Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 1395e1402

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Adaptive management in the U.S. National Wildlife Refuge System: Science-management partnerships for conservation delivery

Clinton T. Moore a,*, Eric V. Lonsdorf b, Melinda G. Knutson c, Harold P. Laskowski d, Socheata K. Lor e a USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA b Urban Wildlife Institute, Conservation and Science, Lincoln Park Zoo, 2001N. Clark St., Chicago, IL 60614, USA c U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, 2630 Fanta Reed Rd., La Crosse, WI 54603, USA d U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge, 11978 Turkle Pond Rd., Milton, DE 19968, USA e U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Regional Office, 134 Union Blvd., Lakewood, CO 80228, USA article info abstract

Article history: Adaptive management is an approach to recurrent decision making in which uncertainty about the Received 6 September 2010 decision is reduced over time through comparison of outcomes predicted by competing models against Received in revised form observed values of those outcomes. The National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) of the U.S. Fish and 20 October 2010 Wildlife Service is a large land management program charged with making natural resource manage- Accepted 29 October 2010 ment decisions, which often are made under considerable uncertainty, severe operational constraints, Available online 24 November 2010 and conditions that limit ability to precisely carry out actions as intended. The NWRS presents outstanding opportunities for the application of adaptive management, but also difficult challenges. We Keywords: Adaptive management describe two cooperative programs between the Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Geological Survey Decision making to implement adaptive management at scales ranging from small, single refuge applications to large, National Wildlife Refuge System multi-refuge, multi-region projects. Our experience to date suggests three important attributes common Uncertainty to successful implementation: a vigorous multi-partner collaboration, practical and informative decision framework components, and a sustained commitment to the process. Administrators in both agencies should consider these attributes when developing programs to promote the use and acceptance of adaptive management in the NWRS. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction the relationship between action and outcome evolves through time, and future actions adapt to that gain in understanding. The management of public lands entails an aggregation of decision making at all levels of the managing agency: from the 1.1. The National Wildlife Refuge System programmatic level where strategic decisions are made about fi agency priorities and allocation of resources, to the eld level One U.S. federal entity charged with the management of a large fi where a manager decides how to treat a speci c unit of land. public land base is the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) of the Common to nearly all of these decision settings is uncertainty as to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“Service”). The U.S. government first whether a proposed action will bring about intended results. It is formally set aside land for wildlife conservation in 1903, with the fortunate, however, that for many of these settings e particularly designation of Florida’s 1.2-ha Pelican Island as a Federal Bird Reser- those at the level of the land manager e decisions occur in vation(Gabrielson,1943). TheMigratory Bird Conservation Actof 1929 a sequence (or can be arranged to do so) such that insight gained established the legal authority for a national system of wildlife refuges from any one decision can be exploited to improve the quality of (Gabrielson, 1943; Curtin, 1993). The NWRS has been a component of subsequent decisions. That is, many of these settings lend them- the Service since the agency was formed in 1940 (Curtin, 1993). The selves to an approach in which a manager’s understanding about mission of the NWRS is to administer a network of lands and waters for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats for the present and future benefitofAmericans(U.S. Code, 1997). In 2008, this network exceeded 60 million hectares contained * Corresponding author. Tel.: 1 706 542 1609; fax: 1 706 542 1235. þ þ in 550 National Wildlife Refuges in all 50 states and over 36,000 E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C.T. Moore), [email protected] (E.V. Lonsdorf), [email protected] (M.G. Knutson), Harold_Laskowski@fws. Waterfowl Production Areas in the Prairie Pothole Region of the gov (H.P. Laskowski), [email protected] (S.K. Lor). northcentral U.S. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008; Griffith et al.,

0301-4797/$ e see front matter Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.10.065 1396 C.T. Moore et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 1395e1402

2009). Managers within much of the NWRS pursue their mission serve as means to the fundamental objective of “establish through active forms of managing animal and plant populations, their a self-sustaining milkweed population”. An objectives hier- habitats, and the human users of these resources. archy is an important device for mapping the linkages between However, NWRS managers face daunting uncertainties as they fundamental and means objectives (Keeney, 1992). However, make decisions about the lands under their care, and almost always reliance on means objectives without ever identifying funda- under severe constraints of cost (Smiley, 2008). What is the best mental objectives or examining their relationships to funda- strategy for limiting forest damage due to an invasive tree borer? mental objectives carries some risk of overly prescriptive How should the hydrology of a network of wetlands be manipu- management (Failing and Gregory, 2003). lated to increase diversity of amphibians? Is it possible to bring 4. Management uncertainty is represented through a set of desired changes in the songbird community through control of the competing models, which make distinct predictions of deer herd? For these and many other management scenarios, outcome for a given management decision. It is through the adaptive management is an effective means for making trans- evaluation of predictions generated under different beliefs parent, defensible decisions in the face of uncertainty, with the about system behavior that insight is gained about manage- ultimate aim of improving decision making and resource delivery ment of the system. over time (Lyons et al., 2008). 5. A system of monitoring is in place to inform the decision maker about current system state and to provide feedback on the 1.2. A natural fit for adaptive management relative performance of the competing models. The suite of monitoring metrics is judiciously chosen to inform progress By “adaptive management,” we mean a decision-theoretic toward the management objective and to meet the information approach to making a sequence of decisions by which uncertainty requirements of the models. Adaptive management firmly about decision making is reduced over time through comparison of establishes a purpose for monitoring and sharply distinguishes predictions of outcomes by competing models against observed relevant monitoring metrics from those less relevant (Nichols values of those outcomes (Williams,1997; Kendall, 2001; Moore and and Williams, 2006; Lyons et al., 2008). Conroy, 2006; McCarthy and Possingham, 2007; Conroy et al., 2008). Development of the idea traces back to operations research in the The focus of adaptive management is not research: the primary 1950s (Bellman,1957,1961); Walters and Hilborn (1978) and Walters objective is the accumulation of knowledge for the aim of improving (1986) described its use in natural resource applications. The decision making (Lancia et al.,1996). Adaptive management abandons Department of the Interior, the parent organization of the Service, the traditional science-management relationship in which managers developed guidance for the appropriate setting and use of adaptive express a research need, scientists work separately on the problem management within its agencies (Williams et al., 2009). The use of and furnish results, and managers implement the findings. Instead, competing models is a defining element of adaptive management adaptive management integrates the decision making and learning (Conroy and Moore, 2002) because the most efficient path to the processes, so that decision making can proceed even as uncertainty is desired outcome is unknown to the manager but dependent on being resolved (Lyons et al., 2008). As in other forms of structured model choice (Pascual et al., 1997). Models that generate more decision making, a model informs the decision maker and guides the reliable predictions of outcome earn greater influence in deter- selection of a management action. The key aspect of adaptive mining the direction of future decision making (Kendall, 2001), and management is that competing models reflect management uncer- adaptive management provides a precise blueprint for how this tainties, and each influences the decision. Over time, management learning is to be accumulated and focused on achieving the performance is improved by the recurrent assessment of these management objective (Williams et al., 2002). Because of this models through iterative monitoring of the system. Adaptive blueprint, adaptive management is a forward-looking process that management thus provides the means to make defensible decisions unfolds in an anticipated manner; it is not an ad hoc, trial-and-error, that are informative, even if the management application does not or wait-and-see approach to management. offer the degrees of control, randomization, and replication that are Adaptive management is a specific form of structured decision sought in a conventional research application. To illustrate an extreme making (Williams et al., 2009; Lyons et al., 2008). As such, an case, the adaptive harvest management of North American waterfowl adaptive decision framework has several requisite components (Johnson and Williams,1999) is an example of resource management (Nichols et al., 1995; Kendall, 2001), many of which are already in that employs a single replicate (the continental waterfowl pop- place throughout the NWRS as part of conventional practices. ulation) and no experimental control or randomization whatsoever; yet managers learn about this system as they make decisions, and 1. A recurrent decision is to be made, one that either affects a formal process applies that learning to future decisions. a resource in its entirety (e.g., harvest management of an In our interpretation of the process, adaptive management is animal population) or in subunits treated in turn over time scalable, meaning that the approach may be appropriately sized to (e.g., management compartments of a large wetland). In some scales ranging from a single management unit to entire ecosystems settings, it is possible to consider one-time decisions (e.g., dam (Williams et al., 2009). For example, the process can be tailored to removals or wetland restorations) made in different locations the management of a group of water control structures on a portion over time as recurrent decisions. of a management area or to the management of land units across an 2. The decision is selected from a fixed set or range of clearly entire biome (see examples in Appendix 1). As the NWRS is charged defined decision alternatives. with making efficient and scientifically-defensible decisions for 3. A clear statement of measurable objectives drives the selection conservation objectives, an adaptive approach seems well-suited of a decision. Objectives reflect core conservation goals of the for application to land management problems occurring across decision maker and characterize the essential reason for different scales and fraught with uncertainty. interest in the resource problem. These fundamental objectives are distinguished from means objectives, which establish the 2. Opportunities and challenges of working within the NWRS means or waypoints for achieving the fundamental objectives (Keeney, 1992). For example, “complete a prescribed burn of In many ways, the NWRS offers an ideal environment for 100 ha” or “achieve a population of 100 fertile individuals” may adaptive approaches to decision making. The NWRS has a strong C.T. Moore et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 1395e1402 1397 tradition of manipulating habitats to meet the annual life cycle distrustful of anything associated with it. The term ‘adaptive requirements of many target wildlife species or species guilds. management’ is defined in various ways in the literature and it is Many of the required elements of adaptive management are sometimes difficult to see how it differs from trial-and-error. already found in the customary operations on refuges. Refuges Therefore, those who use trial-and-error or who may be have on-site capability to perform a variety of management responding to a changing resource condition may contend that actions and associated monitoring. However, a system-wide they are already using adaptive management (Williams et al., assessment revealed that 25% of 66,000 staff days spent on 2009). annual monitoring activities was devoted to monitoring for which Last, refuges may lack sufficient expertise needed to construct little use is made of the data or to which no decision is attached adaptive decision frameworks that conform to the constraints and (H. P. Laskowski; internal USFWS survey of NWRS managers and logistical realities of refuge management. Many parts of the process e presentation to Senior NWRS Leadership Team, Salt Lake City, elicitation of objectives and decision alternatives, constructing 2003); thus there may be opportunities to direct monitoring decision models, designing effective monitoring, and linking effort more productively through adaptive management (Nichols outcomes to learning e could be facilitated by experienced managers and Williams, 2006). Our Service coauthors have also observed or additional experts with skills in modeling, sample design, and that managers are beginning to identify uncertainties relative human dimensions. In many instances, decision frameworks are not to the effectiveness and efficiency of some of their more tradi- necessarily complicated, and indeed, a computer spreadsheet is tional management actions toward achieving conservation sufficient for many applications. targets, providing further motivation to implement adaptive management. 3. Cooperative efforts to implement adaptive management in The large land base of the NWRS provides a unique and the NWRS significant advantage for applications of adaptive management. The accumulation of knowledge to improve management can be Recognizing both the great potential of adaptive management greatly accelerated if a decision framework can be established to address resource management needs within the NWRS and the across the units of a single refuge or across multiple refuges. opportunity to combine management and scientific expertise to Furthermore, spatial variability in management response can be establish such systems, the Service partnered with the U.S. observed and captured in predictive models; the information can Geological Survey (USGS) in two cooperative efforts to implement then be usefully applied in a novel setting where management adaptive management on Service-owned lands. Both efforts were uncertainty exists. similar in that they built in a high and ongoing degree of inter- Despite the many advantages and potential of adaptive action between NWRS managers and their scientific collaborators, management, there are considerable challenges to its imple- and they strove to develop decision approaches that adhered mentation within the NWRS, and we believe these challenges are closely to conventional practices and resource constraints of the likely to be universal among national, state, provincial, and private NWRS. organizations that manage large land holdings (Lee, 1993; Allan and The two efforts differed along lines of scale, complexity, and Curtis, 2005). Refuge managers have many responsibilities and face comprehensiveness of effort. Under the Adaptive Management a host of immediate demands that deter intense or long-term focus Consultancy (“Consultancy”), the focus was on a narrowly defined on any single project. Financial resources may be so severely resource issue contained within a single refuge or shared among limiting that managers typically cannot afford to assign personnel a small number of refuges (Appendix 1). From both agencies and for adaptive management projects that involve an experimental other partnering organizations, the Consultancy brought together component. Unanticipated environmental disruptions, logistical refuge biological and management personnel, resource specialists, complications, or diversions of resources may cause management a programmer, a specialist in decision analysis, and a facilitator. In a actions to fall outside of control guidelines, or not be implemented 2e3 day workshop, the group developed the initial draft of a deci- at all. sion structure. The structure was revisited and revised in further Traditions of the NWRS can make implementation of adap- rounds of discussion; in other words, each Consultancy was tive management difficult in some settings, particularly those in intended to initiate cycles of “rapid prototyping” (Nicolson et al., which multiple refuges face a common management problem. 2002). Under this effort, relatively modest Service funding was Refuges enjoy a high degree of autonomy to address natural used to support workshops, and monitoring and treatment activi- resource problems, and while inter-refuge cooperation is not ties were designed to be sustained within the existing resources of discouraged, it has been an uncommon management tactic. participating refuges. Because of the narrow scope and compressed Furthermore, the Service is structured into geographic regions in time frame for the work, the resulting decision framework was which much management authority and autonomy is vested. usually simple and often could be portrayed in a computer Therefore, refuges that occur in the same ecosystem and that spreadsheet. face similar resource management challenges may be separated In contrast, the Refuge Cooperative Research Program (RCRP) by a regional boundary that creates distinct e if not competitive was initiated to address problems larger in scope and resource e environments for available resources and program priorities, investment, allowing more time and resources to be committed making collaboration across the boundary difficult. to developing decision frameworks (Appendix 1). Multiple-year Misunderstandings about adaptive management among land funding provided through USGSsupportedthework of a team managers can also impede its implementation. A reluctance to of scientists to develop an adaptive decision structure for an consider adaptive management may be rooted in a belief that ecosystem-scale resource issue identified by NWRS staff. NWRS adaptive management takes away a manager’sdecisionmaking provided funding to refuges to enable participation in the design flexibility, or that departing from a long-established traditional and implementation of the study. Requirements for RCRP funding management practice will compromise past management included the involvement of multiple refuges in at least two achievements. Some managers may believe that traditional Service administrative regions, necessitating cooperation across management is already as effective as it can be, despite the lack of refuge and regional boundaries. RCRP funding also required evidence in the form of data or documentation to demonstrate the inclusion of Service personnel on science teams to assure that the claim. Other managers who hear the term ‘model’ may be product would meet Service needs and priorities and would 1398 C.T. Moore et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 1395e1402 ensure program continuity by the Service at the end of the setup communicate and to assure procedural quality. The coordinator has phase. Because of the large scale and dispersed nature of this a vested interest in the outcome of the project and thus is involved program, projects funded under the RCRP often involved each step of the way from project conception to operational roll- complex, spatially-referenced models and advanced methods for out. In particular, the coordinator plays a critical role during the collecting and organizing data and for reaching optimal transition from design phase to implementation phase, as the decisions. decision framework is handed off to the NWRS and the project Refuge participation in these efforts was voluntary, if not initi- team is dissolved. ated by the refuge itself. In all cases, the refuge manager or a staff The second role is an expert in decision structuring and member served as the decision maker for the management process modeling. This person (or team of persons) leads the problem. The decision framework provided a lens through which collaborating group through the processes of developing the monitoring data were interpreted and translated into a decision framework, eliciting management objectives and decision alter- action. However, actions were not mandated or “prescriptive” in natives, designing monitoring to inform management, and formu- any way, i.e., the manager ultimately decided the action on the basis lating the models to inform decision making. This person has a clear of monitoring data or external considerations. The decision view of what pieces are required and how they fit together in an framework was designed to accommodate this decision flexibility adaptive framework, so that guidance can be given to other and remain informative as long as action and monitoring protocols specialists to develop the specific technical components (e.g., are followed. Ultimately, the aim of these efforts was to improve database development). This role was well exemplified in the management decision making within the NWRS. As these projects Consultancy projects, which featured productive interactions move toward implementation, they will begin to provide the between the decision analysis expert and the programmer. While stream of information that will measure how well conservation each was a specialist in his area, each could converse with the other, goals are being reached. but most importantly, each could communicate with the stake- holder group to extract the needed elements and to ultimately lead 4. Attributes of success the group toward a decision framework. The third role is a facilitator who is familiar with the problem Although the Consultancy and RCRP projects are still in various scope and basic tenets of structured decision making, but who is phases of development, our experiences to date suggest that not invested in the decision or the outcome. The facilitation role is projects have specific attributes and employ certain heuristics that vital in short-term workshop settings, such as the Consultancy, lead to success (Nicolson et al., 2002). Because the NWRS is where communication and exchange of ideas must occur in reflective of other land management entities, we suspect that these a compressed time frame. In the RCRP setting, the facilitator role attributes apply broadly. The attributes can be considered under can be critical during annual coordination meetings where the the general headings of collaboration, components, and project team and refuge cooperators often face tactical and stra- commitment. tegic decisions about the project. Successful collaboration depends on inclusive and regular 4.1. Collaboration communication among members of the project team and between the team and cooperators. Participants in the project Project success depends on a well-structured collaboration educate one another in a process that continues throughout the between team members who contribute toward all aspects of the entire project: non-NWRS team members learn about the objec- effort. Ultimately, the project is driven by refuge information needs tives, capabilities, and constraints of management, and Service for informing management decisions; therefore, clear articulation personnel learn about principles of structured decision making, by refuge staff of management objectives, decisions, and uncer- modeling, and monitoring design. Frequent workshops, webinars, tainties is vital. Success also depends on identification of feasible and teleconferences provide the project team the critical input management alternatives and potential logistical constraints to needed to structure the decision making process: objectives of management treatments during the design phase of the project. management, decision alternatives, logistics of carrying out Participating scientists work to incorporate these constraints into treatments and monitoring, and key uncertainties. For example, the adaptive management framework. the native prairies RCRP group (Appendix 1) makes routine use of RCRP project teams generally comprise refuge personnel and live, web-based collaboration tools to explore the behavior of scientists from USGS and other organizations (universities, NGOs, models, to demonstrate data management systems, and to Service) who are experts in the area of management interest. consider alternative expressions of the objective function. Timely Consultancies included a similar complement of expertise and communications provide feedback to project participants to backgrounds. The context of the project determines the specific maintain their interest and engagement. roles to be taken on by team members, but we see three roles as A successful collaboration also depends on a common under- vital to the success of any project. standing of roles and responsibilities among team members and The first role is a team leader (or co-leaders) from the Service the products and services to be supplied by each cooperating who serves as a coordinator through the establishment phase and agency. For example, the guidance language of the RCRP assigns into the implementation phase of the project. The key skills of the responsibilities to the Service and to USGS regarding the conduct of coordinator are organization and communication. The coordinator design, management, research, data collection, reporting, and provides project focus and overall vision for the project team and coordination tasks. refuge cooperators. The coordinator serves as the main communi- cation conduit among refuge cooperators and between the NWRS 4.2. Components and USGS members of the team. The coordinator monitors all aspects of refuge participation and performance (e.g., timely and The customary practices, operational constraints, management proper data collection, follow-through on treatment application, “surprises”, and spatial dispersion of units that characterize the consistency of procedures), and takes the lead on resolving logis- NWRS present specific challenges in developing adaptive tical problems that arise. The coordinator uses various means (site management components, i.e., the decision framework, the visits, conference calls, workshops, internet resources) to prediction models, and the monitoring system. A typical challenge C.T. Moore et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 1395e1402 1399 is the representation of treatment alternatives in the decision application and monitoring may overlap, phenological differences framework and predictive models. For example, in many manage- among refuges may complicate the scheduling of actions, and ment applications, there are several treatments available and many certain actions (e.g., prescribed burning, seeding) may require possible options for application of each (e.g., timing, duration, substantial planning between the time that the decision is made intensity, treatment combinations). Their permutations may yield and the action is implemented. These situations present chal- innumerable decision alternatives that cannot all be accommo- lenges to the planning of a “just-in-time” decision process dated in a decision framework. Furthermore, events that are not (Conteh and Forgionne, 2003), where data from monitoring possible to predict, such as inclement weather or availability of arrive just in time to inform the next decision, and where each labor, may prevent an action from being implemented in the way it action can be “pulled off the shelf” and readily implemented. was intended, if at all. These real circumstances are two sources of Building the decision structure in such a context almost certainly “partial controllability” (Nichols et al., 1995) that makes prediction requires simplifying assumptions be made in the model and of a planned action difficult but which the project team must negotiation with managers for consensus on timing protocols. nevertheless anticipate. These discussions may result in a delicate but tight choreography As mentioned, managers may share an aversion to the use of of actions, responsibilities, and products that defines the decision models, challenging the project team to find ways to convey cycle. their utility. In our experience, we find greater acceptance for Because adaptive management is a process defined over long, the use of models when it is pointed out that all decision indeterminate time frames, a plan for project documentation making is based on some kind of model, even if the model is ensures that actions, outcomes, and project modifications are simply a manager’sopinionabouttheresponsetoaspecific recorded and that the project is easily communicated to new action. We also make the point that even simple models are cooperators and survives staff turnover. Such documentation effective for decision making, particularly if a set of those would include templates or protocols that describe in sufficient models can be formulated to represent alternative ‘hunches’ detail all procedural elements of the decision cycle; i.e., the time- (hypotheses) about system response to management. While table of actions, responsibilities of each project participant, how amanagerinitiallymaybereluctanttohavehisorherthought data are to be collected and managed, how treatments are to be process exposed in a model, a degree of confidence is built implemented, contingencies, etc. The body of documentation among all the collaborators when it becomes apparent that would also include the scientific reports and publications that adaptive management provides a means for alternative views to describe the models, monitoring design, knowledge updating be recognized and used to guide decision making. approaches, and other elements designed in the project setup Because of time and staffing constraints, time-intensive activi- phase. ties such as monitoring and data management are likely to be the primary limiting factors in terms of new tasks that a refuge can 4.3. Commitment undertake for participating in an adaptive management project. Therefore, a common challenge for the project team is to design Adaptive management is a difficult process to sustain in a monitoring program that is informative for assessing progress program environments that operate in budgetary and priority- towards the management objective, evaluating model perfor- setting horizons of 2e3 years. For this reason, adaptive mance, and portraying current state of the system, yet is efficient management may be feasible only for resource decision problems and simple to conduct. Implicit in the design is a trade-off between that are most pressing, for example, decisions characterized by inference strength of the monitoring program (which is deter- greatest uncertainty, controversy, highest risk of resource loss, or mined by resources available for monitoring) and rate of potential to affect a refuge’s focal species or ecosystem. Here, improvement in management performance (i.e., learning). The commitment of time and resources are most convincingly project team may also consider the design of an intuitive interface demonstrated, and the requisite long-term commitment to the for rapid data entry, with capabilities to catch errors and generate process at the station, coordinator, and administrative levels may simple reports. be more likely to obtain. If decision making is distributed among multiple refuges, the A focus on high-priority management issues is key to ensuring project team may design a central data processing mechanism to station commitment. When the issue is of high importance to manage the assembly of monitoring data, the update of the a refuge, managers are more willing to alter routine management predictive models, and the distribution of information back to actions, to follow defined protocols, and to devote time toward cooperating units in the form of revised decision guidance. For collaboration with scientists and other managers. When multiple example, data obtained from cooperators could be uploaded to refuges are involved in a project that addresses a high-priority a central database, where they are used to assess decision models. issue, the successful pursuit of better management practices relies Updated decision tables or other forms of decision guidance could on a tight interdependency of refuges. Understanding this, then be posted on a central site accessible to cooperators. A managers then act in their own best interests and in the interests of commercial web-based collaboration tool is used by the reed their cooperating peers by following through with their commit- canary grass RCRP project team (Appendix 1) primarily for ments and adhering to established protocols. The endpoint of communication among different sets of team members (science adaptive management is defined relative to the time frame for team, Service coordinators, cooperators), but it is also used to response by the resource being managed, which may range from upload monitoring data from cooperators and to distribute field only a few years for some ecosystems to potentially decades for protocols and instructions. Project cooperators have found the others. However, even if uncertainties are resolved over time so system intuitive and easy to use, and other RCRP and Consultancy that “adaptation” of management formally ends, resource decision teams have begun using similar tools to manage data exchange in making will certainly continue, and there may remain a role for a dispersed system. monitoring to inform decision making based on current resource The interacting dynamics of the resource, its measurement, state. and its management may require considerable effort by the As described above, the involvement of a Service project coor- project team to design the iterative scheme of decision, action, dinator from inception through implementation is a characteristic and monitoring. For example, time windows for treatment of effective projects. In light of current workloads on Service 1400 C.T. Moore et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 1395e1402 biologists, coordination may only be possible through a reassign- scientists to engage in the provision of training, in both work- ment of duties. Because work progress vitally depends on infor- shop and classroom settings. Capacity building can also be mation sharing, managing cooperator commitment, and ceaseless accomplished through the hiring of biologists with these tech- vigilance of the process, effective projects will have actively nical backgrounds. While there will always be need to seek involved coordinators and cooperators, rather than ones who science expertise outside of the Service to address specific needs, observe passively. much of the structuring of adaptive management follows a tech- Such sustained commitments of time are possible only nical blueprint that can be learned and adopted by NWRS through support at the upper levels of administration. Of personnel. course, administrators have no desire to commit to an endless Third, we see tremendous value in the continuation of support endeavor of experimentation and data collection, which is how for collaborative work between the NWRS and USGS for the adaptive management is sometimes perceived. Commitment is development of adaptive management projects. Both partners easier to secure when the purpose of adaptive management e receive great benefit from the collaboration: NWRS biologists and transparent decision support that improves decision making managers gain experience in the process of structured decision through time e is demonstrated to cooperators and program making and build technical capacity, and USGS scientists are chal- administrators alike. lenged to provide science that directly supports management in the form of tools that acknowledge real system complexities and constraints. Most importantly, though, we believe that the collab- 5. Moving forward with adaptive management in the NWRS oration may more effectively achieve conservation delivery than traditional approaches which separate the research and manage- Because the Consultancy and RCRP efforts involve a collabora- ment enterprises. tion and sharing of resources between the Service and USGS, both agencies have a vested interest in the ultimate outcome of these efforts; namely, a clear process for making defensible decisions and for using science to improve management through time. Further- more, because adaptive management is a process defined over 6. Conclusions time, the commitment of resources by an agency over any project development time frame e whether 3 days or 3 years e is an Adaptive management is a structured process for making implicit expression of confidence that the process can be institu- recurrent decisions that offers great potential for achieving tionally supported beyond the development endpoint. However, conservation outcomes in the face of daunting biological inadequate institutional support is a widely acknowledged cause of uncertainty. In many ways, the National Wildlife Refuge System adaptive management failures (Schreiber et al., 2004; Gregory et al., is ideally situated to exploit the principles of adaptive manage- 2006). Therefore, because investments in project development ment to carry out its mission. However, implementation of fi cannot be considered apart from the institutional capacity to carry adaptive management is dif cult without attention given to them forward, we offer general program suggestions for the part- three key attributes: a vigorous multi-partner collaboration, nering agencies. practical and informative decision framework components, and First, we suggest the formation of a biological team within the asustainedcommitmenttotheprocess.Bybuildingcertain NWRS to provide design and logistical support for adaptive institutional and technical capacities and sustaining its collabo- management projects within the system and to assist refuge biol- rations with science partners such as the USGS, the NWRS can be ogists in their coordination. When a new project is conceived, better poised to apply the principles of adaptive management as a team member is placed on the development team, assuring that part of its science-based approach to reach habitat conservation the project receives Service guidance and input from inception goals. through implementation. As no adaptive management project is likely to require full-time attention, a team member’s support could be distributed over multiple projects. Team members would assume (or assist a refuge biologist in) all the coordination Acknowledgments responsibilities outlined above; including meeting regularly with the development team; organizing meetings of cooperators; over- We thank Craig R. Allen, Kevin Pope, and Joseph Fontaine for seeing monitoring, decision action, and data management efforts; organizing the symposium at the 70th Midwest Fish and Wildlife and updating and distributing the decision support information to Conference, inviting us to present this work, and supporting cooperators. At least two models analogous to an adaptive travel to the conference. We thank Service employees Sara Vacek, management support team exist within the Service, and both occur Lori Stevenson, Nancy Pau, Kate O’Brien, Laura Mitchell, Sara within the Division of Migratory Bird Management: the Branch of Williams, Eric Nelson, Rachel Laubhan, Bridgette Flanders- Population and Habitat Assessment and the Habitat and Population Wanner, Todd Grant, Kim Bousquet, and Vanessa Fields for their Evaluation Team. coordination of projects listed in the Appendix. Dan James Second, concurrent with the formation of a team to support provided background material for the Refuge Cooperative adaptive management projects, we suggest the NWRS increase Research Program. We thank Jill Gannon, Brad Griffith, Terry its capacity to design and implement structured decision making Shaffer, Rick Schultz, Larkin Powell, and an anonymous reviewer efforts in general and adaptive management in particular. This who provided manuscript reviews and valuable insight for its could be accomplished through training in a range of technical improvement. This work was funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife areas, including decision modeling, monitoring design, statistical Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and the Lincoln Park Zoo. The analysis, database development, GIS, optimization, and human findings and conclusions in this article do not necessarily repre- dimensions, either through the Service’s National Conservation sent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Lincoln Training Center or through outside means. In this regard, USGS Park Zoo. Use of trade, product, or firm names does not imply could provide incentives (promotion or award-based) for its endorsement by the U.S. Government. C.T. Moore et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 1395e1402 1401

Appendix 1

National Wildlife Refuge System1 management projects addressed under the Adaptive Management Consultancy and the Refuge Cooperative Research Program.

Adaptive Management Consultancy Restoring native plant diversity in native grasslands An interagency working group is evaluating alternative management practices and designing monitoring tools to restore and maintain high quality native grasslands in Minnesota. This project guides decision making about application of disturbance treatments (fire, grazing, haying) while uncertainties about their use and temporal patterns of application are being resolved. Two stations and non-federal partners in Service Region 3 (MN)  Managing temporary wetlands for waterfowl Temporary wetlands lose their habitat value for waterfowl if they become choked with vegetation; however, managers are uncertain whether small wetlands can be managed to improve their value for breeding waterfowl. This project evaluates waterfowl use among several low-cost practices designed to alter the habitat structure. Five stations in Service Region 3 (MN and WI)  Fire as a management tool in coastal salt marshes Salt marshes at Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge in Maryland have been managed with fire for decades, but managers are uncertain about the effect of fire on the ecological community and what frequency of fire maximizes salt marsh stability. This project evaluates the effects of different burn frequencies on vegetation, amount of open water, and marsh elevation. Blackwater NWR and adjacent public lands in Service Region 5 (MD)  Habitat management on coastal islands for nesting seabirds Island units of the Maine Coastal Islands NWR have been under various forms of intensive management for many years. Managers are uncertain which habitat management practices are most effective in supporting seabird nesting. This project guides decision making for habitat management under these uncertainties, with knowledge gained applied to other units not currently managed. Maine Coastal Islands NWR and adjacent partner units in Service Region 5 (ME)  Restoration of native shrublands for migrating landbirds and New England cottontail rabbit Invasive shrubs complicate efforts to restore and maintain native shrub communities in the northeast U.S., which provide important habitat for the New England cottontail rabbit and for fall migrating landbirds. Managers are uncertain about which restoration practices are most cost-effective for restoring northeastern U.S. native shrub habitats. Four stations in Service Region 5 (ME, MA, RI)  Use of sediment excavation in wetland restorations A set of customary practices for restoring small wetlands are in place. However, some evidence indicates that removing sediment from a basin, although costly, greatly increases quality of the restored wetland. This project evaluates alternative restoration approaches in the face of uncertainty about the trade-off between cost and outcome. Two stations and private lands in Service Region 3 (MN)  Impact of sea-level rise on coastal wetland impoundment management decisions Freshwater impoundments on some eastern U.S. coastal refuges support a diversity of wildlife, but they require expensive maintenance. Uncertainties about the rate of sea-level rise and about the nature of the replacement biological community confront the manager who must choose at each decision cycle whether an impoundment should be maintained or abandoned to return to a natural salt marsh community. This project guides recurrent decision making under these uncertainties, where a decision made to abandon an impoundment is followed by a decision about the type of approach taken to restore the natural community. Six stations in Service Region 5 

Refuge Cooperative Research Program Management of native prairies in the northern Great Plains Service-owned native prairies in the northern Great Plains have become invaded to varying degrees by introduced grasses and woody vegetation over decades of management that de-emphasized vegetation disturbance. Reintroduction of forms of defoliation disturbance is now desired, but managers are uncertain about what disturbance treatments to apply and in what manner to achieve desired states of native grass and forb composition at least cost. This project will provide a decision tool for making recurrent habitat management decisions under uncertainty about response. Over 100 management units on 19 stations in Service Regions 3 and 6  An ecological integrity index for coastal salt marshes Salt marsh ecosystems on NWRS lands face threats to integrity from local to global scales, and managers are challenged with making habitat decisions under uncertainty to restore and maintain system integrity. This project focuses on the development of tools for monitoring the ecological integrity of salt marshes that are effective across a range of scales, responsive to a hierarchy of threats, and are informative about effects of management. 11 stations in Service Regions 1 and 5  Impoundment management to support migratory waterbird use Impoundments on Service-owned lands in the U.S. northeast and midwest provide important stopover habitat for migratory waterbirds (shorebirds, wading birds, waterfowl). Managers may manipulate impoundment levels and drawdown schedules for benefit of migratory birds, but bird use response is uncertain, as are the trade-offs of these actions among the vegetation, invertebrate, and bird communities. This management study evaluates seasonal timing and across-year effects of alternative impoundment drawdown strategies on migratory waterbird use. 22 stations in Service Regions 3 and 5  Cattail control through prescribed fire Cattail growth on emergent wetlands is a concern on some Service-owned lands in the U.S. northeast and midwest. The use of fire in wetland management is common, but managers are uncertain about parameters of its use and its interactions with biotic and abiotic conditions of the site. The objective of this management study is to provide information that will improve fire planning and will lead to the development of models and monitoring protocols as part of an adaptive decision support system for control of cattail. Five stations in Service Regions 3 and 5  (continued on next page) 1402 C.T. Moore et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 1395e1402

Appendix 1 (continued)

Reed canary grass control and transition to wetland forests and meadows Native wet forests and meadows on many Service-owned lands in the northcentral U.S. are invaded to varying degrees by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). Decision making for its control and eventual replacement by native communities is difficult because managers are uncertain about relative effectiveness of alternative treatments and ability of the species to outcompete re-establishing native vegetation. The objective of this project is to create a tool to support recurrent decision making about control of reed canary grass and revegetation efforts under these biological uncertainties. Nine stations in Service Regions 3 and 6  Implications of climate variability for optimal monitoring and adaptive management in wetland systems The implications of climate change on wetland habitats and on the waterfowl and shorebirds that depend on them are unknown, but adaptive approaches will be increasingly used to learn about managed system behavior in the face of uncertainty. However, climate variability over the typical temporal and spatial scales at which management and monitoring is conducted can obscure learning. This project seeks to assess this variability and discover spatial and temporal scales of monitoring effort that are efficient yet informative under expected climate variability. Stations in Service Regions 6 and 7  1 Service regions: (1) Pacific, (2) Southwest, (3) Great Lakes - Big Rivers, (4) Southeast, (5) Northeast, (6) Mountain-Prairie, (7) Alaska, (8) Pacific Southwest.

References future: adaptive resource management in the wildlife profession. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 24, 436e442. Lee, K.N., 1993. Compass and Gyroscope. Island Press, Washington. Allan, C., Curtis, A., 2005. Nipped in the bud: why regional scale adaptive Lyons, J.E., Runge, M.C., Laskowski, H.P., Kendall, W.L., 2008. Monitoring in the management is not blooming. Environ. Manage. 36, 414e425. context of structured decision-making and adaptive management. J. Wildl. Bellman, R., 1957. Dynamic Programming. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ. Manage. 72, 1683e1692. Bellman, R., 1961. Adaptive Control Processes: A Guided Tour. Princeton Univ. Press, McCarthy, M.A., Possingham, H.P., 2007. Active adaptive management for conser- Princeton, NJ. vation. Conserv. Biol. 21, 956e963. Conroy, M.J., Barker, R.J., Dillingham, P.W., Fletcher, D., Gormley, A.M., Moore, C.T., Conroy, M.J., 2006. Optimal regeneration planning for old-growth Westbrooke, I.M., 2008. Application of decision theory to conservation forest: addressing scientific uncertainty in endangered species recovery management: recovery of Hector’s dolphin. Wildl. Res. 35, 93e102. through adaptive management. Forest Sci. 52, 155e172. Conroy, M.J., Moore, C.T., 2002. Wildlife habitat modeling in an adaptive framework: Nichols, J.D., Johnson, F.A., Williams, B.K., 1995. Managing North American water- the role of alternative models. In: Scott, J.M., Heglund, P.J., Morrison, M.L., fowl in the face of uncertainty. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 26, 177e199. Haufler, J.B., Raphael, M.G., Wall, W.A., Samson, F.B. (Eds.), Predicting Species Nichols, J.D., Williams, B.K., 2006. Monitoring for conservation. Trends. Ecol. Evol. Occurrences: Issues of Accuracy and Scale. Island Press, Washington, 21, 668e673. pp. 205e218. Nicolson, C.R., Starfield, A.M., Kofinas, G.P., Kruse, J.A., 2002. Ten heuristics for Conteh, N.Y., Forgionne, G., 2003. Intelligent decision making support through just- interdisciplinary modeling projects. Ecosystems 5, 376e384. in-time knowledge management. In: Palade, V., Howlett, R.J., Jain, L. (Eds.), Pascual, M.A., Kareiva, P., Hilborn, R., 1997. The influence of model structure on Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2774. Springer, Berlin, pp. 101e106. conclusions about the viability and harvesting of Serengeti wildebeest. Conserv. Curtin, C.G., 1993. The evolution of the U.S. National Wildlife Refuge System and the Biol. 11, 966e976. doctrine of compatibility. Conserv. Biol. 7, 29e38. Schreiber, E.S.G., Bearlin, A.R., Nicol, S.J., Todd, C.R., 2004. Adaptive management: Failing, L., Gregory, R., 2003. Ten common mistakes in designing biodiversity a synthesis of current understanding and effective application. Ecol. Manage. indicators for forest policy. J. Environ. Manage. 68, 121e132. Restor. 5, 177e182. Gabrielson, I.N., 1943. Wildlife Refuges. MacMillan, New York. Smiley, S.A., 2008. The cost of conservation: the National Wildlife Refuge System. Gregory, R., Ohlson, D., Arvai, J., 2006. Deconstructing adaptive management: BioScience 58, 1014. criteria for applications to environmental management. Ecol. Appl. 16, U.S. Code, 1997. National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, 16 U.S.C. 668dd. 2411e2425. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008. Annual report of lands under control of the U.S. Griffith, B., Scott, J.M., Adamcik, R., Ashe, D., Czech, B., Fischman, R., Gonzalez, P., Fish and Wildlife Service. http://www.fws.gov/refuges/land/pdf/ Lawler, J., McGuire, A.D., Pidgorna, A., 2009. Climate change adaptation for the AnnLandsReport_2008.pdf (accessed March 2010). US National Wildlife Refuge System. Environ. Manage. 44, 1043e1052. Walters, C.J., 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. MacMillan, Johnson, F., Williams, K., 1999. Protocol and practice in the adaptive management of New York. waterfowl harvests. Conserv. Ecol. 3 (1), 8. http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss1/ Walters, C.J., Hilborn, R., 1978. Ecological optimization and adaptive management. art8/ (accessed March 2010). Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 9, 157e188. Keeney, R.L., 1992. Value-focused Thinking. Harvard University Press, Williams, B.K., 1997. Approaches to the management of waterfowl under uncer- Cambridge, MA. tainty. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 25, 714e720. Kendall, W.L., 2001. Using models to facilitate complex decisions. In: Shenk, T.M., Williams, B.K., Nichols, J.D., Conroy, M.J., 2002. Analysis and Management of Animal Franklin, A.B. (Eds.), Modeling in Natural Resource Management. Island Press, Populations. Academic Press, San Diego. Washington, pp. 147e170. Williams, B.K., Szaro, R.C., Shapiro, C.D., 2009. Adaptive Management: The U.S. Lancia, R.A., Braun, C.E., Collopy, M.W., Dueser, R.D., Kie, J.G., Martinka, C.J., Department of the Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive Management Working Nichols, J.D., Nudds, T.D., Porath, W.R., Tilghman, N.G., 1996. ARM! For the Group. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) in the 21st Century: Populations, Migration, Management, and Research Priorities Author(s): Richard O. Bierregaard, Alan F. Poole, and Brian E. Washburn Source: Journal of Raptor Research, 48(4):301-308. Published By: The Raptor Research Foundation DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3356/0892-1016-48.4.301 URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3356/0892-1016-48.4.301

BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.

BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. THE JOURNAL OF RAPTOR RESEARCH A QUARTERLY PUBLICATION OF THE RAPTOR RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC.

VOL.48 DECEMBER 2014 NO.4

J. Raptor Res. 48(4):301–308 E 2014 The Raptor Research Foundation, Inc.

OSPREYS (PANDION HALIAETUS) IN THE 21ST CENTURY: POPULATIONS, MIGRATION, MANAGEMENT, AND RESEARCH PRIORITIES

RICHARD O. BIERREGAARD1 Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, U.S.A.

ALAN F. POOLE Birds of North America Online, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, 159 Sapsucker Woods Road, Ithaca, NY 14850 U.S.A.

BRIAN E. WASHBURN U.S.D.A., Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center, 6100 Columbus Avenue, Sandusky, OH 44870 U.S.A.

Ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) are remarkable rap- ic indicators of fat-soluble contaminants in the en- tors. Their choice of conspicuous nest sites and sur- vironment. In the 1960s and 1970s this led the spe- prising tolerance for nesting in nearly intimate as- cies to play a pivotal role in the identification of sociation with humans render them an iconic piece DDT as a major threat to aquatic ecosystems and of aquatic ecosystems in both marine and freshwater the banning of its use in the U.S. habitats across the northern hemisphere and much of Australasia (Australia to Indonesia). Wintering in 20TH CENTURY STUDIES Central and South America and Africa as well, they Pesticides and Populations. Prior to the 1970s, are among the few truly cosmopolitan birds of prey. there were only scattered papers published, mostly Ecologically, they might be termed generalized on the distribution and natural history of the spe- specialists. They are, with exceptions so rare that cies, dating as far back as mention of the 300-pair they can safely be ignored, obligate fish eaters. From colony on Gardiners Island in Wilson’s American Or- their talons to the tip of their bill, every bit of an nithology (Wilson 1812). But it was really only in the Osprey’s morphology is adapted to taking fish from 1970s, after regional population sizes had fallen so the water and consuming them efficiently. Beyond dramatically, that studies of Ospreys began to ap- this specialization, however, they are remarkably pear outside of the ornithological journals. catholic in the species of fish that they prey on As other regional populations also declined dur- (Poole et al. 2002). Inland, the predominant fish ing this period, the Ospreys in southern New En- species caught vary from watershed to watershed. gland and Long Island, NY were particularly hard Along the coasts, the fish brought to the nest will hit by a combination of the chlorinated hydrocar- change through the breeding season as different bons DDT, which was sprayed indiscriminately on prey species migrate in and out of the hunting marshes and agricultural fields, and dieldrin, which range of local populations. flowed into Long Island Sound from textile mills Most notably, because they are perched atop a along the Connecticut River (Wiemeyer et al. long food chain, they are vulnerable to, and dramat- 1975). The number of breeding pairs in this area collapsed from approximately 1000 pairs in the 1 Present address: 421 Cotswold Lane, Wynnewood, PA 1940s to just over 100 by the early 1970s (Spitzer 19096 U.S.A.; email address: [email protected] 1980). Spitzer’s research on this population helped

301 302 BIERREGAARD ET AL.VOL. 48, NO.4 identify DDT as the cause of the decline (Spitzer et or more. This was sufficient to describe the routes al. 1978, Spitzer 1980), and a precedent-setting law- and timing of migration in detail unavailable from suit forced Suffolk County to stop spraying DDT on banding returns (Hake et al. 2001, Martell et al. Long Island salt marshes and set in motion the pro- 2001), but inadequate to report on local habitat use. cess that led to the 1972 federal ban on the use of Osprey-human Interactions. Few raptor species DDT in the U.S. are so entwined with our own as are Ospreys. In After the DDT ban, much of the literature pub- both Europe and North America, DDT and other lished on Ospreys in the 1970s and 1980s dealt with chemical pollutants depressed reproductive output population monitoring and toxicology. Three sym- to the point that populations declined. In Europe, posia were organized, one in Williamsburg, Virginia shooting and egg collecting added further pressures in 1972 (Ogden 1977), one in Montreal in 1981 to the species (Poole 1989, Dennis 2008). (Bird et al. 1983), and another in Florida in 1983 While Ospreys were being heavily persecuted by (Westall 1984), to review the status of the recovery. hunters and egg collectors in Europe, the species The published proceedings from these meetings set enjoyed a much more sympathetic, if not symbiotic, the stage, in many ways, for the next generation of relationship with humans in North America. For research on Ospreys in North America. Key topics example, in the late 19th century farmers around included: research techniques, especially those in- Mount Hope Bay in Rhode Island provided nesting volved in population monitoring; behavioral and platforms for Ospreys near their homes. Ospreys got migration studies; conservation methods, with a fo- secure nesting locations and farmers presumably cus on artificial nest sites and hacking of young lost fewer chickens because Ospreys would drive birds; and levels of contaminants in various popula- Red-tailed Hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) away from their tions. Coverage was surprisingly broad, with studies farmyards (Bent 1937). from British Columbia to Florida, and from the Ca- In the 1970s and 1980s, as DDT worked its way out ribbean to Maine and the Great Lakes. Notably lack- of aquatic ecosystems, reproduction improved and ing were studies of diet and foraging ecology, as well populations began to increase. Humans played an as of Ospreys on their wintering grounds—gaps that important role in the process. The first step was ban- we have started to fill only recently. ning the use of DDT. The practice of providing nest Migration Studies. Among raptors, Ospreys are platforms was revived in the 1960s at the mouth of easy to band. In their overview of band return data, the Connecticut River and later in other locations. Poole and Agler (1987) reported that roughly Ospreys took readily to both nest platforms and oth- 18 000 had been banded in North America prior er human-made structures in their environment. to 1985. Since then more than 35 000 have been Because male Ospreys rarely nest far from where banded (U.S.G.S. Bird Banding Laboratory 2013). they were born, populations are slow to spread and Most of both groups were banded as nestlings. The unlikely to colonize favorable habitat far from exist- numbers from Europe are similarly impressive. In ing nesting populations (Poole 1989). Reintroduc- Finland alone, over 41 700 have been ‘‘ringed’’ tion programs were initiated across the U.S., Great (Saurola et al. 2013). That rich database provided Britain, and Europe. Searches of publication data- a broad-brush overview of the migration of North bases and internet websites indicate that in the U.S. American and European Ospreys (Henny and Vel- at least 1386 young Ospreys were released at sites zen 1972, Kennedy 1973, Osterlof 1977, Poole and spread across 14 states (Table 2). The first introduc- Agler 1987, Saurola 1994, Mestre and Bierregaard tions began in 1980 (e.g., Rymon 1989) and some 2009). are ongoing both in the U.S. and Europe. However, it was not until the mid-1990s, when satellite transmitters were miniaturized to 35 g, that INTO THE 21ST CENTURY we were able to reveal the fine details of Osprey In 2008, realizing that it had been 20 yr since migration. The first satellite transmitters were de- anyone had convened a group of Osprey research- ployed on Ospreys in 1995 both in Europe and ers to discuss the ‘‘state of the species’’ in North North America. Since then, through 2013, over America, Alan Poole, Rob Bierregaard, Brian Wash- 450 Ospreys have been satellite tagged (Table 1). burn, Mark Martell, and Brian Dorr organized a The first generation of transmitters had batteries symposium entitled ‘‘Contemporary Issues in Osprey that lasted about a year and were accurate to Conservation and Management,’’ as part of the 100 m at best, with most locations accurate to 1 km 2008 American Ornithologists’ Union conference DECEMBER 2014 OSPREYS IN THE 21ST CENTURY 303 in Portland, Oregon. The geographic focus of the six Two migration studies in this issue relied on less papers presented was North American, and a broad high-tech methods. Rodrı´guez-Santana and his team range of topics was covered, including the post-DDT (2014) documented the Osprey migration along the population recovery, satellite-telemetry studies of Sierra Maestre mountains in southeastern Cuba, just winter ecology and spring migration, and various as- west of Guanta´namo Bay. As Martell et al. (2001) pects of the species’ interactions with humans. documented, virtually all east coast and many mid- This special issue of The Journal of Raptor Research western Ospreys funnel through Florida to Cuba and had its genesis at that meeting. After the sympo- then Hispaniola on their way to South America. Av- sium, we decided to publish the proceedings. How- erage fall counts of over 5000 migrating Ospreys were ever, we realized that our coverage was limited geo- logged over the three-year study by Santana’s team of graphically, so we invited researchers from other hawk watchers. Finally, Saggese et al. (2014) reports continents to contribute papers dealing with the on the apparently growing number of Ospreys that same topics, thus providing a worldwide perspective winter as far south as Argentina. These ‘‘over-achiev- on Ospreys in the 21st century. ing’’ migrants are found throughout the year in Population Studies. Osprey populations have, northern Argentina and their numbers suggest that with only rare exceptions, been increasing and ex- the importance of the area for overwintering and panding ever since the 1970s in both North America young Ospreys has been underestimated. (Poole et al. 2002) and the western Palearctic Osprey-human Interactions. So many species of (Schmidt-Rothmund et al. 2014). wildlife are moving into suburban and urban spaces This issue includes updates on all four Osprey sub- that universities are now offering specializations in species. Bierregaard et al. (2014) report on the recov- urban ecology, and the nascent field has its own ery of the population of the North American subspe- journal. Ospreys have been in the vanguard of this cies (P. h. carolinensis) between New York and Boston, invasion and are now, in many areas, inextricably which was so heavily decimated and played such a enmeshed with our species. prominent role in the DDT story. That population Ospreys benefit from our intentional or uninten- now exceeds pre-DDT levels but has a very different tional provisioning of nesting substrates; but, as distribution than prior to the crash. Wiley et al. Washburn (2014) summarizes in this issue, they (2014) review the poorly known and rare Caribbean can cause significant problems when they choose subspecies (P. h. ridgwayi), which may be at some risk. to nest on utility or telecommunications structures. Schmidt-Rothmund et al. (2014) report that the Eur- They can also be problematic around airports and asian Osprey (P. h. haliaetus) numbers have increased fish farms. As their populations continue to in- substantially since the 1980s, despite some areas crease, there will be an ongoing need for active where the species still suffers some persecution. Fi- management of the species. nally, Dennis and Clancy (2014) report on the status Given the diversity of chemicals we are introduc- of the Australasian Osprey (P. h. cristatus) in the Aus- ing into the environment, it is inevitable that some tralian portion of the subspecies’ range. will have deleterious effects on natural ecosystems. Migration. Solar-powered batteries, introduced in One important paper from the original symposium 1996, enabled us to track individual birds through that does not appear in this special issue is the over- sequential migration cycles (Alerstam et al. 2006), view that Henny provided of the history of Ospreys and GPS functionality, first available in transmitters and environmental contaminants and the ongoing small enough for Ospreys around 2005, with an ac- efforts to search for new threats. Henny et al.’s curacy to roughly 15 m permitted landscape-level (2010) encyclopedic review of the topic was pub- analyses of habitat use and investigation of such de- lished not long after the original symposium. Mon- tails of migration as wind-drift correction (Klaassen itoring of contaminant loads in Ospreys continues et al. 2011). to date, with attention being paid to the old and In this issue, Martell and his coauthors (2014) pres- new industrial pollutants as well as the potential ent us with the companion piece to the 2001 study of for xenobiotic effects of pharmaceuticals in aquatic fall migration in North American Ospreys (Martell et systems (e.g., Lazarus et al. in press). al. 2001), describing details of spring migration in the Because Ospreys are so conspicuous and dramatic, species. Washburn et al. (2014) took advantage of the they are ideal subjects for environmental education. GPS accuracy to describe habitat use by North Amer- Ironically, as Cushing and Washburn (2014) describe ican Ospreys overwintering in South America. in this volume, the internet—often blamed for taking 304 BIERREGAARD ET AL.VOL. 48, NO.4

Table 1. Ospreys tagged with satellite or cell-tower transmitters in North America and Europe between 1995 and 2013.

PRINCIPAL LOCATION INVESTIGATORS START ONGOING?ADULTS JUVENILES TOTAL ACCESS TO DATA North America Oregon/ M. Martell 1995 n 74 7 81 Martell et al. 2001, Martell Minnesota/ et al. 2014, East Coast Movebank.org Pacific NW J. Elliott 1996 n 18 0 18 Elliott et al. 2007 Florida/Maine M. Martell 1999 n 14 0 14 Martell et al. 2004 Eastern N.A. R. Bierregaard 2000 y 31 38 69 http://www.ospreytrax. com, Movebank.org Saskatchewan S. Houston 2001 n 1 0 1 Houston and Martell 2002 South Dakota W. Mehlquist 2002 n 0 16 16 Mehlquist and West 2011 Labrador T. Chubbs 2002 n 2 5 7 None Wisconsin W. Stout 2002 n 0 3 3 Stout et al. 2009 Ohio D. Sherman 2005 n 2 0 2 None Virginia B. Washburn 2006 n 13 3 16 Martell et al. 2014 Indiana B. Washburn/ 2006 n 0 3 3 http://gis.larc.nasa.gov/ J. Castrale osprey/index.html Ontario T. McInnes-Edick 2009 n 2 0 2 Movebank.org Wyoming B. Bedrosian 2010 n 3 7 10 http://beringiasouth. org/osprey-migration, Movebank.org New Hampshire I. MacLeod/ 2011 y 3 7 10 http://www.nhnature.org/ R. Bierregaard programs/project_ ospreytrack/index.php, Movebank.org New York R. Kennedy 2012 y 2 0 2 http://www. jamaicabayosprey.org/ Montana R. Domenech 2012 y 3 4 7 http://www.raptorview. org, Movebank.org Colorado J. Beason 2013 y 2 0 2 http://www.rmbo.org Virginia B. Watts/E. Mojica 2013 n 3 0 3 http://www.ccbbirds.org/ http://wildlifetracking. org/index.shtml? project_id5848, Movebank.org Michigan B. Jensen 2013 y 0 3 3 http://www.owsem.org/, Movebank.org N. A. Total 173 96 269 Europe Germany B.-U. Meyburg 1995 n 27 1 28 Meyburg and Meyburg 2002 Germany D. Schmidt/B.-U. 1995 n 2 0 2 Schmidt and Meyburg 1998 Meyburg Sweden M. Hake, 1995 n 12 6 18 Hake et al. 2001, Alerstam T. Alerstam et al. 2006, Movebank.org Rutland T. Mackrill 1999 y 0 15 15 Bolt and Appleton 2001, http://www.zen88810. zen.co.uk/ROspreys% 20site/Satellite.htm Scotland R. Dennis 1999 n 6 7 13 Galarza and Dennis 2009 Finland P. Saurola 2001 y 15 3 18 http://www.luomus.fi/en/ finnish-satellite-ospreys DECEMBER 2014 OSPREYS IN THE 21ST CENTURY 305

Table 1. Continued.

PRINCIPAL LOCATION INVESTIGATORS START ONGOING?ADULTS JUVENILES TOTAL ACCESS TO DATA Spain M. Ferrer/Muriel 2003 n 0 13 13 Muriel et al. 2010, Movebank.org Estonia U. Sellis 2006 4 0 4 http://birdmap.5dvision. ee/index.php?lang5en Scotland R. Dennis 2007 y 6 12 18 http://www.roydennis.org/ animals/raptors/osprey/ satellite-tracking/ Norway R. Kroglund 2007 n 0 8 8 None Loch Garten RSBP 2008 y 6 10 16 http://www.rspb.org.uk/ wildlife/tracking/ lochgartenospreys/ Rutland T. Mackrill 2011 n 3 0 3 http://www.ospreys.org.uk/ Wales E. Evans 2011 y 0 4 4 http://dyfiospreyproject. com/meet-the- ospreys/gps-tracking Loch of the Lowes Scottish Highlands 2012 y 6 2 8 http://scottishwildlifetrust. Trust org.uk/things-to-do/ osprey/ Latvia U. Sellis/Kalvans 2012 2 0 2 http://www.luomus.fi/ en/node/1317 Basque Country A. Galarza 2013 y 0 5 5 http://www.birdcenter. org/en/about-us/ urdaibai-ospreys Canary Islands M. Herna´ndez 2013 0 2 2 None Italy, Corsica, A. Sforzi/F. Monti 2013 7 10 17 None Belearics Europe Total 96 98 194 All Ospreys tagged 269 194 463

our attention away from the natural world around contaminants have recently (or are currently) affect- us—is ideally suited to reconnect us to nature. Nest ing Ospreys to any significant extent, and popula- cam websites with chat room sessions led by experi- tions are robust across the range of the species, it still enced researchers are ideal educational vehicles. In- behooves us to continue monitoring their popula- teractive sites tracking satellite-tagged birds are like- tions and blood chemistry for the foreseeable future wise excellent opportunities for outreach. to ensure new challenges to Osprey populations, and Future Research and Management. Although the by extension aquatic ecosystems in general, are de- Osprey has been one of the most studied raptors, tected and addressed in a timely manner. there is a continuing need to advance our under- Population trends and citizen science. Few raptor spe- standing of their ecology. Recent advances in tech- cies are more suited to be a subject of citizen- nology now provide us the opportunity to explore science projects than the Osprey. Although moni- aspects of the complex behaviors and movement toring contaminant levels is important, tracking ecology of Ospreys and other raptors previously be- population trends through simple censuses, often yond our reach. This information is not only valu- heavily reliant on citizen scientists, is as important, able science, but will provide the foundation for because these surveys can point to populations addressing management decisions related to Os- where contaminant studies should be focused. preys today and in the future. New England has the longest running data sets on Environmental contaminants. Ospreys are the ideal population size and reproductive success, and it is ‘‘sentinel species’’ (Grove et al. 2009). Although no important that these programs be maintained. 306 BIERREGAARD ET AL.VOL. 48, NO.4

Table 2. Numbers of young Ospreys released in the U.S.A. from 1980–2013.

STATE YEARS YOUNG RELEASED WEBSITES AND REFERENCESa California 2000–2001 8 http://www.iws.org/species_osprey.html Colorado 1990–1993 57 http://jimtolstrup.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/ ospreys-return-to-nothern-colorado/ Illinois 2013– 5 Iowa 1997–?? 130 http://www.soarraptors.org/osprey.html Kentucky 1981–1991 97 http://fw.ky.gov/Wildlife/Documents/2011OspreyUpdate.pdf Minnesota 1984–1995 144 http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/nongame/success.html Missouri 1995–1998 29 http://mdc.mo.gov/discover-nature/field-guide/osprey New Jersey 1985–1989 37 Clark and Jenkins 1993 New York 1980–1987 30 http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7088.html North Carolina 1982–?? 11 Brown 1983 Ohio 1996–2007? 282 http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/species-and-habitats/ species-guide-index/birds/osprey Pennsylvania 1980–1996 265 Rymon 1989 South Dakota 2003–2010 120 http://gfp.sd.gov/wildlife/management/diversity/ osprey-recovery.aspx Tennessee 1980–1988 165 http://www.tnwatchablewildlife.org/details.cfm?displayhabitat5 water&sort5aounumber&typename5WATER&uid5 09042418462558819&commonname5Osprey Total 1386 a All websites last accessed 1 August 2014.

Continued banding is certainly warranted. Inten- (Poole 1989), and one whose numbers have been sive color-banding in growing populations can dramatically reduced by overfishing (see Bierregaard provide us with insights into the continuing in- et al. 2014). What will happen along the Atlantic crease in the species’ population and range expan- coast of the northeastern U.S. now that actual man- sion. agement of the fishery harvesting has been implement- A review of the results of the reintroduction pro- ed?Wewillonlybeabletoanswerthesequestionsif jects undertaken across North America and Europe we have an adequate data set from a number of differ- would be welcome. Currently, information about ent regions over a substantial time period. these projects has rarely been published in the Migration and movement data. A meta-analysis of peer-reviewed literature, and most of it is buried survival rates and reproductive success of satellite- deep in the grayest of the ‘‘gray’’ literature. tagged Ospreys, both of which seem abnormally Prey. Data on prey species taken should be col- low, is a high priority. Pending the results of such a lected. The legions of nest-cam followers could be review, many data already archived from tagged birds enlisted to record prey species delivered and the remain to be analyzed. This is especially true of birds rate of prey delivery to nests. In 2014, there were outfitted with the new GSM transmitters, which at least 30 Osprey nests streaming online, many of download data via cell towers rather than satellites them with avid watchers noting and discussing ev- and can now register and transmit over 100 000 data erything happening in the nests. Another attractive points per year from one bird. In fact, one high pri- possibility would be coupling automated cameras at ority is to develop statistically valid analytical methods nests with adult males tagged with GSM transmitters to deal with such a daunting stream of data. to identify where fish are being caught and provide There is much science to be done on a remark- insights into foraging strategies. ably charismatic and easy-to-study species. Let’s get Will prey species change with changing global to work! climate and increased pressure on prey species by human fisheries? The Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia ACKNOWLEDGMENTS tyrannus) is one of the Osprey’s preferred prey spe- We thank the American Ornithologists’ Union for host- cies along the northeastern coast of North America ing the Portland symposium, the original authors for DECEMBER 2014 OSPREYS IN THE 21ST CENTURY 307 their patience while we organized this volume, the over- GROVE, R.A., C.J. HENNY, AND J.L. KAISER. 2009. Osprey: seas authors who agreed to contribute papers to it, and a worldwide sentinel species for assessing and monitor- number of our colleagues who graciously reviewed the ing environmental contamination in rivers, lakes, res- papers before we submitted them to The Journal of Raptor Research. Cheryl Dykstra masterfully coordinated the spe- ervoirs, and estuaries. Journal of Toxicology and Environ- cial issue, and she and Ian Warkentin improved all mental Health, Part B 12:25–44. the manuscripts to which they applied their keen edito- HAKE,M.,N.KJELLEN, AND T. ALERSTAM. 2001. Satellite rial eyes. tracking of Swedish Ospreys Pandion haliaetus: autumn migration routes and orientation. Journal of Avian Biol- LITERATURE CITED ogy 32:47–56. ALERSTAM, T., M. HAKE, AND N. KJELLEN. 2006. Temporal HENNY, C.J., R.A. GROVE,J.L.KAISER, AND B.L. JOHNSON. and spatial patterns of repeated migratory journeys by 2010. North American Osprey populations and con- Ospreys. Animal Behaviour 71:555–566. taminants: historic and contemporary perspectives. BENT, A.C. 1937. Life histories of North American birds of Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part B prey. Part 1. Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC 13:579–603. U.S.A. ——— AND W.T. VAN VELZEN. 1972. Migration patterns BIERREGAARD, R.O., JR., A. BEN DAVID,L.GIBSON,R.S.KEN- and wintering localities of American Ospreys. Journal NEDY,A.F.POOLE, M.S. SCHEIBEL, AND J. VICTORIA. 2014. of Wildlife Management 36:1133–1141. Post-DDT recovery of Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) pop- HOUSTON, C.S. AND M.S. MARTELL. 2002. Speedy migration: ulations in southern New England and Long Island, Saskatchewan’s first Osprey satellite transmitter. Blue New York, 1970–2013. Journal of Raptor Research Jay 60:74–79. 48:361–374. KENNEDY, R.S. 1973. Notes on the migration of juvenile BIRD, D.M., N.R. SEYMOUR, AND J.M. GERRARD.[EDS.]. 1983. Ospreys from Maryland and Virginia. Bird Banding Biology and management of Bald Eagles and Ospreys: proceedings of First International Symposium on Bald 44:180–186. Eagles and Ospreys. Harpell Press, Ste. Anne de Belle- KLAASSEN, R.H.G., M. HAKE,R.STRANDBERG, AND T. ALER- vue, Quebec, Canada. STAM. 2011. Geographical and temporal flexibility in BOLT,S.AND T. APPLETON. 2001. Satellite tracking of Scot- the response to crosswinds by migrating raptors. Proceed- tish and translocated Ospreys on migration. Pages ings of the Royal Society B–Biological Sciences 278:1339– 86–89 in Y. Leshem [ED.], Wings over Africa: proceed- 1346. ings of the International Seminar on Bird Migration: LAZARUS, R.S., B.A. RATTNER,B.W.BROOKS,B.DU,P.C. research, conservation, education and flight safety. In- MCGOWAN, V.S. BLAZER, AND M.A. OTTINGER. In press. ternational Center for the Study of Bird Migration, Tel Exposure and food web transfer of pharmaceuticals Aviv, Israel. in Ospreys (Pandion haliaetus): predictive model and BROWN, R.D. 1983. Carolina Raptor Center’s Osprey rein- empirical data. Integrated Environmental Assessment and troduction project in Piedmont, North Carolina. Pages Management. 119–132 in M.A. Westall [ED.], Southeastern U.S. and MARTELL,M.S.,R.O.BIERREGAARD, AND B.E. WASHBURN. Caribbean Osprey Symposium. International Osprey 2014. The spring migration of adult North American Foundation, Sanibel, FL U.S.A. Ospreys. Journal of Raptor Research 48:309–324. CLARK, K.E. AND C.D. JENKINS. 1993. Status of Ospreys nest- ———, C.J. HENNY, P.E. NYE, AND M.J. SOLENSKY. 2001. Fall ing in New Jersey, 1984 through 1993. Records New Jersey migration routes, timing, and wintering sites of North Birds 19:74–77. American Ospreys as determined by satellite telemetry. CUSHING,R.AND B.E. WASHBURN. 2014. Exploring the role Condor 103:715–724. of Ospreys in education. Journal of Raptor Research ———, M.A. MCMILLIAN, M.J. SOLENSKY, AND B.K. MEALEY. 48:414–421. 2004. Partial migration and wintering use of Florida by DENNIS, R. 2008. A life of Ospreys. Whittles Publishing, Ospreys. Journal of Raptor Research 38:55–61. Dunbeath, Scotland. MEHLQUIST,W.AND C. WEST. 2011. Final report: reintro- DENNIS, T.E. AND G.P. CLANCY. 2014. The status of the Os- prey (Pandion haliaetus cristatus) in Australia. Journal of duction of Osprey into suitable sites along the Missouri Raptor Research 48:408–415. River in South Dakota. South Dakota Game, Fish and ELLIOTT, J.E., C.A. MORRISSEY, C.J. HENNY, E.R. INZUNZA, Parks. http://gfp.sd.gov/wildlife/management/diversity/ AND P. SHAW. 2007. Satellite telemetry and prey sam- docs/Osprey-final-report.pdf (last accessed 1 August pling reveal contaminant sources to Pacific Northwest 2014). Ospreys. Ecological Applications 17:1223–1233. MESTRE, L.A.M. AND R.O. BIERREGAARD,JR. 2009. The role GALARZA,A.AND R. DENNIS. 2009. A spring stopover of a of Amazonian rivers for wintering Ospreys (Pandion migratory Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) in northern Spain haliaetus): clues from North American band recoveries as revealed by satellite tracking: implications for conser- in Brazil between 1937 and 2006. Studies on Neotropical vation. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 32:117–122. Fauna and Environment 44:141–147. 308 BIERREGAARD ET AL.VOL. 48, NO.4

MEYBURG, B.-U. AND C. MEYBURG. 2002. Monitoring raptors ———, J. VALKAMA, AND W. VELMALA. 2013. Suomen re- by means of satellite telemetry. Pages 22–32 in R. Yosef, ngastusatlas I: the Finnish bird ringing atlas, Vol. I. M.R. Miller, and D. Pepler [EDS.], Raptors in the new Finnish Museum of Natural History and Ministry of millenium. International Birds and Research Center in Environment, Helsinki, Finland. Eilat, Eilat, Israel. SCHMIDT,D.AND B.-U. MEYBURG. 1998. Forschung an MURIEL, R., M. FERRER,E.CASADO, AND C.P. CALABUIG. 2010. Fischadlern (Pandion haliaetus) im Strelitzer Land. La- First successful breeding of reintroduced Ospreys Pan- bus (Neustrelitz), Neue Reihe 8:22–27. dion haliaetus in mainland Spain. Ardeola 57:175–180. SCHMIDT-ROTHMUND, D., R. DENNIS, AND P. SAUROLA. 2014. OGDEN, J.C. [ED.]. 1977. Transactions of the North Amer- The Osprey in the western palearctic: breeding popu- ican Osprey Research Conference, College of William lation size and trends in the early 21st century. Journal of and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia. National Park Ser- Raptor Research 48:375–386. vice, Washington, DC U.S.A. SPITZER, P.R. 1980. Dynamics of a discrete coastal breeding OSTERLOF, S. 1977. Migration, wintering areas, and site population of Ospreys in the northeastern USA, 1969– tenacity of the European Osprey Pandion h. haliaetus 79. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (L.). Ornis Scandinavica 8:61–78. U.S.A. ———, R.W. RISEBROUGH,W.WALKER,R.HERNANDEZ,A. POOLE, A.F. 1989. Ospreys: a natural and unnatural history. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY U.S.A. POOLE,D.PULESTON, AND I.C.T. NISBET. 1978. Produc- tivity of Ospreys in Connecticut-Long Island increases ——— AND B. AGLER. 1987. Recoveries of Ospreys banded as DDE residues decline. Science 202:333–335. in the United States, 1914–84. Journal of Wildlife Man- STOUT, W.E., V.L. GREENE, AND S. POSTUPALSKY. 2009. Mi- agement 51:148–155. gration routes, reproduction, and lifespan of a translo- ———, R.O. BIERREGAARD, AND M.S. MARTELL. 2002. Osprey cated Osprey. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:203–206. (Pandion haliaetus). In A.F. Poole [ED.], The birds of North U.S.G.S. BIRD BANDING LABORATORY. 2013. North American America online, No. 683. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithol- bird banding and band encounter data set. Patuxent ogy, Ithaca, NY U.S.A. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/ Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD U.S.A. species/683 (last accessed 29 August 2014). WASHBURN, B.E. 2014. Human-Osprey conflicts: industry, ´ ´ RODRIGUEZ-SANTANA, F., Y. SEGOVIA VEGA,M.SANCHEZ PA- utilities, communication, and transportation. Journal ´ ´ DILLA, Y.E. TORRES ADAN,M.SANCHEZ LOSADA,A.MUS- of Raptor Research 48:387–395. TELIER LESCAY, AND Y. RIVERA. 2014. Magnitude and tim- WASHBURN. B.E., M.S. MARTELL, R.O. BIERREGAARD,JR., C.J. ing of autumn Osprey migration in southeastern Cuba. HENNY,B.S.DORR, AND T.J. OLEXA. 2014. Wintering Journal of Raptor Research 48:334–344. ecology of adult North America Ospreys. Journal of Rap- RYMON, L.M. 1989. The restoration of Ospreys, Pandion tor Research 48:325–333. haliaetus, to breeding in Pennsylvania by hacking WESTALL, M.A. [ED.]. 1984. Southeastern U.S. and Carib- (1980–89). Pages 359–362 in B.-U. Meyburg and R.D. bean Osprey Symposium. International Osprey Foun- Chancellor [EDS.], Raptors in the modern world. dation, Sanibel, FL U.S.A. World Working Group on Birds of Prey and Owls Sagg- WIEMEYER, S.N., P.R. SPITZER, W.C. KRANTZ, T.G. LAMONT, ese (WWGBP), Berlin, Germany. AND E. CROMARTIE. 1975. Effects of environmental pol- SAGGESE, M.D., I. ROESLER, AND C.F. MARANO. 2014. Winter- lutants on Connecticut and Maryland Ospreys. Journal ing of Ospreys in Argentina: insights from new records of Wildlife Management 39:124–139. between 1993–2008. Journal of Raptor Research WILEY, J.W., A.F. POOLE, AND N.J. CLUM. 2014. Distribution 48:345–360. and natural history of the Caribbean Osprey (Pandion SAUROLA, P. 1994. African non-breeding areas of Fenno- haliaetus ridgwayi). Journal of Raptor Research 48:396–407. scandian Ospreys Pandion haliaetus: a ring recovery WILSON, A. 1812. American ornithology. Philadelphia, PA analysis. Ostrich 65:127–136. U.S.A. Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 2287e2294

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Review A review of the impacts of nature based recreation on birds

Rochelle Steven, Catherine Pickering*, J. Guy Castley

School of Environment, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, 4222 Australia article info abstract

Article history: Nature based recreation such as wildlife viewing, hiking, running, cycling, canoeing, horse riding and dog Received 29 November 2010 walking can have negative environmental effects. A review of the recreation ecology literature published Received in revised form in English language academic journals identified 69 papers from 1978 to 2010 that examined the effect of 18 April 2011 these activities on birds. Sixty-one of the papers (88%) found negative impacts, including changes in bird Accepted 5 May 2011 physiology (all 11 papers), immediate behaviour (37 out of 41 papers), as well as changes in abundance Available online 2 June 2011 (28 out of 33 papers) and reproductive success (28 out of 33 papers). Previous studies are concentrated in a few countries (United States, England, Argentina and New Zealand), mostly in cool temperate or Keywords: Environmental impacts temperate climatic zones, often in shoreline or wetland habitats, and mostly on insectivore, carnivore Wildlife viewing and crustaceovore/molluscivore foraging guilds. There is limited research in some regions with both high Walking bird diversity and nature based recreation such as mainland Australia, Central America, Asia, and Africa, Hiking and for popular activities such as mountain bike riding and horse riding. It is clear, however, that non- Mountain biking motorised nature based recreation has negative impacts on a diversity of birds from a range of habitats in Horse riding different climatic zones and regions of the world. Non-motorised Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Sustainable tourism

1. Introduction Quantifying the effects of nature based tourism and recreation on birds is a growing area of research in recreation ecology (Liddle, Nature based tourism and recreation, such as the viewing of 1997; Buckley, 2004). A review of the impacts of tourism on birds wildlife, is popular and often occurs in protected areas (Newsome (Buckley, 2004) found much of the research had focused on et al., 2002; Higginbottom, 2004). However, these activities have motorised recreational activities such as off-road vehicles, use of a range of negative environmental effects on fauna, including birds personal water craft and a range of aircraft. In contrast there was (Liddle, 1997; Newsome et al., 2002; Buckley, 2004; Jones and limited research on the impacts of many popular non-motorised Nealson, 2005). Nature based tourism and recreation activities activities such as wildlife viewing, hiking, mountain biking, dog have been found to alter the physiology and immediate behaviour walking and horse riding (Buckley, 2004). of birds (Liddle, 1997; Beale and Monaghan, 2004; Walker et al., This study assesses the current recreation ecology literature on 2006; Lindsay et al., 2008). Physiological responses include the effect of non-motorised nature based recreation on birds. A changes in temperature, heart rate or stress hormone secretion database of English language papers published in academic jour- (Müllner et al., 2004; Thiel et al., 2008). Immediate behavioural nals on this topic was compiled to determine; 1) what methods responses include changes in foraging, vigilance and evasion (Regel have been used to detect effects on birds; 2) which species/families and Putz, 1997; Buckley, 2004). Within bird populations responses of birds have been assessed; 3) what are the responses of birds; 4) can include changes in reproductive success and/or the number or where has the research been conducted; and 5) conversely, which density of birds (Liddle, 1997; Buckley, 2004; Banks and Bryant, locations, habitats and bird taxa are missing from the literature. 2007; Cardoni et al., 2008). For example, many studies have found a reduction in the number of nests built, eggs laid, and chicks 2. Methods hatched or fledged as a result of nature based tourism (Liddle, 1997; Buckley, 2004; Müllner et al., 2004; Liley and Sutherland, 2007). Research papers published in English language journals on the impacts of non-motorised nature based recreation on birds were obtained by searching electronic databases of scientific and tourism journals including; Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Science * Corresponding author. Fax: 61 7 5552 8067. þ E-mail addresses: r.steven@griffith.edu.au (R. Steven), c.pickering@griffith.edu. Direct from July to September 2010. Keywords used for the searches au (C. Pickering), g.castley@griffith.edu.au (J. Guy Castley). were ‘bird’ and a combination of the following terms; ‘trail’, ‘track’,

0301-4797/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.05.005 2288 R. Steven et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 2287e2294

‘walking’, ‘hiking’, ‘impact’, ‘disturbance’, ‘mountain bike’, ‘effect’, Table 1 ‘dog walking’, ‘horse riding’, ‘ecotourism’, ‘tourism’ and ‘recreation’. Number of published studies (1978e2010) that examined the impacts of non- motorised nature based recreation on birds. This study did not look at other non-motorised nature based tourism and recreation activities that involve people deliberately Category Total Negative No Effect altering bird behaviour such as bird feeding. There is separate effect /Positive literature on bird feeding, including studies examining impacts on All studies 69 61 8 birds (Orams, 2002; Green and Giese, 2004). Protected area 50 44 6 Threatened species examined 26 24 2 Only papers describing the results of original research on the Method impact of these types of non-motorised nature based recreation Observation 44 40 4 activities that had been peer reviewed and published in academic Experimental 31 27 4 journals were included. Review papers along with reports and Disturbed/undisturbed or 36 30 6 control site other types of grey literature were not included in the database. The Human activity fi rst articles to appear in the searches on many of these databases Standing/observing 15 14 1 tend to be the most recently published. Therefore, the reference Touring/walking/hiking 51 45 6 lists of articles were also used to find additional academic papers Running 66 along with the reference lists in books on ecotourism and recrea- Cycling/mountain bike riding 33 Canoeing 33 tion ecology and review papers, as well as personal communication Dog walking 11 11 with other researchers. Horse riding From each paper examining the effects of non-motorised nature Size of group undertaking activity based recreation or tourism on birds, the following information was One person 40 37 3 Two or more people 47 41 6 recorded in a database; author, year of publication, country where Individual level response in birds research was conducted, journal published in, methods used in the Behaviour 41 37 4 paper, individual and population level responses of birds examined, Physiological 11 11 type of habitat and information about the bird(s) studied Population level response in birds (Tables 1,2, Appendix 1). Methods were classified as observational Numerical/density 33 28 5 Reproductive 33 28 5 or experimental, if they compared disturbed and undisturbed areas, Climatic region or had control sites for experimental studies. Activities were Polar 33 recorded as standing/observing wildlife, walking/hiking, running, Subantarctic 4 mountain biking, canoeing, dog walking and horse riding. The size Cool temperate 30 25 5 Dry 87 1 of the group engaged in the activity was recorded (one person or Warm temperate 17 17 two or more). Details of the location of the research were recorded Tropical 75 2 (country and ecozone) including if it was undertaken in a protected General habitat type area, the broad climatic region of the location (e.g. Polar, Subant- Coniferous forest 64 2 arctic, Cool Temperate, Dry, Warm Temperate and Tropical) (Miller, Shoreline 24 23 1 Montane 54 1 2007) and habitat type(s) (e.g. shoreline, wetlands, grassland, Grassland, savanna or shrublands 5 5 savanna, desert or arid shrublands, coniferous forest, deciduous Wetlands 98 1 forest, broad-leaved evergreen forest, rainforest, heathland or Desert or arid shrublands 22 shrublands, montane, or assorted, as stated in each paper Deciduous forest 55 Rainforest 43 1 reviewed). The number and name (common and scientific) of all Broad-leaved evergreen forest 21 1 the bird species examined was recorded. The conservation status of Heathland 54 1 the birds was classified as threatened if the study examined Assorted 11 a species that is listed on the IUCN threatened species list, or if it Foraging guild stated the species was threatened in the paper. Birds were assigned Carnivore 19 17 2 Frugivore 1 1 to a foraging guild (Carnivore, Frugivore, Granivore, Insectivore, Granivore 66 Scavenger, Folivore, Crustaceovore/molluscivores, Nectarivore, Insectivore 26 24 2 Omnivore) based on information in the paper or from the general Scavenger 54 1 bird literature. Folivore 22 Crustaceovore/molluscivores 15 15 Based on previous reviews of the impacts on birds (Liddle, 1997; Nectarivore 1 1 Buckley, 2004), the response of birds was assigned as either an Omnivore 86 2 individual response (physiological or behavioural), or population level response (density/abundance) or reproductive response (number of nests, number eggs laid, number of chicks that hatched an experimental methodology (Table 1). Forty-three of the papers or fledged). The database was then analysed using simple looked at effects on a single species of bird, 11 looked at several descriptive methods to detect patterns in the papers reviewed. species simultaneously and 15 looked at the birds from a guild or community perspective (e.g. ducks, forest birds, frugivores) 3. Results (Appendix 1). Although research has been conducted in 25 coun- tries/locations most papers are from the United States (17 papers), Sixty-nine journal articles were identified that examined the England (ten papers), Argentina (five papers) and New Zealand impacts of non-motorised nature based recreation on birds. Nearly (five papers) (Table 2). This pattern reflects a bias in studies to areas all papers were published in conservation or ecology journals with with lower species richness in general, while there was a lack of the majority published between 2000 and 2010 (Table 2). Based on effort in avian hotspots such as the Afrotropical, Indomalayan and the methods sections, 50 papers were conducted in protected areas Australasian ecozones (Table 3). (reserves/national parks) and 26 examined threatened birds Recreation was reported to have negative effects on birds in 61 (Table 1). Over half (44 papers) used observational methods, 36 papers (88%), with only seven papers reporting no effect on birds, compared disturbed with undisturbed or control sites, and 31 used and one a positive effect (Table 1). Papers assessing immediate R. Steven et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 2287e2294 2289

Table 2 Table 2 (continued). Details of the 69 studies examining the impacts of non-motorised nature based recreation on birds. Authors (year) Location Journal

Authors (year) Location Journal Thiel et al. (2008) Germany Journal of Applied Ecology Negative effect studies Van Der Zande Netherlands Ardea Aben et al. (2008) Bolivia Bird Conservation and Verstrael (1985) International Verhulst et al. (2001) Netherlands Biological Conservation Anderson and Keith (1980) United States Biological Conservation Walker et al. (2006) Argentina Conservation Biology Arroyo and Razin (2006) France Biological Conservation Weimerskirch et al. (2002) Crozet Islands Journal of Experimental Aubad et al. (2010) Colombia Acta Oecologica Biology Banks and Bryant (2007) Australia Biology Letters Yalden (1992) England Biological Conservation Baudains and Lloyd (2007) South Africa Animal Conservation Yalden and Yalden (1990) England Biological Conservation Beale and Monaghan (2004) Scotland Journal of Applied Yasue (2005) Canada Journal of Ethology Ecology Yasue and Dearden (2006) Thailand Journal of Applied Burger and Gochfeld (1998) United States Environmental Ecology Conservation Zuberogoitia et al. (2008) Egypt Animal Conservation Burger and Gochfeld (2007) Antarctica Polar Biology No-effect or positive Cardoni et al. (2008) Argentina Biological Conservation effect studies Ellenberg et al. (2007) New Zealand General and Baines and England Ibis Comparative Richardson (2007) Endocrinology Bouton et al. (2005) Brazil Waterbirds Fernández-Juricic (2000) Spain Condor Lefevre and Rodd (2009) West Indies Oikos Fernández-Juricic and Spain Bird Study Lindsay et al. (2008) New Zealand Tourism Management Tellería (2000) Marzluff and United States Biological Conservation Fernández-Juricic Spain Environmental Neatherlin (2006),a et al. (2001) Conservation Ratz and Thompson (1999) New Zealand Marine Ornithology Fernández-Juricic Argentina Biological Conservation Riffell et al. (1996) United States Ecological Applications et al. (2004) Watson (1988) Scotland Biological Conservation Finney et al. (2005) England Biological Conservation Fowler (1999) Argentina Biological Conservation a Only study where birds increased in abundance in the presence of human Guillemain et al. (2007) France Biodiversity tourism. Conservation Gutzwiller and United States Condor Anderson (1999) behaviour (41 papers) found negative effects in 90% of studies. Gutzwiller et al. (1998) United States Condor Negative effects were observed in all 11 papers on physiology Heil et al. (2007) Argentina Biodiversity (Table 1). Numerical responses were found to be negative in 28 Conservation papers, while five studies found no effect. The effects on repro- Holm and Laursen (2009) Denmark Ibis ductive success (33 papers) were mostly negative (85%) with only Holmes (2007) Macquarie Island Journal of Wildlife fi Management ve reporting no effect on birds. Negative effects have been Holmes et al. (1993) United States Wildlife Society recorded for 70 individual species of birds of which 24 are threat- Bulletin ened species (Table 1, Appendix 1). Holmes et al. (2005) Macquarie Island Biological Conservation The seven studies that found no effect on birds included; a paper Holmes et al. (2006) Macquarie Island Polar Biology Charadrius morinellus Karp and Root (2009) Peru Biodiversity on the Eurasian Dotterel ( ) in Scotland Conservation (Watson, 1988), one paper in England on the Black Grouse (Tetrao Kerbiriou et al. (2009) France Journal of Applied tetrix)(Baines and Richardson, 2007), two papers in New Zealand, Ecology one on Yellow-eyed Penguins (Megadyptes antipodes)(Ratz and Kight and Swaddle (2007) United States Biological Conservation Thompson, 1999) and another on the Stitchbird (Notiomystis Lafferty (2001) United States Biodiversity and Conservation cincta)(Lindsay et al., 2008), one paper in the United States on Langston et al. (2007) England Ibis Passerines (Riffell et al., 1996), one paper from Brazil assessing Liley and Sutherland (2007) England Ibis Wood Storks (Mycteria americana)(Bouton et al., 2005) and one Lord et al. (2001) New Zealand Biological Conservation paper in the West Indies examining Frugivores (Lefevre and Rodd, Madsen et al. (2009) Svalbard Polar Research Mallord et al. (2007) England Journal of Applied 2009)(Appendix 1). Of these studies, three examined bird abun- Ecology dance; four examined behavioural changes; four examined nesting McClung et al. (2004) New Zealand Biological Conservation success and two examined evasion responses. The one paper that McGowan and United States Wilson Journal found a positive effect examined Corvids in the United States and Simons (2006) of Ornithology Miller et al. (1998) United States Ecological Applications Mullner} et al. (2004) Ecuador Biological Conservation Table 3 Murison et al. (2007) England Ibis Comparison of the concentration of research on impacts of nature-based recreation Pearce-Higgins et al. (2007) England Ibis on birds compared to global avian species richness. Bird richness data sourced from Randler (2006) Germany European Journal of Newton (2003). The research index is a measure of the ratio of relative research Wildlife Research effort to relative richness. Rees et al. (2005) Scotland Biological Conservation Regel and Pütz (1997) Antarctica Polar Biology Ecozones Number Bird Species Relative Relative Research Rodgers and Smith (1995) United States Conservation Biology of papers Richness richness (%) effort (%) index Ruhlen et al. (2003) United States Journal of Field Palearctic 25 937 8.78 36.23 4.12 Ornithology Nearctic 21 732 6.86 30.43 4.43 Sabine et al. (2008) United States Waterbirds Neotropical 11 3370 31.60 15.94 0.50 Skagen et al. (1991) United States Ecological Applications Australasian 6 1590 14.91 8.70 0.58 Smith-Castro and United States Journal of Field Antarctic 4 200 1.88 5.80 3.09 Rodewald (2010) Ornithology Afrotropical 1 1950 18.28 1.45 0.08 Stalmaster and United States Journal of Wildlife Indomalayan 1 1700 15.94 1.45 0.09 Newman (1978) Management Oceanic 0 187 1.75 0.00 0.00 Taylor et al. (2007) England Ibis 2290 R. Steven et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 2287e2294 found an increase in bird abundance in campgrounds (Marzluff and 4. Discussion Neatherlin, 2006)(Table 1). The most frequent non-motorised recreation activity examined 4.1. Impacts on birds was walking or hiking (74%), with 45 papers finding negative effects of these activities on birds (Table 1). The second most Non-motorised nature based tourism and recreation, like commonly assessed activities were standing or observing birds motorised activities, has a range of negative effects on a wide range (viewing platforms, standing next to a nesting colony), examined of bird species (Liddle, 1997; Buckley, 2004). Since the book chapter in 15 papers, 14 of which found negative effects on the birds. Dog by Buckley (2004), more than 40 academic journal papers on the walking had a negative effect in all 11 papers that examined it. impacts of non-motorised tourism and recreation have been pub- Running (6 papers), cycling/mountain biking (3) and canoeing (3 lished (2003e2010). This reflects the continued interest in assess- papers) all had negative effects although there were few papers ing this area of recreation ecology. Despite the increased research examining these activities (Table 1). None of the 69 papers iden- on this issue, the current analysis clearly shows that data are still tified in the searches looked specifically at the effect of horse riding limited for many locations, habitat types, bird groups and types of on birds. Forty studies looked at the effect of a single person, of recreational activities. Of the academic papers analysed here, 14 which 37 found negative effects, and three found no effect were also reviewed by Buckley (2004), most of which were pub- (Table1). Forty-seven studies looked at groups of two or more lished pre-2000. The results of the current review are consistent people of which 41 found negative effects and six found no effect with reviews of other types of human disturbance that were found (Table 1). to have a range of effects including on bird behaviour, distribution Research was concentrated in a few climatic regions and reproductive success and demographic and population responses habitats. Most papers were from cool temperate (30 papers) and (Hockin et al., 1992; Gill, 2007). warm temperate (17 papers) regions, with few in the polar, Human disturbances regimes vary in duration, intensity and subantarctic, dry and tropical zones (three, four, eight and seven periodicity which will alter the significance of their impacts on papers, respectively) (Table 1). In terms of habitat, the majority of wildlife (Steidl and Powell, 2006). For example, being approached the papers described research conducted in shoreline (24 papers) by a person may trigger a change in the behaviour or physiological and wetland habitats (9 papers). Of these, only two papers found processes in a bird (e.g. flight responses or increased heart rate). no effect of recreation on birds. There were fewer papers from Although these responses tend to be short in duration they can other habitats including coniferous forests, montane, grassland, have longer term effects as is the case of breeding birds being savanna or shrublands, desert or arid shrublands, deciduous flushed from nests leaving eggs or chicks vulnerable to predation forests, rainforest, broad-leaved evergreen forests and heathlands (Lord et al., 2001; Guillemain et al., 2007). In areas that are subject (Table 1). to frequent human disturbance, a reduction in breeding perfor- The most commonly examined foraging guilds were insectivores, mance or the number of breeding sites may occur, which can have carnivores and crustaceovores/molluscivores with 34 papers long term negative effect on populations (Pearce-Higgins et al., examining at least one of these with only one paper each for nec- 2007). Although making a direct link between human distur- tarivores and frugivores (Table 1). These were also two of the papers bance and population level effects can be difficult (Bejder et al., that reported no effect fromwalking/hiking activities. All papers that 2009), the relative importance of a negative effect can be pre- examined granivores, folivores or crustaceovores/molluscivores sented using a hierarchical model, whereby the significance of an reported negative effects from the activities assessed. effect will differ dependent on the scale of the disturbance (Fig. 1).

Significant e.g. high intensity, long Breeding response duration activities Habitat suitability Habitat response Range use Range response

Behavioural response e.g. habitat impacts Ecological significance Ecological

Physiological response e.g. approaching birds

e.g. short term noise Benign L wo iH gh Level of Human Disturbance

Fig. 1. Conceptual relationship between level of human disturbance which is a function of activity, its duration, intensity, extent and timing, and the likely ecological significance of its effects on bird populations. R. Steven et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 2287e2294 2291

Here we propose that the ecological significance of the disturbance The Australian paper found a reduction in the abundance in birds response would be a function of the duration, intensity and extent on trails in forests used by walkers and dogs on the outskirts of the of the disturbance. Within each of these stages there are also likely largest city, Sydney (Banks and Bryant, 2007). Yet Australia is a bird to be differences in individual versus population level responses biodiversity hotspot with over 800 species recorded, many of dependent on a range of characteristics such as the species in which are endemic parrots and honeyeaters (Simpson and Day, question, age, sex, size, condition, reproductive status, availability 2004) and nature based recreation is popular (Jones and Nealson, of alternative habitat and disturbance history (Gill et al., 2001; 2005). Bejder et al., 2009). There is limited research on the impacts of non-motorised The current literature about impacts on birds is dominated by recreation on important guilds of birds such as nectarivores and papers that have found negative effects associated with tourism frugivores, and only one paper examined impacts on each of these and recreation (Liddle, 1997; Buckley, 2004). There are different guilds in our review. Nectarivores and frugivores assume important possible reasons why eight of the 69 academic papers analysed ecological roles in many communities, for both pollination and seed here found no effect on birds. First, it could be because there was no dispersal (Paton and Ford, 1976; Stocker and Irvine, 1983; Moran effect of the specific activities on the traits examined in the bird et al., 2009). The disturbance of birds through recreational activi- species studied. Second, there may have been a negative effect but ties may be an important contributory factor affecting these it was not detected due to methodological issues such as the ecological processes. Local human disturbance can modify the number of replicates used compared to the amount of variation in foraging behaviour of bird species, including frugivores (Kirika the traits measured. That is, there was a significant effect, but the et al., 2008). Any activity that affects bird’s searching or handling research required more statistical power to detect a significant time could impact on the birds capacity to feed on certain fruits result e.g. type 1 error (Zar, 1996). Third, the response variable (Martin, 1985), particularly in areas that are heavily utilised for examined (behaviour versus physiology) may not have revealed the tourism or recreation. actual response of the bird or its longer term population level A wide range of methods and approaches have been used to effects. For example, all 11 papers examining physiological research the effects of nature based tourism and recreation on birds responses found a negative response, while four of the 41 papers (Liddle, 1997; Buckley, 2004). This combined with the gaps in that looked at behavioural responses found no effect. Physiological research in terms of groups of birds, locations and types of activities responses may occur at lower levels of disturbance, compared to assessed, limits the capacity to make direct comparisons among behavioural responses in wildlife, including birds (Liddle, studies (Liddle, 1997; Buckley, 2004). The development of a few 1997)(Fig. 1). standardised methods for assessing impacts on birds would assist Where there is a significant change in bird responses to in the capacity to make generalisations about the relative sensi- a specific effect, it can sometimes be difficult to determine if the tivity of different groups of birds, and for different types of activi- effect is positive, negative or neutral. For example, an increase in ties. However, selection of easily assessed responses can be the abundance of Corvids near a campground (Marzluff and complicated, as short term effects may not reflect longer term Neatherlin, 2006), may be positive in the short term, and may population level responses to disturbance (Gill et al., 2001; Steidl also be confined to this group of species (i.e. commensal with and Powell, 2006). humans). However, its long term effects may be positive, negative or neutral, particularly on other avian species within the commu- nity. Correspondingly, a decline in the abundance of predatory 4.3. Management implications birds due to tourism and recreation, as was found by Skagen et al. (1991), could have short term positive effects on its subordinate For managers of protected areas and other nature based recre- or prey species. Even such commonly assessed responses of birds to ation destinations the most important results of this review is that human disturbance as avoidance behaviour may reflect the relative even relatively ‘low’ impact activities such as walking or hiking availability of alternative habitats, rather than the actual fitness where visitors do not deliberately disturb animals can have nega- costs to the birds (Gill et al., 2001). tive effects on birds ranging from changes in physiology to reduced reproductive success. Therefore, when zoning, providing facilities, 4.2. Limits of current research and managing the use of facilities, they need to take into account the source, range and intensity of potential impacts and methods to The geographical spread of research identified in the current manage these impacts (Hill et al., 1997) that address short and long review does not correspond well with bird diversity or with areas term responses (Steidl and Powell, 2006). As such managers may that may experience high levels of non-motorised nature based need to reduce the use of some areas all the time or at critical times recreation activities. While the United States, Europe and South such as nesting and fledging, limit the number of users to small America have been reported on extensively, research from coun- groups, and/or limit the types of activities particularly those that tries in Central America, Asia, Africa and mainland Australia is are likely to have greater impacts such as dog walking (Buckley, almost completely absent. There were few studies of recreational 2004). impacts for three ecozones with high bird species richness; Indo- When one considers that visitation of many protected areas is malayan, Afrotropical and Australasian (Table 3). The only paper for the express purpose of engaging with wildlife, including birds, that examined the effects on birds in the Afrotropical ecozone the potential for wildlife disturbance is likely to be greater in these looked at shorebird breeding performance in South Africa regions. Furthermore, bird watching is increasing as a global (Baudains and Lloyd, 2007). However, nature based tourism, recreational activity (Cordell and Herbert, 2002). Consequently, the including bird tourism, is a large part of many economies in relative effects on birds, particularly where approached on foot, or southern and eastern Africa, which are areas of high bird diversity where observers spend a considerable amount of time viewing (Lindsey et al., 2005; Hawkins et al., 2007). For the Indomalayan birds from vantage points within the natural habitat, require ecozone, there was one paper which looked at the effect of tourism further investigation. Calls for empirical evidence of the impacts of developments on the habitats of Malaysian plovers in Thailand such bird watching activities have previously been made (Yasue and Dearden, 2006). For the Australasian region there were (S¸ekercioglu,! 2002), and while there are an increasing body of five papers in New Zealand, but only one from mainland Australia. research on this topic, there are still important gaps. 2292 R. Steven et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 2287e2294

4.4. Conclusions Appendix 1 (continued).

Author (year) Scientific Common name(s) The database of academic papers produced in this review is far name(s)/Groups from complete, as it concentrated on recent research published in Negative effect academic journals in English. However, based on the results of this and previous reviews of recreation and ecotourism impacts on Gutzwiller et al., 1998 Passerines Perching Birds Heil et al., 2007 passerines (45 species) Perching Birds birds (Liddle, 1997; Buckley, 2004), it still appears that non- Holmes, 2007 Pygoscelis papua, Penguins motorised recreation activities have a range of negative effects on Aptenodytes patagonia, birds, but there remain large research gaps on this topic. This Eudyptes schlegeli includes for certain groups of birds such as nectarivores and Holmes et al., 1993 Falcinoformes Grassland Raptor Holmes et al., 2005 Eudyptes schlegeli Royal Penguin frugivores, for popular activities like mountain bike riding and Holmes et al., 2006 Pygoscelis papua Gentoo Penguin horse riding, and locations with high bird diversity and high levels Karp and Root, 2009 Opisthocomus hoazin Hoatzin of nature based tourism like Asia, central America, Africa and Kerbiriou et al., 2009 Pyrrhocorax Chough mainland Australia. pyrrhocorax Kight and Swaddle, 2007 Sialia sialis Eastern Bluebird Lafferty, 2001 Many Shorebirds, Gulls and Terns, Landbirds Langston et al., 2007 Caprimulgus europaeus European Nightjar Acknowledgements Liley and Sutherland, 2007 Charadrius hiaticula Ringed Plover Lord et al., 2001 Charadrius obscurus New Zealand Dotterel The authors thank Clare Morrison, and four anonymous aquilonius reviewers for their valuable comments on this paper. Madsen et al., 2009 Anser brachyrhynchus, Pink-footed Goose, Branta leucopsis, Barnacle Goose, Branta bernicla hrota Brant Goose Mallord et al., 2007 Lullula arborea Woodlark McClung et al., 2004 Megadyptes antipodes Yellow-eyed Penguin Appendix 1 McGowan and Haematopus palliatus American Oystercatcher Sources and respective species or guild studied. Simons, 2006 Miller et al., 1998 Passerines Perching Birds fi Author (year) Scienti c Common name(s) Mullner} et al., 2004 Opisthocomus hoazin Hoazin name(s)/Groups Murison et al., 2007 Sylvia undata Dartford Warbler Negative effect Pearce-Higgins Pluvalis apricaria, Golden Plover, Dunlin Aben et al., 2008 Many Perching Birds et al., 2007 Calidris alpina Anderson and Keith, 1980 Larus heermanni, Heerman’s Gulls, Randler, 2006 Fulica atra Coot Pelecanus occidentalis Brown Pelican Rees et al., 2005 Cygnus c. cygnus Whooper Swan calijornicus Regel and Putz, 1997 Aptenodytes forsteri Emperor Penguin Arroyo and Razin, 2006 Gypaetus barbatus Bearded Vulture Rodgers and Smith, 1995 Pelecaniformes, Pelicans, Storks, Aubad et al., 2010 Many Forest Birds Ciconiiformes, Cormorants, Waders Banks and Bryant, 2007 Many Perching Birds Charadriiformes Baudains and Lloyd, 2007 Charadrius marginatus White-fronted Plover Ruhlen et al., 2003 Charadrius alexandrinus Snowy Plover Beale and Monaghan, 2004 Rissa tridactyla, Kittiwake, Guillemot Sabine et al., 2008 Haematopus palliatus American Oystercatcher Uria aalge Skagen et al., 1991 Haliaeetus leucocephalus, Bald Eagle, Burger and Gochfeld, 1998 Gallinula chloropus, Common Gallinule, Corvus brachyrhynchos, American Crow, Porzana carolina, Sora Rail, Glossy Ibis, Larus glaucescens Glaucous-winged Gull Plegadis falcinellus, Little Blue Heron, Smith-Castro and Cardinalis cardinalis Northern Cardinals Egretta caerulea, Louisiana Heron Rodewald, 2010 E. tricolour Stalmaster and Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle Burger and Gochfield, 2007 Aptenodytes forsteri Emperor Penguin Newman, 1978 Cardoni et al., 2008 Anatidae, Rallidae, Ducks, Swans, Rails, Taylor et al., 2007 Burhinus oedicnemus Stone-curlew Podicipedidae, Coots, Grebes, Herons, Thiel et al., 2008 Tetrao urogallus Western Capercaillie Ciconiiformes, Ibis, Egret, Van der Zande Falco tinnunculus Kestrel Passeriformes Perching Birds and Verstrael, 1985 Ellenberg et al., 2007 Megadyptes antipodes Yellow-eyed Penguin Verhulst et al., 2001 Haematopus ostralegus European Oystercatcher Eske Holm and Limosa limosa Black-tailed Godwit Walker et al., 2006 Spheniscus magellanicus Magellinic Penguin Laursen, 2009 Weimerskirch et al., 2002 Diomedea exulans Wandering Albatross Fernández-Juricic, 2000 Pica pica, Magpie, Blackbird, Yalden, 1992 Actitis hypoleucos Common Sandpiper Turdus merula, Starling, Wood Pigeon Yalden and Yalden, 1990 Pluvialis apricaria Golden Plover Sturnus unicolour, Yasue, 2005 Charadrius semipalmatus, Semi-palmated Plover, Columba palmbus Calidris minutilla Least Sandpiper Fernández-Juricic and Turdus merula Blackbird Yasue and Dearden, 2006 Charadrius peronii Malaysian Plover Tellería, 2000 Zuberogoitia et al., 2008 Neophron percnopterus Egyptian Vulture Fernández-Juricic Passerdomesticus, House Sparrow, No-effect or positive effect et al., 2001 Turdus merula, Blackbird, Wood Pigeon, Baines and Tetrao tetrix Black Grouse Columba palumbus, Magpie Richardson, 2007 Pica pica Bouton et al., 2005 Mycteria americana Wood Stork Fernández-Juricic Zonotrichia capensis, Bay Winged Cowbird, Lefevre and Rodd, 2009 Frugivore Fruit-eating Birds et al., 2004 Molothrus badius, Golden-billed Saltator, Lindsay et al., 2008 Notiomystis cincta Stitchbird Turdus chiguanco, Chiguanco Thrush, Marzluff and Corvids Corvids ,a Columba palumbus Wood Pigeon Neatherlin, 2006 Finney et al., 2005 Pluvialis apricaria Golden Plover Ratz and Megadyptes antipodes Yellow-eyed Penguin Fowler, 1999 Spheniscus Magellinic Penguin Thompson, 1999 magellanicus Riffell et al., 1996 Passerines Perching Birds Guillemain et al., 2007 Anas spp. Ducks Watson, 1988 Charadrius morinellus Eurasian Dotterel Gutzwiller and Parus gambeli, Mountain Chickadee, a Only study where birds increased in abundance in the presence of human Anderson, 1999 Turdus migratorius, American Robin, tourism. Catharus guttatus Hermit Thrush R. Steven et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 2287e2294 2293

References Higginbottom, K. (Ed.), 2004. Wildlife Tourism: Impacts, Management and Plan- ning. Common Ground Publishing, Melbourne. Hill, D., Hockin, D., Price, D., Tucker, G., Morris, R., Treweek, J., 1997. Bird distur- Aben, J., Dorenbosch, M., Herzog, S.K., Smolders, A.J.P., Van der Velde, G., 2008. bance: improving the quality and utility of disturbance research. Journal of Human disturbance affects a deciduous forest bird community in the Andean Applied Ecology 34, 275e288. foothills of Central Bolivia. Bird Conservation International 18, 363e380. Hockin, D., Ounsted, M., Gorman, M., Hill, D., Keller, V., Barker, M.A., 1992. Exami- Anderson, D.W., Keith, J.O., 1980. The human influence on seabird nesting success: nation of the effects of disturbance on birds with reference to its importance in conservation implications. Biological Conservation 18, 65e80. ecological assessments. Journal of Environmental Management 36, 253e286. Arroyo, B., Razin, M., 2006. Effect of human activities on bearded vulture behaviour Holm, E.T., Laursen, K., 2009. Experimental disturbance by walkers affects behaviour and breeding success in the French Pyrenees. Biological Conservation 128, and territory density of nesting black-tailed Godwit. Limosa limosa.Ibis151,77e87. 276e284. Holmes, N.D., 2007. Comparing King, Gentoo, and Royal penguin responses to Aubad, J., Aragón, P., Rodríguez, M.Á, 2010. Human access and landscape structure pedestrian visitation. Journal of Wildlife Management 71, 2575e2582. effects on Andean forest bird richness. Acta Oecologica 36, 396e402. Holmes, T.L., Knight, R.L., Stegall, L., Craig, G.R., 1993. Responses of wintering Baines, D., Richardson, M., 2007. An experimental assessment of the potential grassland raptors to human disturbance. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21, 461e468. effects of human disturbance on Black Grouse Tetrao tetrix in the North Pen- Holmes, N., Giese, M., Kriwoken, L.K., 2005. Testing the minimum approach distance nines, England. Ibis 149, 56e64. guidelines for incubating Royal penguins Eudyptes schlegeli. Biological Conser- Banks, P.B., Bryant, J.V., 2007. Four-legged friend or foe? Dog walking displaces vation 126, 339e350. native birds from natural areas. Biology Letters 3, 611e613. Holmes, N.D., Giese, M., Achurch, H., Robinson, S., Kriwoken, L.K., 2006. Behaviour Baudains, T.P., Lloyd, P., 2007. Habituation and habitat changes can moderate the and breeding success of gentoo penguins Pygoscelis papua in areas of low and impacts of human disturbance on shorebird breeding performance. Animal high human activity. Polar Biology 29, 399e412. Conservation 10, 400e407. Jones, D., Nealson, T., 2005. Impacts of Bird Watching on Communities and Species: Beale, C.M., Monaghan, P., 2004. Human disturbance: people as predation-free Long-term and Short-term Responses in Rainforest and Eucalypt Habitats. predators? Journal of Applied Ecology 41, 335e343. Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism, Gold Coast, Australia. Bejder, L., Samuels, A., Whitehead, H., Finn, H., Allen, S., 2009. Impact assessment Opisthocomus hoazin research: use and misuse of habituation, sensitisation and tolerance in Karp, D.S., Root, T.L., 2009. Sound the stressor: how Hoatzin ( ) react to ecotourist conversation. Biodiversity Conservation 18, 3733e3742. describing wildlife responses to anthropogenic stimuli. Marine Ecology Prog- Kerbiriou, C., Le Viol, I., Robert, A., Porcher, E., Gourmelon, F., Julliard, R., 2009. ress Series 395, 177e185. Tourism in protected areas can threaten wild populations: from individual Bouton, S.N., Frederick, P.C., Rocha, C.D., Barbosa Dos Santos, A.T., Bouton, T.C., 2005. response to population viability of the chough Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax. Journal Effects of tourist disturbance on wood stork nesting success and breeding of Applied Ecology 46, 657e665. behaviour in the Brazilian Pantanal. Waterbirds 28, 487e497. Kight, C.R., Swaddle, J.P., 2007. Associations of anthropogenic activity and distur- Buckley, R., 2004. Impacts of ecotourism on birds. In: Buckley, R. (Ed.), Environ- bance with fitness metrics of eastern bluebirds (Sialia sialis). Biological mental Impacts of Ecotourism. CAB International, Cambridge, pp. 187e209. Conservation 138, 189e197. Burger, J., Gochfeld, M., 1998. Effects of ecotourists on bird behaviour at Loxahatchee Kirika, J.M., Farwig, N., Bohning-Gaese, K., 2008. Effects of local disturbance of national wildlife Refuge, Florida. Environmental Conservation 25, 13e21. tropical forests on frugivores and seed removal of a small-seeded afrotropical Burger, J., Gochfeld, M., 2007. Responses of Emperor Penguins (Aptenodytes forsteri) tree. Conservation Biology 22, 318e328. to encounters with ecotourists while commuting to and from their breeding Lafferty, K.D., 2001. Birds at a Southern Californian beach: seasonality, habitat use colony. Polar Biology 30, 1303e1313. and disturbance by human activity. Biodiversity and Conservation 10, Cardoni, D.A., Favero, M., Isacch, J.P., 2008. Recreational activities affecting the 1949e1962. habitat use by birds in Pampa’s wetlands, Argentina: implications for waterbird Langston, R.H.W., Liley, D., Woodfield, E., Clarke, R.T., 2007. What effects do walkers conservation. Biological Conservation 141, 797e806. and dogs have on the distribution and productivity of breeding European Cordell, H.K., Herbert, N.G., 2002. The popularity of birding is still growing. Birding nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus? Ibis 149, 27e36. 34, 54e59. Lefevre, K.L., Rodd, F.H., 2009. How human disturbance of tropical rainforest can Ellenberg, U., Setiawan, A.N., Cree, A., Houston, A.M., Seddon, P.J., 2007. Elevated influence avian fruit removal. Oikos 118, 1405e1415. hormonal stress response and reduced reproductive output in yellow-eyed Liddle, M., 1997. Recreation Ecology. Chapman and Hall, London. penguins exposed to unregulated tourism. General and Comparative Endocri- Liley, D., Sutherland, W.J., 2007. Predicting the population consequences of human nology 152, 54e63. disturbance for ringed plovers Charadrius hiaticula: a game theory approach. Fernández-Juricic, E., 2000. Local and regional effects of pedestrians on forest birds Ibis 149, 82e94. in a fragmented landscape. Condor 102, 247e255. Lindsay, K., Craig, J., Low, M., 2008. Tourism and conservation: the effects of track Fernández-Juricic, E., Jimienez, M.D., Lucas, E., 2001. Alert distance as an alternative proximity on avian reproductive success and nest selection in an open sanc- measure of bird tolerance to human disturbance: implications for park design. tuary. Tourism Management 29, 730e739. Environmental Conservation 28, 263e269. Lindsey, P.A., Alexander, R.R., du Toit, J.T., Mills, M.G.L., 2005. The potential contri- Fernández-Juricic, E., Tellería, J.L., 2000. Effects of human disturbance on spatial and bution of ecotourism to African wild dog Lycaon pictus conservation in South temporal feeding patterns of blackbird Turdus merula in urban parks in Madrid, Africa. Biological Conservation 123, 339e348. Spain. Bird Study 47, 13e21. Lord, A., Waas, J.R., Innes, J., Whittingham, M.J., 2001. Effects of human approaches to Fernández-Juricic, E., Vaca, R., Schroeder, N., 2004. Spatial and temporal responses nests of northern New Zealand dotterels. Biological Conservation 98, 233e240. of forest birds to human approaches in a protected area and implications for Madsen, J., Tombre, I., Eide, N.E., 2009. Effects of disturbance on geese in Svalbard: two management strategies. Biological Conservation 117, 407e416. implications for regulating increasing tourism. Polar Research 28, 376e389. Finney, S.K., Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Yalden, D.W., 2005. The effect of recreational Mallord, J.W., Dolman, P.M., Brown, A.F., Sutherland, W.J., 2007. Linking recreational disturbance on an upland breeding bird, the golden plover Pluvalis apricaria. disturbance to population size in a ground nesting passerine. Journal of Applied Biological Conservation 121, 53e63. Ecology 44, 185e195. Fowler, G.S., 1999. Behavioral and hormonal responses of Magellanic penguins Martin, T.E., 1985. Resource selection by tropical frugivorous birds: integrating (Spheniscus magellanicus) to tourism and nest site visitation. Biological multiple interactions. Oecologia 66, 563e573. Conservation 90, 143e149. Marzluff, J.M., Neatherlin, E., 2006. Corvid response to human settlements and Gill, J.A., 2007. Approaches to measuring the effects of human disturbance on birds. campgrounds: causes, consequences, and challenges for conservation. Biolog- Ibis 149, 9e14. ical Conservation 130, 301e314. Gill, J.A., Norris, K., Sutherland, W.J., 2001. Why behavioural response may not McClung, M.R., Seddon, P.J., Massaro, M., Setiawan, A.N., 2004. Nature-based reflect the population consequences of human disturbance. Biological Conser- tourism on yellow-eyed penguins Megadyptes antipodes: does unregulated vation 97, 265e268. visitor access affect fledging weight and juvenile survival? Biological Conser- Green, R., Giese, M., 2004. Negative effects of wildlife tourism on wildlife. In: vation 119, 279e285. Higginbottom, K. (Ed.), Wildlife Tourism: Impacts, Management and Planning. McGowan, C.P., Simons, T.R., 2006. Effects of human recreation on the incubation Common Ground Publishing, Melbourne, pp. 81e98. behaviour of American oystercatchers. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 118, Guillemain, M., Blanc, R., Lucas, C., Lepley, M., 2007. Ecotourism disturbance to 485e493. wildfowl in protected areas: historical, empirical and experimental approaches in Miller, G.T., 2007. Living in the Environment: Principles, Connections and Solutions, the Camargue, southern France. Biodiversity and Conservation 16, 3633e3651. fifteenth ed. Thomson Learning, New York. Gutzwiller, K.J., Anderson, S.H., 1999. Spatial extent of human-intrusion effects on Miller, S.G., Knight, R.L., Miller, C.K., 1998. Influence of recreational trails on subalpine bird distributions. Condor 101, 378e389. breeding bird communities. Ecological Applications 8, 162e169. Gutzwiller, K.J., Marcum, H.A., Harvey, H.B., Roth, J.D., Anderson, S.H., 1998. Bird Moran, C., Catterall, C.P., Kanowski, J., 2009. Reduced dispersal of native plant tolerance to human intrusion in Wyoming montane forests. Condor 100, species as a consequence of the reduced abundance of frugivore species in 519e527. fragmented rainforest. Biological Conservation 142, 541e552. Hawkins, B.A., Diniz-Filho, J.A.F., Jaramillo, C.A., Soeller, S.A., 2007. Climate, niche Müllner, A., Linsenmair, K.E., Wikelski, M., 2004. Exposure to ecotourism reduces conservation, and the global bird diversity gradient. American Naturalist 170, survival and affects stress responses in hoatzin chicks (Opisthocomus hoazin). 16e27. Biological Conservation 118, 549e558. Heil, L., Fernández-Juricic, E., Renison, D., Cingolani, A.M., Blumstein, D.T., 2007. Murison, G., Bullock, J.M., Underhill-Day, J., Langston, R., Brown, A.F., Sutherland, W.J., Avian responses to tourism in the biogeographically isolated high Córdoba 2007. Habitat type determines the effects of disturbance on the breeding Mountains, Argentina. Biodiversity and Conservation 16, 1009e1026. productivity of the Dartford Warbler Sylvia undata. Ibis 149, 16e26. 2294 R. Steven et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 92 (2011) 2287e2294

Newsome, D., Moore, S.A., Dowling, R.K., 2002. Natural Area Tourism: Ecology, Stalmaster, M.V., Newman, J.R., 1978. Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagles Impacts and Management. Channel View Publications, Sydney. to human activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 42, 506e513. Newton, I., 2003. The Speciation and Biogeography of Birds. Academic Press, Steidl, R.J., Powell, B.F., 2006. Assessing the effects of human activities on wildlife. London. George Wright Forum 23, 50e58. Orams, M.B., 2002. Feeding wildlife as a tourism attraction: a review of issues and Stocker, G.C., Irvine, A.K., 1983. Seed dispersal by Cassowaries (Casuarius casuarius) impacts. Tourism Management 23, 281e293. in North Queensland’s rainforests. Biotropica 15, 170e176. Paton, D.C., Ford, H.A., 1976. Pollination by birds of native plants in south Australia. Taylor, E.C., Green, R.E., Perrins, J., 2007. Stone-curlews Burhinus oedicnemus and Emu 77, 73e85. recreational disturbance: developing a management tool for access. Ibis 149, Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Finney, S.K., Yalden, D.W., Langston, R.H.W., 2007. Testing the 37e44. effects of recreational disturbance on two upland breeding waders. Ibis 149, Thiel, D., Jenni-Eiermann, S., Braunisch, V., Palme, R., Jenni, L., 2008. Ski tourism affects 45e55. habitat use and evokes a physiological stress response in capercaillie Tetrao uro- Randler, C., 2006. Disturbance by dog barking increase vigilance in coots Fulica atra. gallus: a new methodological approach. Journal of Applied Ecology 45, 845e853. European Journal of Wildlife Research 52, 265e270. Verhulst, S., Oosterbeek, K., Ens, B.J., 2001. Experimental evidence for the effects of Ratz, H., Thompson, C., 1999. Who is watching whom? Checks for impacts of human disturbance on foraging and parental care in oystercatchers. Biological tourists on Yellow-eyed penguins Megadyptes antipodes. Marine Ornithology 27, Conservation 101, 375e380. 205e210. Walker, B.G., Boersma, P.D., Wingfield, J.C., 2006. Habituation of adult Magellanic Rees, E.C., Bruce, J.H., White, G.T., 2005. Factors affecting the behavioural responses penguins to human visitation as expressed through behaviour and corticoste- of whooper swans (Cygnus c. cygnus) to various human activities. Biological rone secretion. Conservation Biology 20, 146e154. Conservation 121, 369e382. Watson, A., 1988. Dotterel Charadrius morinellus numbers in relation to human Regel, J., Pütz, K., 1997. Effect of human disturbance on body temperature and impact in Scotland. Biological Conservation 43, 245e256. energy expenditure in penguins. Polar Biology 18, 246e253. Weimerskirch, H., Shaffer, S.A., Mabille, G., Martin, J., Boutard, O., Rouanet, J.L., 2002. Riffell, S.K., Gutzwiller, K.J., Anderson, S.H., 1996. Does repeated human intrusion Heart rate and energy expenditure of incubating wandering albatrosses: basal cause cumulative declines in avian richness and abundance? Ecological Appli- levels, natural variation, and the effects of human disturbance. Journal of cations 6, 492e505. Experimental Biology 205, 475e483. Rodgers, J.A., Smith, H.T., 1995. Set-back distances to protect nesting bird colonies Yalden, D.W., 1992. The influence of recreational disturbance on common sand- from human disturbance in Florida. Conservation Biology 9, 89e99. pipers Actitis hypoleucos breeding by an upland reservoir, in England. Biological Ruhlen, T.D., Abbott, S., Stenzel, L.E., Page, G.W., 2003. Evidence that human Conservation 61, 41e49. disturbance reduces Snowy plover chick survival. Journal of Field Ornithology Yalden, P.E., Yalden, D.W., 1990. Recreational disturbance of breeding golden plovers 74, 300e304. Pluvalis apricarius. Biological Conservation 51, 243e262. Sabine, J.B., Meyers, J.M., Moore, C.T., Schweitzer, S.H., 2008. Effects of human Yasué, M., 2005. The effects of human presence flock size and prey density on activity on behaviour of breeding American oystercatchers, Cumberland Island shorebird foraging rates. Journal of Ethology 23, 199e204. national Seashore, Georgia, USA. Waterbirds 31, 70e82. Yasué, M., Dearden, P., 2006. The potential impact of tourism development on S¸ekercioglu,! C., 2002. Impacts of bird watching on human and avian communities. habitat availability and productivity of Malaysian plovers Charadrius peronii. Environmental Conservation 29, 282e289. Journal of Applied Ecology 43, 978e989. Simpson, K., Day, N., 2004. Field Guide to the Birds of Australia, seventh ed. Penguin Van Der Zande, A.N., Verstrael, T.J., 1985. Impacts of outdoor recreation upon nest- Group, Sydney. site choice and breeding success of the kestrel. Ardea 73, 90e99. Skagen, S.K., Knight, R.L., Orians, G.H., 1991. Human disturbance of an avian scav- Zar, J.H., 1996. Biostatistical Analysis, third ed. Prentice-Hall International Inc, New enging guild. Ecological Applications 1, 215e225. York. Smith-Castro, J.R., Rodewald, A.D., 2010. Behavioural responses of nesting birds to Zuberogoitia, I., Zabala, J., Martínez, J.A., Martínez, J.E., Azkona, A., 2008. Effects of human disturbance along recreational trails. Journal of Field Ornithology 81, human activities on Egyptian vulture breeding success. Animal Conservation 11, 130e138. 313e320. 6/4/16

Today — Quiz — Activity — Lecture SMS 272 Bloom

Acvity Defining Recreaon — Where is the first place you remember ever • Recreaon is: participating in an outdoor recreation-oriented • A form of human acvity carried on in one’s free (leisure) activity? me — What did you do there? – Voluntarily chosen — Who were you with? – Time/acvies to re-create/restore one’s self — Why does that stand out? • Both recreaon and leisure are social instuons • Leisure provides the larger seng in which recreaon occurs • Vital to life in many ways

Parks and Recreaon: It Makes Up Most of Our Time Consider this . . . Recreaon • Approximately 8 hours of every day is spent sleeping. — What are some of the benefits of recreation? • Work, school, and related activities such as chores — Adequate clean air and water to sustain life and errands or homework might consume 8 hours per — Opportunities to live purposeful and pleasurable lives day. — Memories of happy times with friends and family Taking into account individual variations, leisure time — Options and opportunities for health and well-being could amount to more than one-third of a person’s over the life span life.

1 6/4/16

Values and Benefits of Parks, Recreaon, and Leisure Benefits Described • Improved condition. In the case that a human, General category—3 types of benefits natural, or economic factor is not functioning at full capacity or is functioning in a deleterious manner, the benefit of recreation is to ameliorate this • Improved condition condition. • Prevention of a worse condition • Prevention of a worse condition. Not every instance of poor performance or threatening conditions can • Realization of a psychological experience be improved. The value of parks and recreation is to (Bev Driver, 1998) stem further erosion or deterioration of a human, natural, or economic condition. (continued)

Benefits Described (connued) Segmentaon of Benefits — Realization of a psychological experience. Leisure Benefits segmented into 4 categories: pursuits that people select for the intrinsic values 1. Individual. Opportunities for living, learning, and afforded through the experience. Benefits such as leading full and productive lives as well as avenues stress reduction, sense of control, and spirituality are for people to experience purpose, pleasure, health, and well-being examples.

2. Social. Opportunities to live and interact with friends, families, work or school groups, neighbors, communities, and the world

(continued)

Segmentaon of Benefits (connued) Recreaon Management • Recreation management is… 3. Environmental. Sustaining human life and protecting • the ecosystem through the preservation and The management of people having fun… protection of open space. • Includes providing the opportunity, place, personnel and environment 4. Economic. Enhancing the viability of people and • May include natural and artificial places by serving as an investment in the future, rather than a mere expenditure in the present environments • May occur inside, outside and includes all ages, races/ethnicities, and ability levels

2 6/4/16

Outdoor Recreaon Outdoor Recreaon — What is it? — A recreational activity that occurs during one’s free —Why does it matter??? time in an outdoor environment. — When does it occur? — During one’s free time — Why do people participate in it? — Simply put – for enjoyment, satisfaction, self-realization — Complex – economic sustenance

Outdoor Recreaon When does it occur? — “In the end we will conserve only what we love. We — Outdoor recreation occurs during one’s free, or love only what we understand. We will understand leisure, time only what we are taught.” — Leisure is time in which an individual can choose to — Baba Dioum do something or nothing — It was once only available to the elite — Changes in laws and working conditions have impacted the amount of leisure time — Today – free time has increased, leisure time has decreased — Shorter family vacations, longer work lives, etc.

Leisure Today Leisure — Defined by 5 Factors: — Today – Generally 4 hours per day are unaccounted § Freedom – element of choice for discretionary time § Perceived competence – skills — People feel as if it is less § Intrinsic Motivation – drive comes from within — Increase in online time & 24 hour news cycles make § Locus of control – some degree of control over activity work time increase § Positive Affect - enjoyment — Vacations – not just get-aways anymore — Most leisure occurs on weekend — Outdoor rec is 5th most popular activity

3 6/4/16

Leisure Recreaon — Those with more income take longer trips — Recreation is derived from “Recreare” which means — Younger people “don’t “to create anew” or “rebirth” have time” for vacations — Recreational activities have intrinsic values — In 2000, less than 46% of — Recreation is a subset of leisure – general is an activity households were and occurs during leisure time traditional “married with — Recreation is also: children” — Voluntary — More people are retiring — Provides increased competencies later in life — Provides feeling of self-satisfaction

Outdoor Recreaon Recreaon Experience — Old definition – recreation — Recreational experiences have 4 phases: occurring outdoors (1962) — Newer definition (1966) – — 1. Anticipation involves 3 categories — 2. Planning — Resource-oriented recreation — Depends on natural resources — 3. Participation and natural settings — Hiking, backpacking, camping, — 4. Recollection rock climbing — Intermediate recreation — Occurs in relatively natural settings while creating an environmental impact of some kind — Skiing, Sailing

Outdoor Recreaon Outdoor Recreaon — User-Oriented Recreation — Current definition (1999): — Facility-based and occurs — Outdoor rec has the in nonnatural or following components: significantly modified — Natural environment & lands often in cities wildlands is an important part of the recreation — Could be outdoors experience — Playgrounds, zoos, city — Relationship is formed parks, golf courses, between participant and ballfields the natural environment — Interaction — Appreciation

4 6/4/16

Our Public Lands • Make up 1/3 of the US – Approx. 600 million acres Trail Systems • National Level • Includes: • Appalachian Trail – 2, 175 Miles • National Parks • Pacific Crest Trail – 2,650 Miles • Historic Areas • Continental Divide Trail – 3,100 Miles

• Greenways • State Level • River ways (Blue Ways) • State wide trails • Landscapes • Cumberland Trail (TN) – 300 Miles N to S • Florida Trail – 1,400 Miles • Recreation Areas • Wildlife Preserves • County/Local Trails • Managed for different • Rails-to-Trails • Mass Central Rail Trail – 100 Miles purposes by different • Nature Coast State Trail – 46 Miles agencies

Wilderness Backpacking — Wilderness Defined: The Wilderness Act of 1964 established a system of preserving federal land that has outstanding U.S. Management Agencies natural and scenic characteristics by placing certain public — lands off-limits for road building, commodity use (logging, Federal public lands managed by 4 main agencies: grazing, mining), and motorized vehicle use. — National Park Service — Currently – 46.8 million acres (mostly in the Western US) — Bureau of Land Management — US Fish & Wildlife Service — Backpacking in Wilderness requires: — USDA Forest Service — Permits — Other agencies also play a role — Knowledge — TVA — Awareness — US Army Corps of Engineers

Naonal Park Service (NPS) NPS — History Created in: 1916 — 1890 – Yosemite named a National Park Located in: Department of the Interior — 1906 – Antiquities Act Mission: to promote and regulate the use of the...national — Presidential ability to designate National Monuments parks...which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the — 1916 – Woodrow Wilson signed “Organic Act” creating enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave the NPS them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."

Manages: 84 Million Acres Major Use Areas: • National Parks • National Preserves • National Historic Site • National Battlefields • National Recreation Areas • National Seashores/Lakeshores

5 6/4/16

Bureau of Land Management Created in: 1976 NPS Located in: Department of the Interior — Today Mission: “…to sustain the health, diversity, and — 390 Areas = 84 million acres productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.” — 49 states, DC, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, Saipan, and the Virgin Islands Manages: 261 Million Acres — Includes Historic Sites, National Parks, Nat. Monuments, (Mostly Western US) Recreation Areas, Cultural Areas, etc. — Over 265 million recreational visits/year Major Use Areas: • National Recreation Areas • Environmental Education Areas • National Scenic Trails • National Scenic Byways • Scenic Drives • Rivers

BLM BLM — History • Today — Originally worked under mixed group of early laws • Manages 258 million surface acres and 700 million (Mining law of 1872, Grazing Act of 1934, Desert Land Act sub-surface acres of 1877, etc) • Mostly 12 Western States & Alaska — 1976 – Federal Land Policy and Management Act defined • Multiple-use mandate purpose and authorities of BLM – Timber – Grazing – Minerals – Recreation – Water Quality

CreatedFisheries & Wildlife Service in: 1939 Located in: Department of the Interior Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) • History Mission: working with others to conserve, protect and • 1871 - U.S. Commission on Fish and Fisheries is enhance fish, wildlife,and plants and their habitats for the created by Congress continuing benefit of the American people • Decline in food fish Manages: 77 Million Acres • 1885 - Division of Economic Ornithology and Mammalogy is established in the Department of Agriculture. Major Use Areas • 1900 - The Lacey Act becomes the first Federal law • National Wildlife Refuges protecting game, prohibiting the interstate shipment • National Fish Hatcheries of illegally taken wildlife and importation of species.

6 6/4/16

USDA Forest Service FWS Created In: 1905 — Today Located in: Department of Agriculture — Manages 520 Wildlife refuges in 50 states and territories Mission: “…to sustain the health, productivity, and ’ — Over 93 million acres diversity of the Nation s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.” — Manage endangered species act, transport of wildlife act, numerous others Manages: 192 Million Acres — Provide nature-based recreation Major Use Areas • National Forests • National Grasslands • National Scenic Trails • National Byways • National Rivers and Trails

Forest Service (FS) FS • History • History • Established in 1905 to manage National Forests and • So good at timber harvesting, wiped out most the trees Grasslands in the forests by approximately the mid- 1930s • Mission: "to provide the greatest amount of good for the • Expanded their management strategy to include greatest amount of people in the long run.“ managing national forests for additional multiple uses • Gifford Pinchot served as first Chief of the FS and benefits and for the sustained yield of renewable • Originally designed for providing quality water and resources such as water, forage, wildlife, wood, and timber throughout the country recreation

FS Next Week • Today — State Management • Manage 193 million acres (Land the size of Texas) in — International Management 42 states and territories — Non-Profit Involvement • 155 National Forests — Leave No Trace • 22 National Grasslands — Environmental Ethics & Awareness • Also include Wilderness Areas, National Recreation — Trip Planning Essentials Areas, National Scenic Areas, Wild & Scenic Rivers, — Readings Sent Via EMAIL Etc. • 341 visitor days in 1996

7 6/4/16

40 Years after Jaws: The Great White Shark Returns to New Orientaon to Study Site England and With It Come… the Tourists??

KC Bloom, Jennifer Jackman, Ali Asselta

Sharks in New England Sharks in New England ➢ Sharks in New England involves a ➢ When MA coastal economy was story about seal, sharks, & human based around fishing, seals were interacons persecuted

➢ Bounty program enacted between ➢ Seals and sharks have coexisted late 1800s- 1962 for centuries ➢ State gave fishermen $5 per seal nose ➢ At one point, seal populaon = ➢ Bounty program highly successful over 100,000 in Massachuses (gray and harbor seals) ➢ Lead to 1972 passing of Marine Mammal Protecon Act

Sharks in New England Sharks in New England ➢ Muskeget Island = largest pupping ➢ Early 1980s, seals started recolonizing area for grays on east coast historical habitats ➢ More than 1000 pups/year & ➢ 2001 comprehensive seal study – few 3000 wintering seals dozen gray seals, thousands of harbor ➢ seals Also colonizing Cape Cod from Monomoy – northern outer ➢ Since that me, grays have become beaches year-round residents while harbor ➢ seals are seasonal Gray seals = favorite food of Great White Sharks

1 6/4/16

Why this maers Sharks in New England ➢ Cape Cod has a tourist-based economy

➢ Sharks – monitored since 2009 ➢ Populaon grows for 200,000 to 500,000 during summer/fall ➢ Idenfied 69 sharks in 2013-14 ➢ 6 million visitors/year ➢ 4.5 million visitors to Cape Cod Naonal ➢ Idenfied over 100 sharks in 2015 Seashore ➢ Tourism accounts for about 25% of employment ➢ Primary monitoring occurring in the Cape from Chatham to Orleans & parts north ➢ Natural resources provide backdrop for tourism in the Cape ➢ Some of the major shark-seal interacons are occurring at popular tourist beaches

Why this maers Purpose of Study ➢ Percepons about sharks lead to misunderstandings ➢ Pilot study ➢ Misunderstandings can impact tourism ➢ Assess the impact of the increase in ➢ Educaon can impact understanding of Great White Sharks on tourism, tourist human-seal-shark interacons percepons, and businesses in Cape Cod

➢ Beach managers at local, state, and federal ➢ Interviewed 170 tourists at Nauset Beach, levels have to communicate in different ways Orleans, MA in September 2015

➢ Tourist-based business are evolving based ➢ Conducted informal interviews with around increasing public knowledge and business owners awareness of sharks on the Cape ➢ What will happen when there is shark aack on the Cape??

About the survey Survey Findings ➢ Demographics ➢ Sampling occurred over three weekends in September ➢ 170 Parcipants (53% Female)

➢ ➢ Visitors to Nauset Beach were randomly Average age – 51 years old sampled at 3 locaons ➢ Average educaon level – Bachelor’s ➢ Main entrance ➢ Travels to the Cape – 3-5 mes/year for 3-5 days/me ➢ Side entrance ➢ Have been coming to the Cape for an average of 3-5 years ➢ On the beach

➢ Owners were surveyed at their businesses

2 6/4/16

Survey Findings

➢ Percepons of sharks Survey Findings ➢ When you think of a shark, what is the first thing that comes to your mind? Why? Danger – Ø “Don't swim with them. They may be hungry, ➢ 3 Common Themes: I may be on a boogie board that resembles food ➢ Danger (JAWS); (seals).” ➢ Predator; Ø “Death. The film "Jaws: scared me for a lifeme.” ➢ Majesc

Ø “I think of a fin coming out of the water, reminds me of surfing in SD, California.”

Survey Findings Percepons of Sharks Survey Findings Predator – Ø “Nature is thinning out the overpopulaon Percepons of sharks of seals.” Majesc – Ø “They're misunderstood and amazing.” Ø “Majesc predator, then probably the movie Jaws. The movie, obviously is powerful at creang feelings towards sharks. As an ocean level, however, I Ø “Beauful wild creature. Not interested in eang people.” am interested in the role of sharks in the ecosystem and protecng the marine ecosystem of NE.” Ø “Amazing animals- need protecon. Many sharks killed for ‘fun’.”

Ø “Populaon control for seals, because seals are hurng fishing community.”

Survey Findings Survey Findings Recently, sharks have been vising the Cape in great numbers. What do you Increase in food/seals (128) believe is the primary reason for this increase? Ø “Food source. Believe sharks will go where there is food 3 Common Themes – available.” Ø Increase in food/seals; Ø Increase in food/climate change; Ø “Looking for food due to Ø I don’t know/other over fishing!!!”

Ø “Increased seals and the secret is out - The Cape is a great place to vacaon. And sharks are very intelligent.”

3 6/4/16

Survey Findings Survey Findings Increase in food/climate change (25) Interest in parcipang in wildlife-tourism acvies Ø “Warmer weather due to climate change? Maybe because of Ø 52% parcipate in wildlife watching polluon.” Ø 47% do not parcipate Ø “Global warming. Increasing water temperatures, food sources.” Ø “Increased temperature of water and food supply redirected.”

I don’t know/other (17) Ø “I believe they have been here for years.” Ø “Don't know? Readily available prey?”

Cumulave Acvies Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Nothing 65 38.5 38.5 38.5 + Shark Viewing Survey Findings Tours 10 5.9 5.9 44.4 Cage-Diving 1 0.6 0.6 45 Tourism-Based Business – Swimming Ø with sharks 1 0.6 0.6 45.6 Informal interview with 5 operators (2 t-shirt shops, 1 restaurant, 2 Presentaon seal cruise operators) on sharks 8 4.7 4.7 50.3 Ø Businesses are changing to suit popularity of sharks Seal tours 12 7.1 7.1 57.4 Ø “Half of my seal cruise is now providing informaon about sharks. That is Presentaon on seals 4 2.4 2.4 59.8 what people have been asking about…” Shark tours/ Ø Businesses are looking into niche markets cage-diving 15 8.9 8.9 68.6 Ø “I’m looking to figure out how to ulize the new situaon to both make a Tours/ profit and to take on a venture that no one has yet on the Cape.” presentaons 30 17.8 17.8 86.4 Seal tours/ Ø Businesses looking to make a profit in any way possible presentaons 23 13.6 13.6 100 Total 169 100 100

Conclusions Tourists atudes toward sharks are: Conclusions Ø Sll largely fear based – Tourism-based Business Operators– Ø JAWS, fear of bites predominant ideas Ø Some demand for addional shark-related acvies

Ø Has already impacted business opportunies Ø Show healthy respect for the animal and its ecosystem services Ø Looking for more ways to build on current opportunies/situaon Ø A minority want to hunt the sharks/seals

Ø Show some knowledge about the role of sharks in ecosystems

Ø Lots of room for addional educaon!!!

4 6/4/16

The End Next Steps + Thanks to our collaborators at Salem State University. + Survey wider audience during peak tourism season + Focus groups with business owners

5