DOCSLIB.ORG

Analysis of Long-Term Productivity Monitoring and Foraging Area Identification of Breeding Common Terns in Coastal New Hampshire

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Analysis of Long-Term Productivity Monitoring and Foraging Area Identification of Breeding Common Terns in Coastal New Hampshire University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository Master's Theses and Capstones Student Scholarship Winter 2018 ANALYSIS OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY MONITORING AND FORAGING AREA IDENTIFICATION OF BREEDING COMMON TERNS IN COASTAL NEW HAMPSHIRE Jessica Marie Carloni University of New Hampshire, Durham Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/thesis Recommended Citation Carloni, Jessica Marie, "ANALYSIS OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY MONITORING AND FORAGING AREA IDENTIFICATION OF BREEDING COMMON TERNS IN COASTAL NEW HAMPSHIRE" (2018). Master's Theses and Capstones. 1263. https://scholars.unh.edu/thesis/1263 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses and Capstones by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ANALYSIS OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY MONITORING AND FORAGING AREA IDENTIFICATION OF BREEDING COMMON TERNS IN COASTAL NEW HAMPSHIRE BY JESSICA MARIE CARLONI B.T., State University of New York at Cobleskill, 2005 THESIS Submitted to the University of New Hampshire in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Natural Resources: Wildlife and Conservation Biology December 2018 This thesis has been examined and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master’s in Wildlife and Conservation Biology by: Thesis Director, Dr. Peter J. Pekins Professor Wildlife Ecology, University of New Hampshire Dr. Erik Chapman Director, New Hampshire Sea Grant John Kanter Senior Wildlife Biologist, National Wildlife Federation December 14, 2018 Date Original approval signatures are on file with the University of New Hampshire Graduate School. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am forever grateful to John Kanter for providing me the opportunity to work on this project; without his support and belief in me, none of this would have been possible. I’d also like to extend my gratitude to Dr. Erik Chapman and Dr. Peter Pekins for their guidance and advice throughout this process. Thank you to all the dedicated field staff who worked on Seavey Island over the years, especially Nora Papian, Virginia Winkler, Johanna Pedersen, and Juliana Hanle. I am also grateful to Dan and Melissa Hayward for managing the tern project on Seavey Island for so many years and providing valuable input about my field research. I am extremely grateful to Katie Callahan for providing assistance with ArcGIS and analyzing the movement data. I would also like to thank Dr. Elizabeth Craig for her advice with Chapter 1; her knowledge of terns was extremely beneficial. I’m also extremely grateful to Ed and Julie Robinson for being such positive mentors for me as a young aspiring wildlife biologist; their passion was contagious! Thanks to Patrick Tate who kept reminding me to jump through the hoops; I can’t believe there are no more! I’m especially thankful to my family for their support. To my sister Jenn, thank you for the constant guidance throughout and providing the tough love when I needed it. I would like to thank my Mom for her continued encouragement and genuine interest in my work. I’m also grateful to my Dad for always making me laugh. Finally, I would like to thank my husband, Josh for his unrelenting support, motivation, advice, and assistance in the field; you are truly amazing! iii Funding for this research was provided by Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program, NH Moose plate dollars and private donations through NH Fish and Game. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ ii LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... iv ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... vi INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................... 8 CHAPTER 1: ANALYSIS OF LONG-TERM MONITORING OF PRODUCTIVITY OF A COMMON TERN RESTORATION COLONY IN NEW HAMPSHIRE ................................... 10 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 10 Methods ..................................................................................................................................... 18 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 23 Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 32 CHAPTER 2: FORAGING AREAS OF BREEDING COMMON TERNS ON SEAVEY ISLAND NEW HAMPSHIRE AND GPS DATA LOGGER ATTACHMENT METHOD ........ 41 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 41 Methods ..................................................................................................................................... 43 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 46 Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 53 LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 60 APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................. 78 APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................... 79 APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................... 80 ii LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1-1 Total number of nests within the 14 monitored productivity plots by year on Seavey Island, NH 20 1-2 Single linear regression coefficients of environmental variables and common tern productivity during the laying, chick rearing and entire nesting periods on Seavey Island NH. 27 1-3 Linear regression coefficients between prey species and reproductive success on Seavey Island NH. 28 1-4 Pearson correlation coefficients between the initial lay date (ILD) of common terns and environmental variables during the laying period. 30 1-5 Pearson correlation coefficients between duration of laying (DOL) of common terns and environmental variables during the laying period. 31 2-1 Tagging information for individual common terns fitted with GPS data loggers in 2015 on Seavey Island, NH. 48 2-2 Sample sizes and foraging trip characteristics of breeding common terns with GPS data loggers on Seavey Island, NH in 2015. 50 iii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1 The breeding and wintering distribution of common terns in North America (Nisbet 2002). 2 2 Actively managed islands of breeding seabird colonies in the Gulf of Maine (USFWS). 5 3 Location of common tern breeding colony on Seavey and White Islands, New Hampshire. 9 4 Major currents of the Gulf of Maine. http://www.gulfofmaine- census.org/about-the-gulf/oceanography/circulation/ 9 1-1 Annual number of nesting pairs and level of stability (---) of common terns on Seavey Island 1999-2015. 23 1-2 Annual productivity (sum of chicks fledged/sum of nests) and recent level of stability (---) of common terns monitored for productivity on Seavey Island 1999-2015. 24 1-3 Annual colony production and level of stability (---) of common terns on Seavey Island 1999-2015. 25 1-4 Annual nest density (sum nests in plots/sum of plots) and productivity of common terns on Seavey Island 1999-2015. 26 1-5 Annual proportions of five most delivered prey by year to common tern chicks during the feeding study on Seavey Island 1999-2015. 28 1-6 Initial lay date of common terns from nests monitored for productivity on Seavey Island 1999-2015 29 1-7 Final lay date of common terns from nests monitored for productivity on Seavey Island 1999-2015 30 1-8 Duration of laying period (DOL) (with trend line) of common terns from nests monitored for productivity on Seavey Island 1999-2015. 31 2-1 Common tern with GPS data logger attached with glue and Tesa tape before release (left) and with GPS logger removed (right) in 2014 on Seavey Island, NH. 47 iv 2-2 Common tern with GPS data logger sutured on back before release (left) and common tern sitting on nest with GPS data logger sutured on back (right) in 2015 on Seavey Island, NH 47 2-3 All GPS locations (n = 1,202) collected from 19 common terns with GPS data loggers in 2015 on Seavey Island, NH. 51 2-4 The 3 primary foraging areas (n = 21 trips by 12 birds) of common terns with GPS data loggers in 2015 on Seavey Island, NH. 51 2-5 Other foraging locations (n= 4 trips by 4 birds)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Behavior and Attendance Patterns of the Fork-Tailed Storm-Petrel
    BEHAVIOR AND ATTENDANCE PATTERNS OF THE FORK-TAILED STORM-PETREL THEODORE R. SIMONS Wildlife Science Group, Collegeof Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195 USA ABSTRACT.--Behavior and attendance patterns of breeding Fork-tailed Storm-Petrels (Ocea- nodromafurcata) were monitored over two nesting seasonson the Barren Islands, Alaska. The asynchrony of egg laying and hatching shown by these birds apparently reflects the influence of severalfactors, including snow conditionson the breedinggrounds, egg neglectduring incubation, and food availability. Communication between breeding birds was characterized by auditory and tactile signals.Two distinct vocalizationswere identified, one of which appearsto be a sex-specific call given by males during pair formation. Generally, both adults were present in the burrow on the night of egg laying, and the male took the first incubation shift. Incubation shiftsranged from 1 to 5 days, with 2- and 3-day shifts being the most common. Growth parameters of the chicks, reproductive success, and breeding chronology varied considerably between years; this pre- sumably relates to a difference in conditions affecting the availability of food. Adults apparently responded to changes in food availability during incubation by altering their attendance patterns. When conditionswere good, incubation shifts were shorter, egg neglectwas reduced, and chicks were brooded longer and were fed more frequently. Adults assistedthe chick in emerging from the shell. Chicks became active late in the nestling stage and began to venture from the burrow severaldays prior to fledging. Adults continuedto visit the chick during that time but may have reducedthe amountof fooddelivered. Chicks exhibiteda distinctprefledging weight loss.Received 18 September1979, accepted26 July 1980.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural History and Breeding Behavior of the Tinamou, Nothoprocta Ornata
    THE AUK A QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ORNITHOLOGY VoL. 72 APRIL, 1955 No. 2 NATURAL HISTORY AND BREEDING BEHAVIOR OF THE TINAMOU, NOTHOPROCTA ORNATA ON the high mountainous plain of southern Peril west of Lake Titicaca live three speciesof the little known family Tinamidae. The three speciesrepresent three different genera and grade in size from the small, quail-sizedNothura darwini found in the farin land and grassy hills about Lake Titicaca between 12,500 and 13,300 feet to the large, pheasant-sized Tinamotis pentlandi in the bleak country between 14,000 and 16,000 feet. Nothoproctaornata, the third species in this area and the one to be discussedin the present report, is in- termediate in size and generally occurs at intermediate elevations. In Peril we have encountered Nothoproctabetween 13,000 and 14,300 feet. It often lives in the same grassy areas as Nothura; indeed, the two speciesmay be flushed simultaneouslyfrom the same spot. This is not true of Nothoproctaand the larger tinamou, Tinamotis, for although at places they occur within a few hundred yards of each other, Nothoproctais usually found in the bunch grassknown locally as ichu (mostly Stipa ichu) or in a mixture of ichu and tola shrubs, whereas Tinamotis usually occurs in the range of a different bunch grass, Festuca orthophylla. The three speciesof tinamous are dis- tinguished by the inhabitants, some of whom refer to Nothura as "codorniz" and to Nothoproctaas "perdiz." Tinamotis is always called "quivia," "quello," "keu," or some similar derivative of its distinctive call. The hilly, almost treeless countryside in which Nothoproctalives in southern Peril is used primarily for grazing sheep, alpacas,llamas, and cattle.
    [Show full text]
  • Uropygial Gland in Birds
    UROPYGIAL GLAND IN BIRDS Prepared by Dr. Subhadeep Sarker Associate Professor, Department of Zoology, Serampore College Occurrence and Location: • The uropygial gland, often referred to as the oil or preen gland, is a bilobed gland and is found at the dorsal base of the tail of most psittacine birds. • The uropygial gland is a median dorsal gland, one per bird, in the synsacro-caudal region. A half moon-shaped row of feather follicles of the upper median and major tail coverts externally outline its position. • The uropygial area is located dorsally over the pygostyle on the midline at the base of the tail. • This gland is most developed in waterfowl but very reduced or even absent in many parrots (e.g. Amazon parrots), ostriches and many pigeons and doves. Anatomy: • The uropygial gland is an epidermal bilobed holocrine gland localized on the uropygium of most birds. • It is composed of two lobes separated by an interlobular septum and covered by an external capsule. • Uropygial secretory tissue is housed within the lobes of the gland (Lobus glandulae uropygialis), which are nearly always two in number. Exceptions occur in Hoopoe (Upupa epops) with three lobes, and owls with one. Duct and cavity systems are also contained within the lobes. • The architectural patterns formed by the secretory tubules, the cavities and ducts, differ markedly among species. The primary cavity can comprise over 90% of lobe volume in the Oilbird (Steatornis caripensis) and some woodpeckers and pigeons. • The gland is covered by a circlet or tuft of down feathers called the uropygial wick in many birds.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Preen Others? Predictors of Allopreening in Parrots and Corvids and Comparisons to 2 Grooming in Great Apes
    1 Why preen others? Predictors of allopreening in parrots and corvids and comparisons to 2 grooming in great apes 3 Short running title: Allopreening in parrots and corvids 4 Alejandra Morales Picard1,2, Roger Mundry3,4, Alice M. Auersperg3, Emily R. Boeving5, 5 Palmyre H. Boucherie6,7, Thomas Bugnyar8, Valérie Dufour9, Nathan J. Emery10, Ira G. 6 Federspiel8,11, Gyula K. Gajdon3, Jean-Pascal Guéry12, Matjaž Hegedič8, Lisa Horn8, Eithne 7 Kavanagh1, Megan L. Lambert1,3, Jorg J. M. Massen8,13, Michelle A. Rodrigues14, Martina 8 Schiestl15, Raoul Schwing3, Birgit Szabo8,16, Alex H. Taylor15, Jayden O. van Horik17, Auguste 9 M. P. von Bayern18, Amanda Seed19, Katie E. Slocombe1 10 1Department of Psychology, University of York, UK 11 2Montgomery College, Rockville, Maryland, USA 12 3Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Medical University 13 Vienna, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 14 4Platform Bioinformatics and Biostatistics, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Austria. 15 5Department of Psychology, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA 16 6Institut Pluridisciplinaire Hubert Curien, University of Strasbourg, 23 rue Becquerel 67087 17 Strasbourg, France 18 7Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, UMR 7178, 67087 Strasbourg, France 19 8Department of Cognitive Biology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria 20 9UMR Physiologie de la Reproduction et des Comportements, INRA-CNRS-Université de Tours 21 -IFCE, 37380 Nouzilly, France 22 10School of Biological & Chemical Sciences, Queen
    [Show full text]
  • Predator and Competitor Management Plan for Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge
    Appendix J /USFWS Malcolm Grant 2011 Fencing exclosure to protect shorebirds from predators Predator and Competitor Management Plan for Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge Background and Introduction Background and Introduction Throughout North America, the presence of a single mammalian predator (e.g., coyote, skunk, and raccoon) or avian predator (e.g., great horned owl, black-crowned night-heron) at a nesting site can result in adult bird mortality, decrease or prevent reproductive success of nesting birds, or cause birds to abandon a nesting site entirely (Butchko and Small 1992, Kress and Hall 2004, Hall and Kress 2008, Nisbet and Welton 1984, USDA 2011). Depredation events and competition with other species for nesting space in one year can also limit the distribution and abundance of breeding birds in following years (USDA 2011, Nisbet 1975). Predator and competitor management on Monomoy refuge is essential to promoting and protecting rare and endangered beach nesting birds at this site, and has been incorporated into annual management plans for several decades. In 2000, the Service extended the Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge Nesting Season Operating Procedure, Monitoring Protocols, and Competitor/Predator Management Plan, 1998-2000, which was expiring, with the intent to revise and update the plan as part of the CCP process. This appendix fulfills that intent. As presented in chapter 3, all proposed alternatives include an active and adaptive predator and competitor management program, but our preferred alternative is most inclusive and will provide the greatest level of protection and benefit for all species of conservation concern. The option to discontinue the management program was considered but eliminated due to the affirmative responsibility the Service has to protect federally listed threatened and endangered species and migratory birds.
    [Show full text]
  • Terns Nesting in Boston Harbor: the Importance of Artificial Sites
    Terns Nesting in Boston Harbor: The Importance of Artificial Sites Jeremy J. Hatch Terns are familiar coastal birds in Massachusetts, nesting widely, but they are most numerous from Plymouth southwards. Their numbers have fluctuated over the years, and the history of the four principal species was compiled by Nisbet (1973 and in press). Two of these have nested in Boston Harbor: the Common Tern (Sterna hirundo) and the Least Tern (S. albifrons). In the late nineteenth century, the numbers of all terns declined profoundly throughout the Northeast because of intensive shooting of adults for the millinery trade (Doughty 1975), reaching their nadir in the 1890s (Nisbet 1973). Subsequently, numbers rebounded and reached a peak in the 1930s, declined again to the mid-1970s, then increased into the 1990s under vigilant protection (Blodget and Livingston 1996). In contrast, the first terns to nest in Boston Harbor in the twentieth century were not reported until 1968, and there are no records from the 1930s, when the numbers peaked statewide. For much of their subsequent existence the Common Terns have depended upon a sequence of artificial sites. This unusual history is the subject of this article. For successful breeding, terns require both an abimdant food supply and nesting sites safe from predators. Islands in estuaries can be ideal in both respects, and it is likely that terns were numerous in Boston Harbor in early times. There is no direct evidence for — or against — this surmise, but one of the former islands now lying beneath Logan Airport was called Bird Island (Fig. 1) and, like others similarly named, may well have been the site of a tern colony in colonial times.
    [Show full text]
  • Roseate Tern Sterna Dougallii
    COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii in Canada Roseate Tern. Diane Pierce © 1995 ENDANGERED 2009 COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC. 2009. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 48 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). Previous reports: COSEWIC. 1999. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 28 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm) Whittam, R.M. 1999. Update COSEWIC status report on the Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 1-28 pp. Kirkham, I.R. and D.N. Nettleship. 1986. COSEWIC status report on the Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 49 pp. Production note: COSEWIC would like to acknowledge Becky Whittam for writing the status report on the Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii in Canada, prepared under contract with Environment Canada, overseen and edited by Richard Cannings and Jon McCracken, Co-chairs, COSEWIC Birds Specialist Subcommittee. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: 819-953-3215 Fax: 819-994-3684 E-mail: COSEWIC/[email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Également disponible en français sous le titre Ếvaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur la Sterne de Dougall (Sterna dougallii) au Canada – Mise à jour.
    [Show full text]
  • Feather Destructive Behaviour
    FEATHER DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOUR Feather destructive behaviour (FDB) is a common presentation in pet and aviary birds, although it is not usually seen in their wild counterparts. It often has a multi-factorial aetiology, and can be a complex and challenging condition to treat. This article will give an outline of the potential causes of FDB and suggests an approach to its investigation and management in pet parrots. What is FDB? Birds are unique amongst the animal kingdom in possessing feathers. Feathers have a number of functions; providing a means for flight, being involved in thermoregulation, and acting as a means of communication, especially for reproductive purposes. FDB occurs when a bird plucks out or damages its feathers. It may progress from feather picking, where a bird may just chew on its feathers, to a more severe form that involves self-trauma to the skin or underlying structures. Why do birds pick their feathers? The causes of FDB can be divided into two main categories: medical and behavioural. Stress, in some form, is often part of the cause. It is important to investigate and rule out medical causes of FDB before considering a behavioural aetiology. Medical causes of FDB may directly relate to the skin and feathers, or may relate to stressors from a primary disease process elsewhere in the body. Factors such as an inadequate diet, infection (bacterial/viral/fungal/parasitic), access or exposure to toxins or allergens, and internal metabolic or endocrine disease may all result in birds displaying FDB and/or self- mutilating. In some birds mild irritation from over-preening moulting feathers may trigger an itch-chew cycle and progress to FDB.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Birds of the Estero Bay Area
    Common Birds of the Estero Bay Area Jeremy Beaulieu Lisa Andreano Michael Walgren Introduction The following is a guide to the common birds of the Estero Bay Area. Brief descriptions are provided as well as active months and status listings. Photos are primarily courtesy of Greg Smith. Species are arranged by family according to the Sibley Guide to Birds (2000). Gaviidae Red-throated Loon Gavia stellata Occurrence: Common Active Months: November-April Federal Status: None State/Audubon Status: None Description: A small loon seldom seen far from salt water. In the non-breeding season they have a grey face and red throat. They have a long slender dark bill and white speckling on their dark back. Information: These birds are winter residents to the Central Coast. Wintering Red- throated Loons can gather in large numbers in Morro Bay if food is abundant. They are common on salt water of all depths but frequently forage in shallow bays and estuaries rather than far out at sea. Because their legs are located so far back, loons have difficulty walking on land and are rarely found far from water. Most loons must paddle furiously across the surface of the water before becoming airborne, but these small loons can practically spring directly into the air from land, a useful ability on its artic tundra breeding grounds. Pacific Loon Gavia pacifica Occurrence: Common Active Months: November-April Federal Status: None State/Audubon Status: None Description: The Pacific Loon has a shorter neck than the Red-throated Loon. The bill is very straight and the head is very smoothly rounded.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Preening Behavior of Wild-Caught Canada Geese and Mallards.- Comfort Movements Have Been Described for Many Birds (C.F., Goodwin, Br
    690 THE WILSON BULLETIN - Vol. 95, No. 4, December 1983 of winter above that in the preceding spring, depending upon over-all productivity, mortality in other habitats and wintering areas, and other factors. It is impossible for a single team of observers to adequately census all habitats in a region within the time limitations required, but studies that do not cover all of the habitats used by the winter species are likely to be misleading on questions of population change during the season. Habitat availability must also be considered in such studies, but data on availability of even gross (vs micro) habitat types are generally lacking. Two patterns that seem clear from this and our previous (1979) study is that notable declines occur over winter in natural habitats in mild as well as in severe winters, and that the steepness of the decline is related especially to the size of the starting population. The observation that bird populations declined through the winter in both mild and severe winters is important to those who census winter birds. The seasonal limits designated for Audubon winter bird studies is 20 December-10 February (Robbins, Studies in Avian Biology 6:52-57, 1981). The results would differ according to the pattern of censusing in that period- early censuses indicating high populations, later censuses lower populations. Fortunately the dates of censuses are usually presented, but the rules of censusing may need to be more precisely delineated, as Robhins (1981) has suggested. Acknowledgments.-We are indebted to Richard E. Warner and Glen C. Sanderson of the Illinois Natural History Survey for helpful suggestions on the original manuscript.-JEAN W.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Tern Sterna Hirundo
    Common Tern Sterna hirundo Dick Young CURRENT STATUS: In Pennsylvania, the common tern is endangered and protected under the Game and Wildlife Code. In the northeastern United States, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lists the common tern as a migratory bird of conservation concern in the lower Great Lakes region. Nationally, they are not listed as an endangered/threatened species. All migratory birds are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. POPULATION TREND: Common terns (Sterna hirundo) have not nested successfully in Pennsyl- vania for many years; however the potential for nesting still exists. The only location with suitable nest- ing habitat is their historic nest site at Presque Isle State Park in Erie County. They once nested in abun- dance on Gull Point at the east end of the park, where more than 100 pairs were recorded in the early 1930s. Frequent disturbances by recreational beach-goers led to abandonment of the site. In 1985, the common tern was determined to be “extirpated,” or absent as a nesting species, in the Pennsylvania Bio- logical Survey’s Species of Special Concern in Pennsylvania. In 1999 the species was upgraded to “endangered” after a nesting pair was found in the newly protected Gull Point Natural Area at Presque Isle. The vulnerable eggs were destroyed before hatching, however. More recently, there were unsuc- cessful nesting attempts in 2012 and 2014. Despite these disappointments, common terns are fairly common to abundant migrants along Lake Erie, offering hope that breeding birds will stay to nest once again in Pennsylvania.
    [Show full text]
  • Molecular Ecology of Petrels
    M o le c u la r e c o lo g y o f p e tr e ls (P te r o d r o m a sp p .) fr o m th e In d ia n O c e a n a n d N E A tla n tic , a n d im p lic a tio n s fo r th e ir c o n se r v a tio n m a n a g e m e n t. R u th M a rg a re t B ro w n A th e sis p re se n te d fo r th e d e g re e o f D o c to r o f P h ilo so p h y . S c h o o l o f B io lo g ic a l a n d C h e m ic a l S c ie n c e s, Q u e e n M a ry , U n iv e rsity o f L o n d o n . a n d In stitu te o f Z o o lo g y , Z o o lo g ic a l S o c ie ty o f L o n d o n . A u g u st 2 0 0 8 Statement of Originality I certify that this thesis, and the research to which it refers, are the product of my own work, and that any ideas or quotations from the work of other people, published or otherwise, are fully acknowledged in accordance with the standard referencing practices of the discipline.
    [Show full text]