common/Arctic terns…………………………………………………… 37 Little Terns………………………………………………………………. 42 Roseate Terns……………………………………………………………. 43 Other species……………………………………………………………… 51 3 SITE SYNOPSIS SITE NAME: LADY'S ISLAND Site codes SAC: 000704 SPA: 004010 Lady’s Island Lake is situated in the extreme south-east of Ireland and is comprised of a shallow, brackish coastal lagoon separated from the sea by a 200 meter wide sand and shingle barrier. The lake is 3.7 km in length and 1.3 km at its widest, southerly point. The lake and its two islands, Inish and Sgarbheen, are designated Special Protection Areas (SPA), holding internationally important numbers of breeding terns. This site is of high conservation importance, having three habitats which are listed on Annex I of the EU Habitats Directive and one of these (lagoons) with priority status.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Breeding Biology of the Sandwich Tern
    COMPARATIVE BREEDING BIOLOGY OF THE SANDWICH TERN N.P.E. LANOHAM PREVIOUSstudies on the biologyof the SandwichTern (Thalasseussand- vicensis) include those of Dircksen (1932), a brief comparative account by Cullen (1960a), and a general account by Marples and Marples (1934). Some aspects of its breeding behavior have been described by Desselberger (1929), Steinbacher (1931), Assem (1954a, 1954b), and Cullen (1960b). None of these accountsrecords breeding success or gives details of factors influencing it in this species. In the present study, the Sandwich Tern's breeding biology was examined in conjunc- tion with simultaneousstudies on the Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii), CommonTern (S. hirundo), and Arctic Tern (S. paradisaea). TttE STUDY AREA The study area was on Coquet Island, Northumberland, England, 55ø 38' N, 1ø 37z W, about 32 km south-southeast of the Farne Islands, the next nearest breedingstation for the four speciesof terns mentioned above. Coquet Island is a low island about 1.6 ha in area, rising only some 10 m above sea level and mostly covered with vegetation. It is composed of sandstone and has been eroded so that extensive shelves of rock are exposed at low tide. The island itself has steep edges with an almost flat top. The lighthouse grounds occupy 1,O00 m-ø, and tracts of stinging nettles (Urtica dioica) not occupied by terns comprise a further 2,500 m-ø. This leaves about 12,750 m2 available to the terns. Historical records around 1830 (Marples and Marples 1934) refer to the oc- currence of all four species of tern on Coquet Island. The construction of the lighthouse buildings in 1834, with cultivation of the island, and the introduction of domestic animals, evidently disturbed the terns breeding there and led to their disappearance about 1882 (Marples and Marples 1934).
    [Show full text]
  • SHOREBIRDS (Charadriiformes*) CARE MANUAL *Does Not Include Alcidae
    SHOREBIRDS (Charadriiformes*) CARE MANUAL *Does not include Alcidae CREATED BY AZA CHARADRIIFORMES TAXON ADVISORY GROUP IN ASSOCIATION WITH AZA ANIMAL WELFARE COMMITTEE Shorebirds (Charadriiformes) Care Manual Shorebirds (Charadriiformes) Care Manual Published by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums in association with the AZA Animal Welfare Committee Formal Citation: AZA Charadriiformes Taxon Advisory Group. (2014). Shorebirds (Charadriiformes) Care Manual. Silver Spring, MD: Association of Zoos and Aquariums. Original Completion Date: October 2013 Authors and Significant Contributors: Aimee Greenebaum: AZA Charadriiformes TAG Vice Chair, Monterey Bay Aquarium, USA Alex Waier: Milwaukee County Zoo, USA Carol Hendrickson: Birmingham Zoo, USA Cindy Pinger: AZA Charadriiformes TAG Chair, Birmingham Zoo, USA CJ McCarty: Oregon Coast Aquarium, USA Heidi Cline: Alaska SeaLife Center, USA Jamie Ries: Central Park Zoo, USA Joe Barkowski: Sedgwick County Zoo, USA Kim Wanders: Monterey Bay Aquarium, USA Mary Carlson: Charadriiformes Program Advisor, Seattle Aquarium, USA Sara Perry: Seattle Aquarium, USA Sara Crook-Martin: Buttonwood Park Zoo, USA Shana R. Lavin, Ph.D.,Wildlife Nutrition Fellow University of Florida, Dept. of Animal Sciences , Walt Disney World Animal Programs Dr. Stephanie McCain: AZA Charadriiformes TAG Veterinarian Advisor, DVM, Birmingham Zoo, USA Phil King: Assiniboine Park Zoo, Canada Reviewers: Dr. Mike Murray (Monterey Bay Aquarium, USA) John C. Anderson (Seattle Aquarium volunteer) Kristina Neuman (Point Blue Conservation Science) Sarah Saunders (Conservation Biology Graduate Program,University of Minnesota) AZA Staff Editors: Maya Seaman, MS, Animal Care Manual Editing Consultant Candice Dorsey, PhD, Director of Animal Programs Debborah Luke, PhD, Vice President, Conservation & Science Cover Photo Credits: Jeff Pribble Disclaimer: This manual presents a compilation of knowledge provided by recognized animal experts based on the current science, practice, and technology of animal management.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Long-Term Habitat and Colonial Waterbird Dynamics of Shamrock Island, Nueces County, Texas
    EVALUATION OF LONG-TERM HABITAT AND COLONIAL WATERBIRD DYNAMICS OF SHAMROCK ISLAND, NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS by Carolyn Gorman and Elizabeth H. Smith Center for Coastal Studies Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi 6300 Ocean Drive, NRC 3200 Corpus Christi, Texas 78411 prepared for Thomas Calnan Coastal Biologist Coastal Management Division Texas General Land Office 1700 North Congress Avenue Austin, TX 78701-1495 October 16, 2001 EVALUATION OF LONG-TERM HABITAT AND COLONIAL WATERBIRD DYNAMICS OF SHAMROCK ISLAND, NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Shamrock Island is a naturally formed island located west of Mustang Island, along the eastern portion of Corpus Christi Bay, Texas. This 30-ha island is comprised of a diversity of coastal habitat types and is an extremely important nesting site for colonial waterbirds. Shamrock Island became a Preserve through acquisition by The Nature Conservancy of Texas (TNCT) in 1995. This action as well as a conservation easement owned by the Texas General Land Office ensures perpetual protection of the island from development. During the latter part of 1990s, a restoration project was designed to minimize erosion along the northern and western portions of the island. A comprehensive review of historic studies on Shamrock Island was undertaken to assess existing knowledge of the natural and anthropogenic changes of Shamrock Island. GIS interpretation of the areal extent of unvegetated habitat, and the analysis of the colonial waterbird database on ground-nesting species abundance, were conducted to assist in the development of a management strategy for the island. A decadal analysis of digitized aerial photographs from 1980, 1990, and 1999 reaffirmed that sediment was eroding on the north end of the island and accreting along the southern shore.
    [Show full text]
  • Compiled Online Certification Package for the North Anna ISFSI
    United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Virginia Field Office 6669 Short Lane Gloucester, VA 23061 Date: Self-Certification Letter Project Name: Dear Applicant: Thank you for using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Virginia Ecological Services online project review process. By printing this letter in conjunction with your project review package, you are certifying that you have completed the online project review process for the project named above in accordance with all instructions provided, using the best available information to reach your conclusions. This letter, and the enclosed project review package, completes the review of your project in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 884), as amended (ESA), and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668c, 54 Stat. 250), as amended (Eagle Act). This letter also provides information for your project review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, 83 Stat. 852), as amended. A copy of this letter and the project review package must be submitted to this office for this certification to be valid. This letter and the project review package will be maintained in our records. The species conclusions table in the enclosed project review package summarizes your ESA and Eagle Act conclusions. These conclusions resulted in: ● “no effect” determinations for proposed/listed species and/or proposed/designated critical habitat; and/or ● “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” determinations for proposed/listed species and/or proposed/designated critical habitat; and/or ● “may affect, likely to adversely affect” determination for the Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and relying on the findings of the January 5, 2016 Programmatic Biological Opinion for the Final 4(d) Rule on the Northern long-eared bat; and/or ● “no Eagle Act permit required” determinations for eagles.
    [Show full text]
  • Nesting Behavior of the Gull-Billed Tern
    BIRD-BANDING A JOURNAL OF ORNITHOI•OGICAI, INVl•,STIGATION VOL. 49, NO. 1 WINTER 1978 PAGES 1--100 NESTING BEHAVIOR OF THE GULL-BILLED TERN BY HAROLD F. SEARS INTRODUCTION The Gull-billed Tern (Gelochelidonnilotica) has a scattered distribution, and its breeding behavior has been little studied in the past (e.g., deWaard, 1952; Lind, 1963a; M•511er,1975). I have therefore made a relativelybroad studyof the breedingbehavior of thisspecies. I present my observationson nestingbehavior here and discussthe antipredator strategyof the Gull-billed Tern. The species'display behavior will be discussed elsewhere. STUDY AREA AND METHODS I spent the springsand summersof 1971, 1972, and 1973 on an unnamed island 0.5 km south of the port at Morehead City, Carteret County, North Carolina.Beaufort Inlet liesto the southeast,and a Spar- tina marsh and Bogue Banks lie to the southwest. Early during eachbreeding season, I watchedthe ternsfrom exposed but distant positionsusing 8 x 24 binocularsor a 15-60 power zoom telescope.As colonieswere established,I positionedburlap blinds at their borders, and observations were made from within the blinds. I usedtime-lapse photography to studyincubation behavior. A Braun- Nizo S-80 movie camera was positionedon a tripod 20 to 30 m from the nest.It wasset to exposeone frame everyfour to five seconds(later determinedexactly) and wasleft in positionfor up to five hours. Gull-billedTerns are quite sensitiveto disturbance;therefore, I did not trap or mark any terns. This meant I could only rarely recognize individuals.The sexeswere not distinguishable,although Lind (1963a) thought he could distinguishmales by their heavier bill.
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Review of Tern (Sterna & Sternula Spp.) Foraging Ecology
    Literature review of tern foraging ecology Contract ref. C13-0204-0686 August 2013 Literature review of tern (Sterna & Sternula spp.) foraging ecology Arctic Tern Little Tern Roseate Tern Contract ref. C13-0204-0686 ECON Ecological Consultancy Limited Unit 7, The Octagon Business Park, Little Plumstead, Norwich, Norfolk NR13 5FH Registered in England & Wales Company No. 6457758. Page 1 Director: Dr Martin Perrow BSc, PhD, MIEEM, MIFM, CEnv C0mpany Secretary: Eleanor Skeate BSc Literature review of tern (Sterna & Sternula spp.) foraging ecology Contract ref. C13-0204-0686 Final report July 2014 Authors: Sarah M. Eglington & M.R. Perrow ECON Ecological Consultancy Ltd. Unit 7, The Octagon Business Park Little Plumstead Norwich Norfolk NR13 5FH On behalf of: Amanda Kuepfer & Linda Wilson The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) Inverdee House Baxter Street Aberdeen AB11 9QA Foraging ecology of the five UK terns Contents Contents .............................................................................................................. i 1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 2 Methods ...................................................................................................... 1 3 Species accounts ......................................................................................... 1 3.1 Little tern Sternula albifrons .................................................................................. 1 3.1.1 Foraging range ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Learn About Texas Birds Activity Book
    Learn about . A Learning and Activity Book Color your own guide to the birds that wing their way across the plains, hills, forests, deserts and mountains of Texas. Text Mark W. Lockwood Conservation Biologist, Natural Resource Program Editorial Direction Georg Zappler Art Director Elena T. Ivy Educational Consultants Juliann Pool Beverly Morrell © 1997 Texas Parks and Wildlife 4200 Smith School Road Austin, Texas 78744 PWD BK P4000-038 10/97 All rights reserved. No part of this work covered by the copyright hereon may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means – graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or information storage and retrieval systems – without written permission of the publisher. Another "Learn about Texas" publication from TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE PRESS ISBN- 1-885696-17-5 Key to the Cover 4 8 1 2 5 9 3 6 7 14 16 10 13 20 19 15 11 12 17 18 19 21 24 23 20 22 26 28 31 25 29 27 30 ©TPWPress 1997 1 Great Kiskadee 16 Blue Jay 2 Carolina Wren 17 Pyrrhuloxia 3 Carolina Chickadee 18 Pyrrhuloxia 4 Altamira Oriole 19 Northern Cardinal 5 Black-capped Vireo 20 Ovenbird 6 Black-capped Vireo 21 Brown Thrasher 7Tufted Titmouse 22 Belted Kingfisher 8 Painted Bunting 23 Belted Kingfisher 9 Indigo Bunting 24 Scissor-tailed Flycatcher 10 Green Jay 25 Wood Thrush 11 Green Kingfisher 26 Ruddy Turnstone 12 Green Kingfisher 27 Long-billed Thrasher 13 Vermillion Flycatcher 28 Killdeer 14 Vermillion Flycatcher 29 Olive Sparrow 15 Blue Jay 30 Olive Sparrow 31 Great Horned Owl =female =male Texas Birds More kinds of birds have been found in Texas than any other state in the United States: just over 600 species.
    [Show full text]
  • Lesser Crested Tern: New to Britain and Ireland C
    Lesser Crested Tern: new to Britain and Ireland C. Hurford n the morning of 13th July 1982, John Chester and I were awaiting the Oarrival of ringers on the beach of Cymyran Bay, Anglesey, Gwynedd, using the time to count recently fledged Arctic Terns Sterna paradisaea that were gathered along the shoreline, when my attention was caught by the presence of a large, yellow-billed tern amongst them. I called John over and, after watching the bird for a short while, he suggested, to his eternal credit, that we had better take some field notes, at which point the following details were noted: SIZE AND SHAPE Considerably larger than upperwing pattern of Roseate 1 era S. dougal- Arctic Tern, though slightly smaller than lii. Underwing appeared generally pale, with Sandwich Tern S. sandvicensis, both of which only trace of darker shading near wingtips. were available for direct comparison. Up­ UNDERPARTS Chin, 'cheeks', throat, breast, right stance recalled that of Sandwich Tern, belly, flanks and undertail-coverts all white. and, at rest, wingtips extended beyond shallowly forked tail. TAIL In flight, appeared very short and barely forked. On one occasion, as bird was alighting on beach, tail was fanned and UPPERPARTS Head heavy and Sandwich looked almost rounded, losing all semblance Tern-like, with dense black cap running of a fork. from base of bill, through eye, and ending at rear of crown in short ragged crest, giving BARE PARTS Bill orange-yellow, length head square-ended appearance. Shoulders, approximately that of Sandwich Tern's bill, mantle, rump and tail uniform medium but heavier and slightly downcurved.
    [Show full text]