Distribution and Abundance of the Kittlitz's Murrelet
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Kissling et al.: Kittlitz’sSymposium Murrelet in southeastern Alaska 3 DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF THE KITTLITZ’S MURRELET BRACHYRAMPHUS BREVIROSTRIS IN SELECTED AREAS OF SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA MICHELLE L. KISSLING1, PAUL M. LUKACS2, STEPHEN B. LEWIS1, SCOTT M. GENDE3, KATHERINE J. KULETZ4, NICHOLAS R. HATCH1, SARAH K. SCHOEN1 & SUSAN OEHLERS5 1US Fish and Wildlife Service, 3000 Vintage Boulevard, Suite 201, Juneau, Alaska, 99801, USA ([email protected]) 2Colorado Division of Wildlife, 317 West Prospect Road, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80526, USA 3National Park Service, Glacier Bay Field Station, 3100 National Park Road, Juneau, Alaska, 99801, USA 4US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Rd., Anchorage, Alaska, 99503, USA 5US Forest Service, PO Box 327, Yakutat, Alaska, 99689, USA Received 13 April 2010, accepted 29 April 2011 SUMMARY KISSLING, M.L, LUKACS, P.M., LEWIS, S.B., GENDE, S.M., KULETZ, K.J., HATCH, N.R., SCHOEN, S.K. & OEHLERS, S. 2011. Distribution and abundance of the Kittlitz’s Murrelet in selected areas of southeastern Alaska. Marine Ornithology 39: 3–11. We conducted boat-based surveys for the Kittlitz’s Murrelet Brachyramphus brevirostris during the breeding season in southeastern Alaska from 2002 to 2009. We completed a single survey in seven areas and multiple annual surveys in three areas. Although surveys spanned a broad geographic area, from LeConte Bay in the south to the Lost Coast in the north (~655 km linear distance), roughly 79% of the regional population of Kittlitz’s Murrelet was found in and between Icy and Yakutat bays (~95 km linear distance). The congeneric Marbled Murrelet B. marmoratus outnumbered the Kittlitz’s Murrelet in all areas surveyed except Icy Bay; in fact, Kittlitz’s Murrelet abundance constituted a relatively small proportion (7%) of the total Brachyramphus murrelet abundance in our survey areas. In areas for which there are multiple years of survey data, Kittlitz’s Murrelet abundance varied considerably, whereas Marbled Murrelet abundance was comparatively stable during the same time period. Since the southern distribution of this species has likely narrowed over the last 50 years, and the distribution of the Kittlitz’s Murrelet appears to be restricted to glacially influenced marine waters in southeastern Alaska, we expect that any future changes in glacial extent will likely affect this species and its long-term persistence in the region. Key words: Kittlitz’s Murrelet, Brachyramphus brevirostris, southeast Alaska, density, abundance, at-sea surveys INTRODUCTION data). In the early 1990s, several boat-based surveys were done in southeastern Alaska with the primary goal of estimating abundance The Kittlitz’s Murrelet Brachyramphus brevirostris is a rare alcid of the more common Marbled Murrelet B. marmoratus (Kozie endemic to coastal Alaska and the Russian Far East. In the breeding 1993, Agler et al. 1998, Stephensen & Andres 2001, Lindell 2005). season (May–August), the greatest concentrations of Kittlitz’s Although these surveys documented relatively large numbers of Murrelet are often found at sea, in glacial fjords and bays, and in the Kittlitz’s Murrelets along the Malaspina Forelands, Yakutat Bay outflows of glacial streams and rivers (Day et al. 1999). Although and Glacier Bay (Fig. 1), the resulting population estimates for this association is poorly understood, the recent and rapid retreat of Kittlitz’s Murrelet were imprecise, mainly because of the species’ Alaska’s glaciers (Arendt et al. 2002, Molnia 2008) raises concern general rarity and patchy distribution (Kozie 1993, Kendall & Agler for the fate of this species (Kuletz et al. 2003), which is currently a 1998, Stephensen & Andres 2001). Additionally, large sections of candidate for listing under the US Endangered Species Act (US Fish presumably suitable habitat for Kittlitz’s Murrelet in southeastern and Wildlife Service 2010). Alaska remained unsurveyed. Southeastern Alaska contains the largest system of temperate We conducted boat-based surveys for Kittlitz’s Murrelet in icefields in North America and nearly half of Alaska’s tidewater southeastern Alaska during the breeding season from 2002 to 2009. glaciers (Molnia 2008). Although glacial fjords are thought to Our surveys were intended to (1) complement those of Agler et represent typical habitat for the Kittlitz’s Murrelet (Day et al. 1999), al. (1998) for Brachyramphus murrelets by completing survey there is little information on the distribution and abundance of this coverage of southeastern Alaska, and (2) increase the precision of species in this region, with the exception of Glacier Bay (Robards abundance estimates in areas where Kittlitz’s Murrelet was known et al. 2003, Lindell 2005, Drew et al. 2007). For example, museum or suspected to be found. We selected areas to survey based on specimens are sparse for southeastern Alaska, with the majority previous survey data, anecdotal observations and suitability of taken in a single location (Glacier Bay); only a few additional habitat, with one exception: we did not survey Glacier Bay because areas are represented (Icy Strait, LeConte Bay, coastal Gulf of that area already had an active population monitoring program for Alaska, Yakutat Bay, Icy Bay, Holkam Bay, Sitka Sound and Port marine birds (Piatt et al. 2011). In this paper, we compile the results Houghton; R. Day, ABR, Inc., Fairbanks, Alaska, unpublished of our standalone surveys and analyze our survey data in a manner Marine Ornithology 39: 3–11 (2011) 4 Kissling et al.: Kittlitz’s Murrelet in southeastern Alaska consistent with previous efforts (Kozie 1993, Stephensen & Andres (~6 m high) at a speed of 10–15 km/h. Survey boundaries were 2001) to maximize comparability. We aim to summarize the current delineated using the 18.3 m (10 fathom) depth line (approximately distribution and abundance of Kittlitz’s Murrelet in southeastern 1 km offshore) and a 5.5 km (3 nautical mile) line offshore, with Alaska (outside of Glacier Bay); for comparison, we also present endpoints spaced 5 km apart to create a zigzag pattern (Fig. 2). We abundance estimates for the Marbled Murrelet in our study areas. chose those boundaries because they are often delineated on nautical charts, provided an acceptable depth for the large vessel to navigate STUDY AREA AND METHODS safely, and allowed for sufficient fuel between available refueling stations. We repeated one linear transect (Malaspina Forelands) Southeastern Alaska is defined as the region east of 144°W parallel to shore, roughly 82 km in length and 1 km from shore, longitude, consisting of the large group of islands called the initially surveyed by Kozie (1993). Alexander Archipelago and a strip of mainland that stretches from Cape Suckling in the north to Dixon Entrance in the south (Fig. 1). We surveyed between 0700 and 2100 h from 3–23 July in all years, The region is roughly 900 km long, averages 230 km in width, and except the surveys in Yakutat Bay, which we surveyed from 17 to is characterized by rugged topography, coastal fjords and more than 22 June for comparison with Stephensen & Andres (2001; Table 2). 2000 islands. We selected the July dates to coincide with the peak timing of after-hatch-year murrelets in our study area (Kissling et al. 2007) We conducted one survey of seven previously unsurveyed areas. or to be consistent with previous surveys. In all areas except Icy These included, from south to north (survey year in parentheses), Bay, we conducted one survey per year; in Icy Bay, we completed LeConte Bay (2002), Thomas Bay (2002), Wilderness Bays one to three replicate surveys per year (Table 1). We used line- (Holkam Bay and Tracy and Endicott arms; 2002), Cross Sound transect survey methods (Buckland et al. 2001) in all years except (2003), Outer Coast (including four subareas; 2003, 2004), Manby 2002 when we used strip transects with a 200 m strip width. We Point (2002), and Lost Coast (from Icy Cape to Duktoth River; accounted for detection probability in all strip-transect surveys 2008; Fig. 1). We also resurveyed three areas: Yakutat Bay (2009; (including reanalysis of Kozie [1993] and Stephensen & Andres Stephensen & Andres 2001), Malaspina Forelands (2002, 2008, [2001]) using data from line-transect surveys (see Data analysis; 2009; Kozie 1993), and Icy Bay (2002, 2005, 2007–2009). Table 1). We tested and complied with the assumption of perfect detection on the line for line-transect surveys (Lukacs et al. 2010). We used three sampling designs to estimate the abundance of In most years, we recorded all bird and mammal species observed, Brachyramphus murrelets. The choice of design depended on logistics, but in 2005 and 2007 in Icy Bay we recorded only Brachyramphus safety and consistency with previous surveys (Table 1). In most areas, murrelets because the data were used as part of a separate study we counted birds from a boat (6 m long and ~3 m high) travelling at (Kissling et al. 2007). We considered results from surveys of a speed of ~10 km/h following linear transects perpendicular to the multiple species and of Brachyramphus murrelets only to be shore. Transects were spaced roughly 2 km apart (except in Yakutat comparable because we found that the probability P of detecting Bay) and approached as close to shore as possible (<200 m; Fig. 2). In Brachyramphus murrelets was similar in murrelet-only surveys Yakutat Bay, we repeated linear transects established by Stephensen (2005: 0.44, SE 0.02; 2007: 0.62, SE 0.03) and in multi-species & Andres (2001) that were 7 km apart; we then added transects at a surveys (2008: 0.55, SE 0.02; 2009: 0.45, SE 0.04). spacing of 3.5 km to improve spatial coverage. We also conducted shoreline surveys (i.e. surveys conducted within 200 m of mean high For each observation, we noted group size (birds within 2 m of tide) but they are not included in this analysis.