DOCSLIB.ORG

2019 Arctic and Aleutian Tern Monitoring Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2019 Arctic and Aleutian Tern Monitoring Report U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Refuge Report 2020.1 Aleutian and Arctic Tern Colony Monitoring, Kodiak Archipelago, 2019 Jill E. Tengeres and Robin M. Corcoran Morgan Barnes, USFWS Barnes, Morgan Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge April, 2020 The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. Suggested Citation: Tengeres, J.E. and R.M. Corcoran. 2020. Aleutian and Arctic Tern colony monitoring, Kodiak Archipelago, 2019. Refuge report 2020.1, Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kodiak, AK. Keywords: Alaska, Aleutian Tern, Arctic Tern, Gulf of Alaska, Kodiak Archipelago, Onychoprion aleuticus, seabird colony, Sterna paradisaea. Disclaimers: The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The use of trade names of commercial products in this report does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the federal government. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Goals for Monitoring Aleutian and Arctic Terns in the Kodiak Archipelago ........................................................................ 3 Study Area ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Field Studies .................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Tern Colony Surveys ................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Count Results ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Game Cameras Used to Monitor Tern Nests ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Colony Monitoring with Game Cameras........................................................................................................................................... 12 Vegetation Sampling ................................................................................................................................................................................. 13 Acoustic Recording to Monitor Colony Occupancy ...................................................................................................................... 13 Using Social Attraction to Entice Terns to Nest in a Less Disturbed Location ................................................................... 14 Comparison of Direct Counts of Terns to Ground-based Photo Counts ................................................................................ 15 Notable Details of Tern Colony Visits ................................................................................................................................. 17 Road System Colonies (Figure 12) ...................................................................................................................................................... 17 East Kodiak Region Remote Colonies (Figure 21) ........................................................................................................................ 26 Afognak/Shuyak Island Colonies (Figure 26) .................................................................................................................................. 31 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Literature Cited ........................................................................................................................................................................ 32 Appendix A. .................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Appendix B.................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Appendix C. .................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 iii LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. The coefficient of variation on counts of Aleutian and Arctic terns. .............................................. 8 Table 2. The fate of Aleutian tern nests across the Kodiak Archipelago, Alaska, in 2019. ........................ 10 Table 3. The fate of Aleutian tern chicks at monitored nests. .................................................................... 10 Table 4. Summary of the number of habitat plots. ...................................................................................... 13 Table 5. The locations and number of recording days for Song Meter 4 units. .......................................... 14 LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. An Aleutian tern in flight, Kodiak Island, Alaska, 2019 ............................................................... 3 Figure 2. Locations of Aleutian terns from May-August, 2019 in the Kodiak Archipelago, AK.. ............... 6 Figure 3. Locations of Arctic terns from May-August, 2019 in the Kodiak Archipelago, AK.. .................. 7 Figure 4. Variation in high counts of Aleutian and Arctic terns. .................................................................. 8 Figure 5. The A chick from nest K67 observed as a fledgling on 23 July, Kalsin Bay. ............................. 11 Figure 6. Nest camera image of an Aleutian tern delivering a Pacific sand lance. ..................................... 11 Figure 7. Colony-view camera image of a Kodiak brown bear on Three Spruce Island. ........................... 12 Figure 8. Pictures of the 2-m2 vegetation sampling plots ........................................................................... 13 Figure 9. Example of Song Meter 4 units used to monitor tern colonies in 2019 ....................................... 14 Figure 10. Equipment for broadcasting Aleutian tern calls on Mary Island ............................................... 15 Figure 11. Estimated regression relationship between ground-based photo and direct counts. .................. 16 Figure 12. Nesting status of tern colonies along the road system of Kodiak Island, Alaska. ..................... 17 Figure 13. Map of the tern nesting habitat at the head of Middle Bay........................................................ 18 Figure 14. Nest camera image of a PTT tagged adult Aleutian tern. .......................................................... 19 Figure 15. Map of the tern nesting habitat at the head of Kalsin Bay. ........................................................ 21 Figure 16. Banded Aleutian tern chick at Kalsin Bay, Kodiak Island, 2019. ............................................. 22 Figure 17. Arctic tern fledgling at Kalsin Bay, Kodiak Island, 2019. ....................................................... 22 Figure 18. Map of Aleutian tern, Arctic tern, and mew gull nests monitored at Womens Bay. ................. 23 Figure 19. Nest camera image of an Aleutian tern at Womens Bay. .......................................................... 24 Figure 20. Map of Aleutian tern nests monitored at Burton Ranch, Kodiak Island. ................................... 25 Figure 21. Map of tern colony locations surveyed in 2019 on East Kodiak Island. ................................... 26 Figure 22. Nest camera images of Sitka black-tailed deer stepping on an Aleutian tern egg. .................... 27 Figure 23. Colony-view camera image of an Aleutian tern at the West Kaiugnak Bay Point colony. ....... 28 Figure 24. Black-billed magpie depredating an Arctic tern nest at the Kaiugnak Bay colony ................... 29 Figure 25. Nest camera images of 20-day old Aleutian tern chick at North Anchor Cove. ....................... 30 Figure 26. Map of tern colony nest locations on Three Spruce Island, north Shuyak Island. .................... 31 Figure 27. Aleutian and Arctic tern nests at Three Spruce Island............................................................... 32 iv Refuge Report 2020.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge Aleutian and Arctic Tern Colony Monitoring, Kodiak Archipelago, 2019 Jill E. Tengeres1 and Robin M. Corcoran2 Abstract Aleutian terns (Onychoprion aleuticus) are colonial nesting seabirds that breed in coastal Alaska and the Russian Far East, often in association with Arctic terns
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Forage Fish Management Plan
    Oregon Forage Fish Management Plan November 19, 2016 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Marine Resources Program 2040 SE Marine Science Drive Newport, OR 97365 (541) 867-4741 http://www.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/ Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife 1 Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 6 Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Federal action to protect Forage Fish (2016)............................................................................................ 7 The Oregon Marine Fisheries Management Plan Framework .................................................................. 7 Relationship to Other State Policies ......................................................................................................... 7 Public Process Developing this Plan .......................................................................................................... 8 How this Document is Organized .............................................................................................................. 8 A. Resource Analysis ....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Systematics of North Pacific Sand Lances of the Genus Ammodytes Based on Molecular and Morphological Evidence, with the Descrip
    12 9 Abstract—The systematic status Systematics of North Pacific sand lances of of North Pacific sand lances (ge- nus Ammodytes) was assessed from the genus Ammodytes based on molecular and mitochondrial DNA (cytochrome oxidase c subunit 1) sequence data morphological evidence, with the description of and morphological data to identify a new species from Japan the number of species in the North Pacific Ocean and its fringing seas. Although only 2 species, Ammodytes James W. Orr (contact author)1 hexapterus and A. personatus, have Sharon Wildes2 been considered valid in the region, Yoshiaki Kai3 haplotype networks and trees con- structed with maximum parsimony Nate Raring1 and genetic distance (neighbor- T. Nakabo4 joining) methods revealed 4 highly Oleg Katugin5 divergent monophyletic clades that 2 clearly represent 4 species of Ammo- Jeff Guyon dytes in the North Pacific region. On the basis of our material and com- Email address for contact author: [email protected] parisons with sequence data report- ed in online databases, A. personatus 1 Resource Assessment and Conservation 3 Maizuru Fisheries Research Station is found throughout the eastern Engineering Division Field Science Education and Research Center North Pacific Ocean, Gulf of Alaska, Alaska Fisheries Science Center Kyoto University Aleutian Islands, and the eastern National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA Nagahama, Maizuru Bering Sea where it co-occurs with 7600 Sand Point Way NE Kyoto 625-0086, Japan a northwestern Arctic species, A. Seattle, Washington 98115-6349 4 The
    [Show full text]
  • Humboldt Bay Fishes
    Humboldt Bay Fishes ><((((º>`·._ .·´¯`·. _ .·´¯`·. ><((((º> ·´¯`·._.·´¯`·.. ><((((º>`·._ .·´¯`·. _ .·´¯`·. ><((((º> Acknowledgements The Humboldt Bay Harbor District would like to offer our sincere thanks and appreciation to the authors and photographers who have allowed us to use their work in this report. Photography and Illustrations We would like to thank the photographers and illustrators who have so graciously donated the use of their images for this publication. Andrey Dolgor Dan Gotshall Polar Research Institute of Marine Sea Challengers, Inc. Fisheries And Oceanography [email protected] [email protected] Michael Lanboeuf Milton Love [email protected] Marine Science Institute [email protected] Stephen Metherell Jacques Moreau [email protected] [email protected] Bernd Ueberschaer Clinton Bauder [email protected] [email protected] Fish descriptions contained in this report are from: Froese, R. and Pauly, D. Editors. 2003 FishBase. Worldwide Web electronic publication. http://www.fishbase.org/ 13 August 2003 Photographer Fish Photographer Bauder, Clinton wolf-eel Gotshall, Daniel W scalyhead sculpin Bauder, Clinton blackeye goby Gotshall, Daniel W speckled sanddab Bauder, Clinton spotted cusk-eel Gotshall, Daniel W. bocaccio Bauder, Clinton tube-snout Gotshall, Daniel W. brown rockfish Gotshall, Daniel W. yellowtail rockfish Flescher, Don american shad Gotshall, Daniel W. dover sole Flescher, Don stripped bass Gotshall, Daniel W. pacific sanddab Gotshall, Daniel W. kelp greenling Garcia-Franco, Mauricio louvar
    [Show full text]
  • Little Fish, Big Impact: Managing a Crucial Link in Ocean Food Webs
    little fish BIG IMPACT Managing a crucial link in ocean food webs A report from the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force The Lenfest Ocean Program invests in scientific research on the environmental, economic, and social impacts of fishing, fisheries management, and aquaculture. Supported research projects result in peer-reviewed publications in leading scientific journals. The Program works with the scientists to ensure that research results are delivered effectively to decision makers and the public, who can take action based on the findings. The program was established in 2004 by the Lenfest Foundation and is managed by the Pew Charitable Trusts (www.lenfestocean.org, Twitter handle: @LenfestOcean). The Institute for Ocean Conservation Science (IOCS) is part of the Stony Brook University School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences. It is dedicated to advancing ocean conservation through science. IOCS conducts world-class scientific research that increases knowledge about critical threats to oceans and their inhabitants, provides the foundation for smarter ocean policy, and establishes new frameworks for improved ocean conservation. Suggested citation: Pikitch, E., Boersma, P.D., Boyd, I.L., Conover, D.O., Cury, P., Essington, T., Heppell, S.S., Houde, E.D., Mangel, M., Pauly, D., Plagányi, É., Sainsbury, K., and Steneck, R.S. 2012. Little Fish, Big Impact: Managing a Crucial Link in Ocean Food Webs. Lenfest Ocean Program. Washington, DC. 108 pp. Cover photo illustration: shoal of forage fish (center), surrounded by (clockwise from top), humpback whale, Cape gannet, Steller sea lions, Atlantic puffins, sardines and black-legged kittiwake. Credits Cover (center) and title page: © Jason Pickering/SeaPics.com Banner, pages ii–1: © Brandon Cole Design: Janin/Cliff Design Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Pacific Seabird Program Business Plan (Dawson Et Al
    National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Business Plan for Pacific Seabirds (Update) September 2016 Pacific Seabirds | 1 Purpose of a Business Plan The purpose of a NFWF business plan is to provide a detailed blueprint of the strategies and resources required to achieve the desired conservation outcomes. The strategies discussed in this plan do not represent solely the Foundation’s view of the actions necessary to achieve the identified conservation goals, but instead reflect the majority view of the many federal, state, academic, and organizational experts that were consulted during plan development. This plan is not meant to duplicate ongoing work but rather to invest in areas where gaps might exist so as to support the efforts of the larger conservation community. Acknowledgements We thank everyone who contributed to this business plan. We are especially grateful to the seabird experts, funding partners, and working group teams who took the time to develop, contribute, and review material. We acknowledge the contributions of Dantzker Consulting, Advanced Conservation Strategies, and Clarus Research for their evaluation of the Pacific Seabird Program and recommendations for continued implementation of this program. We also wish to acknowledge the valuable input resulting from discussions and written material provided by implementation and funding partners including (but not limited to): The American Bird Conservancy, BirdLife International, The David and Lucille Packard Foundation, The Farallon Institute, Island Conservation, the National Audubon Society, National Park Service, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, Oikonos, University of California Santa Cruz Coastal Conservation Action Lab, The University of Washington, The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, The U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Database Support for the Alaska Comprehensive Conservation Strategy Planning Effort
    DATABASE SUPPORT FOR THE ALASKA COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION STRATEGY PLANNING EFFORT By Tracey Gotthardt, Tamara Fields, Kelly Walton, Keith Boggs and Santosh KC Alaska Natural Heritage Program College of Arts and Sciences University of Alaska Anchorage 707 A Street Anchorage, AK 99501 June 2010 Partnership in Nongame Wildlife Research - AKNHP ii Partnership in Nongame Wildlife Research - AKNHP iii Partnership in Nongame Wildlife Research - AKNHP ABSTRACT The Alaska Natural Heritage Program (AKNHP) entered into a partnership with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s (ADF&G) Wildlife Diversity Program to summarize biological, ecological, and distribution information on a number of species featured in their Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) to aid with informed decision-making regarding the conservation status of these animals. The products resulting from this partnership, which occurred between 2004 and 2007, included summarizing ecological and biological data for 92 “featured species” to assess their conservation status rank. Additionally, range and element occurrence distribution maps were created for a subset of these species (56 of the 92), and the associated spatial information was entered into AKNHP’s Biotics database. The purpose of this project was to provide ongoing database support for the CWCS featured species dataset and to enhance its utility through the creation of integrated output products to ADF&G and its partner agencies via a web-based interface. During the course of this project AKNHP staff quality
    [Show full text]
  • Differences in Diet of Atlantic Bluefin Tuna
    16 8 Abstract–The stomachs of 819 Atlan­ Differences in diet of Atlantic bluefin tuna tic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) sampled from 1988 to 1992 were ana­ (Thunnus thynnus) at five seasonal feeding grounds lyzed to compare dietary differences among five feeding grounds on the on the New England continental shelf* New England continental shelf (Jef­ freys Ledge, Stellwagen Bank, Cape Bradford C. Chase Cod Bay, Great South Channel, and South of Martha’s Vineyard) where a Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries majority of the U.S. Atlantic commer­ 30 Emerson Avenue cial catch occurs. Spatial variation in Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930 prey was expected to be a primary E-mail address: [email protected] influence on bluefin tuna distribution during seasonal feeding migrations. Sand lance (Ammodytes spp.), Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus), Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus), squid (Cephalopoda), and bluefish (Pomato­ Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thyn- England continental shelf region, and mus saltatrix) were the top prey in terms of frequency of occurrence and nus) are widely distributed throughout as a baseline for bioenergetic analyses. percent prey weight for all areas com­ the Atlantic Ocean and have attracted Information on the feeding habits of bined. Prey composition was uncorre­ valuable commercial and recreational this economically valuable species and lated between study areas, with the fisheries in the western North Atlantic apex predator in the western North exception of a significant association during the latter half of the twentieth Atlantic Ocean is limited, and nearly between Stellwagen Bank and Great century. The western North Atlantic absent for the seasonal feeding grounds South Channel, where sand lance and population is considered overfished by where most U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • An Examination of Tern Diet in a Changing Gulf of Maine
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Masters Theses Dissertations and Theses October 2019 An Examination of Tern Diet in a Changing Gulf of Maine Keenan Yakola Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/masters_theses_2 Part of the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons, and the Marine Biology Commons Recommended Citation Yakola, Keenan, "An Examination of Tern Diet in a Changing Gulf of Maine" (2019). Masters Theses. 865. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/masters_theses_2/865 This Open Access Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations and Theses at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AN EXAMINATION OF TERN DIETS IN A CHANGING GULF OF MAINE A Thesis Presented by KEENAN C. YAKOLA Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE September 2019 Environmental Conservation AN EXAMINATION OF TERN DIETS IN A CHANGING GULF OF MAINE A Thesis Presented by KEENAN C. YAKOLA Approved as to style and content by: ____________________________________________ Michelle Staudinger, Co-Chair ____________________________________________ Adrian Jordaan, Co-Chair ____________________________________________ Stephen Kress, Member __________________________________________ Curt Griffin, Department Head Environmental Conservation ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would first like to thank for my two co-advisors would supported me throughout this process. Both Michelle Staudinger and Adrian Jordaan have been a constant source of support and knowledge and I can’t imagine going through this process without them.
    [Show full text]
  • Bald Eagles, Oyster Beds, and the Plainfin Midshipman: Ecological Intertidal Relationships in Dabob Bay
    Bald Eagles, Oyster Beds, and the Plainfin Midshipman: Ecological Intertidal Relationships in Dabob Bay Photo by Keith Lazelle Prepared by: Heather Gordon Peter Bahls Northwest Watershed Institute 3407 Eddy Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 October 2018 Table of Contents Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Background ................................................................................................................................ 2 Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 6 Hypotheses ................................................................................................................................. 7 Methods ...................................................................................................................................... 7 Bald Eagle observation ........................................................................................................... 7 Habitat survey and nest search................................................................................................ 8 Additional data collection ..................................................................................................... 10 Results ...................................................................................................................................... 11 Discussion ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Lipid Content and Energy Density of Forage Fishes from the Northern Gulf
    Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology L 248 (2000) 53±78 www.elsevier.nl/locate/jembe Lipid content and energy density of forage ®shes from the northern Gulf of Alaska J.A. Anthonya,* , D.D. Roby a , K.R. Turco b aOregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, US Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, and Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, 104 Nsah Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA bInstitute of Marine Science, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK 99775, USA Received 23 November 1998; received in revised form 16 February 1999; accepted 14 January 2000 Abstract Piscivorous predators can experience multi-fold differences in energy intake rates based solely on the types of ®shes consumed. We estimated energy density of 1151 ®sh from 39 species by proximate analysis of lipid, water, ash-free lean dry matter, and ash contents and evaluated factors contributing to variation in composition. Lipid content was the primary determinant of energy density, ranging from 2 to 61% dry mass and resulting in a ®ve-fold difference in energy density of individuals (2.0±10.8 kJ g21 wet mass). Energy density varied widely within and between species. Schooling pelagic ®shes had relatively high or low values, whereas nearshore demersal ®shes were intermediate. Pelagic species maturing at a smaller size had higher and more variable energy density than pelagic or nearshore species maturing larger. High-lipid ®shes had less water and more protein than low-lipid ®shes. In some forage ®shes, size, month, reproductive status, or location contributed signi®cantly to intraspeci®c variation in energy density.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    Table of Contents Chapter 3l Alaska Arctic Marine Fish Species Structure of Species Accounts……………………………………………………....2 Northern Wolffish…………………………………………………………………10 Bering Wolffish……………………………………………………………………14 Prowfish……………………………………………………………………………19 Arctic Sand Lance…………………………………………………………………24 Chapter 3. Alaska Arctic Marine Fish Species Accounts By Milton S. Love1, Nancy Elder2, Catherine W. Mecklenburg3, Lyman K. Thorsteinson2, and T. Anthony Mecklenburg4 Abstract Although tailored to address the specific needs of BOEM Alaska OCS Region NEPA analysts, the information presented Species accounts provide brief, but thorough descriptions in each species account also is meant to be useful to other about what is known, and not known, about the natural life users including state and Federal fisheries managers and histories and functional roles of marine fishes in the Arctic scientists, commercial and subsistence resource communities, marine ecosystem. Information about human influences on and Arctic residents. Readers interested in obtaining additional traditional names and resource use and availability is limited, information about the taxonomy and identification of marine but what information is available provides important insights Arctic fishes are encouraged to consult theFishes of Alaska about marine ecosystem status and condition, seasonal patterns (Mecklenburg and others, 2002) and Pacific Arctic Marine of fish habitat use, and community resilience. This linkage has Fishes (Mecklenburg and others, 2016). By design, the species received limited scientific attention and information is best accounts enhance and complement information presented in for marine species occupying inshore and freshwater habitats. the Fishes of Alaska with more detailed attention to biological Some species, especially the salmonids and coregonids, are and ecological aspects of each species’ natural history important in subsistence fisheries and have traditional values and, as necessary, updated information on taxonomy and related to sustenance, kinship, and barter.
    [Show full text]
  • Threats to Seabirds: a Global Assessment 2 3 4 Authors: Maria P
    1 Threats to seabirds: a global assessment 2 3 4 Authors: Maria P. Dias1*, Rob Martin1, Elizabeth J. Pearmain1, Ian J. Burfield1, Cleo Small2, Richard A. 5 Phillips3, Oliver Yates4, Ben Lascelles1, Pablo Garcia Borboroglu5, John P. Croxall1 6 7 8 Affiliations: 9 1 - BirdLife International. The David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street Cambridge CB2 3QZ UK 10 2 - BirdLife International Marine Programme, RSPB, The Lodge, Sandy, SG19 2DL 11 3 – British Antarctic Survey. Natural Environment Research Council, High Cross, Madingley Road, 12 Cambridge CB3 0ET, UK 13 4 – Centre for the Environment, Fishery and Aquaculture Science, Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, NR33, UK 14 5 - Global Penguin Society, University of Washington and CONICET Argentina. Puerto Madryn U9120, 15 Chubut, Argentina 16 * Corresponding author: Maria Dias, [email protected]. BirdLife International. The David 17 Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street Cambridge CB2 3QZ UK. Phone: +44 (0)1223 747540 18 19 20 Acknowledgements 21 We are very grateful to Bartek Arendarczyk, Sophie Bennett, Ricky Hibble, Eleanor Miller and Amy 22 Palmer-Newton for assisting with the bibliographic review. We thank Rachael Alderman, Pep Arcos, 23 Jonathon Barrington, Igor Debski, Peter Hodum, Gustavo Jimenez, Jeff Mangel, Ken Morgan, Paul Sagar, 24 Peter Ryan, and other members of the ACAP PaCSWG, and the members of IUCN SSC Penguin Specialist 25 Group (Alejandro Simeone, Andre Chiaradia, Barbara Wienecke, Charles-André Bost, Lauren Waller, Phil 26 Trathan, Philip Seddon, Susie Ellis, Tom Schneider and Dee Boersma) for reviewing threats to selected 27 species. We thank also Andy Symes, Rocio Moreno, Stuart Butchart, Paul Donald, Rory Crawford, 28 Tammy Davies, Ana Carneiro and Tris Allinson for fruitful discussions and helpful comments on earlier 29 versions of the manuscript.
    [Show full text]