DOCSLIB.ORG

Wader Populations Are Declining &Hyphen; How Will We Elucidate The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Wader populations are declining - how will we elucidate the reasons? CHRISTOPHZOCKLER '1, SIMON DELANY2 & WARD HAGEMEIJER2 1UNEP-WCMC,219 HuntingdonRoad, Cambridge, U.K., e-mail: Christoph. Zockler@unep-wcmc. org; 2WetlandsInternational, PO Box471, 6700 AL Wageningen,The Netherlands Z6ckler, C., Delany, S. & Hagemeijer,W. 2003. Wader populationsare declining - how will we elucidatethe reasons?Wader Study Group Bull. 100: 202-211. Worldwide,many waderpopulations have beenshown to be in decline,though for someinformation is still lacking.Not all populationsare declining, but long-distance migrants (a majority)appear to be at particular risk. Also at risk are sedentaryspecies with smallpopulations, which comprise a majorityof the extinctand globallythreatened species. The latter are betterstudied, and threats to their futureare relativelywell under- stood.Large-scale population changes in Arcticand north-temperate regions are generally better documented thanin the tropicsor the SouthernHemisphere. The reasonsfor declinesin largeand widespread populations are not well understoodand explanationsare mostlybased on sparseand uncoordinated data. The InternationalWaterbird Census (IWC), coordinatedby WetlandsInternational, provides a framework for monitoringnon-breeding populations at a globalscale. However, wader counts are not yet availablefrom mostcountries for enoughyears to allow meaningfulpopulation trend analyses. Nevertheless there is con- siderablepotential for trendanalyses using IWC data in the future.Many otherstudies use different and un- coordinatedmethods. We still lack facilities for broad-scaleanalyses which would allow the reasonsfor observedchanges in waderpopulations to be explored.A GIS referenced,decentralised, web-based database interfaceis proposedwhich would help explainthese changes by linkingwader monitoring initiatives, and by providingintegration with otherenvironmental monitoring schemes. EXISTING KNOWLEDGE OF POPULATION STATUS Global assessmentsproduced every three to five yearsby Wetlands International estimate the numbers and summarise Global approaches the statusof waterbirdpopulations, but alsodemonstrate the gapsin our knowledge(Rose & Scott 1994, Rose & Scott Wetlands Internationalhas been publishingresults of the 1997, Wetlands International2002). Wetlands International IWC and trendsin certainwaterbird populations for many (2002) compiledestimates of numbersand trendsfor 499 years(Atkinson Willes 1976, 1978, 1981, RQgeret al. 1986, populationsof 209 speciesrecognised as "waders".Table 1 van der Ven 1987, 1988, Monval & Pirot 1989, Scott & Rose summarisesthe numberof speciesin eachwader family, the 1989, Perennou et al. 1990, Perennou, 1991, 1992, Perennou numberof biogeographicpopulations into whichthese fami- & Mundkur 1991, 1992, Rose 1992, Mundkur & Taylor lies have beendivided, the numberof populationestimates 1993, Taylor & Rose 1994, Rose 1995, Dodman& Taylor andtrends presented for eachfamily, andthe number of these 1995, 1996, Lopez & Mundkur 1997, Dodmanet al. 1997, trendswhich were estimatedto be increasing,stable, or de- 1998, Delany et al. 1999, Blanco& Carbonell2001, Gilissen creasing.Seven populations which have becomeextinct et al. 2002). This work hasprovided important baseline in- since 1750 are also included. formationabout waterbird numbers, and successfulpopula- Populationestimates are now availablefor a majority tion trend analysishas been possiblefor certain groups, (424, 85%) of waderpopulations (Table 1). The numberof notablyAnatidae in Europe.The censusresults (and hence populationsfor which the trend is now known is abouthalf the IWC data)are incomplete for certainsites, species or re- of this(207, 41%). Of thepopulations with knowntrends, 92 gions.Because of thesegaps, methodological inconsistencies (44%) showa decreasingtrend, 81 (39%) appearto be stable and otherconstraints, trend data are still lackingfor many and only 27 (13%) show an increasingtrend. The baseline populations.Significant efforts are being made at presentto of availablepopulation estimates continues to grow,and we improvethis situation.Waders have only beenincluded in alsoexpect the quantityand quality of populationtrend data IWC in mostcountries for the mostrecent 10 or so yearsof to showimprovements in the comingyears. These improve- its 35-year history, and no wader data are included in the mentswill includean increase in thenumber of waderspecies IWC databasefor years before 1989. Information about for which sufficientdata are availablefor trendanalysis to populationtrends in wadersis thusonly now becoming avail- be meaningful.An expectedincrease in coverageby IWC, able, althoughprospects for future trendanalyses for wad- andthe developmentof monitoringof ImportantBird Areas ers basedon IWC data are very good. (IBAs) underBirdLife International'sIBA programme,will * Correspondingauthor • Bufietin100April2003 202 ZOckler et aL: Wader populations are declining 203 Table 1, Summaryof data presentedfor waders in Waterbird PopulationEstimates - third edition (Wetlands International2002). Family No of No of bio- No of No. of species geographic population population populations estimates trends presented 'presented Details of presented trends Increasing Stable Decreasing Extinct RostratulidaePainted snipes 2 4 2 1 0 0 1 Dromadididae Crab plovers 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 HaematopodidaeOystercatchers 12 20 20 9 5 3 0 IbidorhynchidaeIbisbill 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Recurvirostridae Stilts & Avocets 10 25 23 14 4 9 1 Burhinidae Thick-knees 9 25 14 5 0 0 5 Glareolidae Coursers,Pratincoles 17 46 33 12 0 6 6 Charadriidae Plovers & allies 67 156 134 59 11 19 28 ScolopacidaeSnipes, Sandpipers, 90 221 197 106 7 43 51 Phalaropes& allies Total 209 499 424 207 27 81 92 7 % of populations 85% 41% 13% 39% 44% 4% alsobe significantin this respect.The challengewill be to temperate Europe and reduced numbers have also been effectivelycombine and present the resultsof numerousand foundon winteringgrounds in West Africa. However, data diverse studiesat a number of scalesin a meaningful and from the Arctic arecurrently too sparseto concludethat there accessible manner. hasbeen an overalldecline in the populationof this still very abundantspecies (Z6ckler 2002). Europe The Americas A major analysisof wadertrends in the WesternPalearctic, usingIWC data, is planned,and a preliminaryanalysis for Considerableeffort is put into shorebirdconservation in one species,the EurasianOystercatcher Haematopus ostra- North America,and comprehensive conservation plans have leguswas presentedin February2002 (Haanstrain prep). beenprepared for the USA (Brown et al. 2000) and Canada BirdLife International/EuropeanBird CensusCouncil (Donaldsonet al. 2000). Morrison et al. (2001) presented (2000) reportedthat about24 of the 42 wader populations populationestimates and trends for North Americabased on breedingin Europeshowed a decreasingtrend whereas only a wide variety of sources,and listed 28 (80%) of the 35 nine showedan increase.A further nine speciesshowed an wader speciesin North America as declining.Of these,19 uncleartrend but severalof thesewere alsothought to be in species(54%) showedstatistically significant or persistent decline.More recentdata also suggesta decliningtrend for negativetrends. For somespecies, such as Red Knot, a pre- Curlew Numeniusarquata in Northern Germany (Melter et viously non-significantdeclining trend has sharpenedand al. 1998) andfor RingedPlover Charadriushiaticula around this speciesseems to be in steepdecline in the New World the North Sea (Hfilterlein et al. 2000). as well as the Old World (Baker et al. 2000). Gilissen et al. (2002) reporteda sharpdecrease in the Most American shorebirdsare long-distancemigrants numberof non-breedingRed Knot Calidris canutusin The from Arctic and sub-Arctic breeding grounds,which are Netherlandsbetween 2000 and 2002 (source:T. Piersma in monitoredby a number of schemesduring the breeding, litt.). Similarly, Red Knot in the neighbouringvery impor- migration and non-breedingseasons. The Western Hemi- tant stagingarea of the Schleswig-HolsteinWadden Sea sphereShorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN) is the largestof showed a decline between 1988 and 1999 of about 35% these,and includes54 sites(see: http://www.manomet.org/ (GQnther& R6sner 2000). WHSRN/leam.php).American and Canadian biologists have Of 21 wader species monitored over 12 years in the developeda methodfor monitoringArctic waderpopulations WaddenSea, only five have increasedwhereas nine species in the breeding season,and are trying to establish a har- have shownpersistent declines. GQnther & R6sner (2000) monised monitoring programme for all North American recordeddecreases in five Arctic-breedingspecies of which breedingpopulations (Johnston 2001, Skagen,this volume). four were wadersthat had previouslybeen increasing (Grey Efforts are also being made to establish IWC in North Plover Pluvialis squatarola, Red Knot, Dunlin Calidris America, which remainsthe most sizeablegap in the net- alpina and RedshankTringa totanus). They related these work. IWC is well establishedin partsof SouthAmerica, but trendsto possiblechanges in the climate.Data from Zacken- monitoring in the Caribbean and in Central and South berg in the central high Arctic of Greenlandalso showed America remains small in scale, and the proportion of decreasingnumbers of RedKnot during 1995-2002 but stable waterbird populationsfor which estimatesare available is or increasingnumbers of five othershorebird species breed- lower in the Neotropicalregion than in any of the
Recommended publications
  • Birdlife International for the Input of Analyses, Technical Information, Advice, Ideas, Research Papers, Peer Review and Comment

    Birdlife International for the Input of Analyses, Technical Information, Advice, Ideas, Research Papers, Peer Review and Comment

    UNEP/CMS/ScC16/Doc.10 Annex 2b CMS Scientific Council: Flyway Working Group Reviews Review 2: Review of Current Knowledge of Bird Flyways, Principal Knowledge Gaps and Conservation Priorities Compiled by: JEFF KIRBY Just Ecology Brookend House, Old Brookend, Berkeley, Gloucestershire, GL13 9SQ, U.K. June 2010 Acknowledgements I am grateful to colleagues at BirdLife International for the input of analyses, technical information, advice, ideas, research papers, peer review and comment. Thus, I extend my gratitude to my lead contact at the BirdLife Secretariat, Ali Stattersfield, and to Tris Allinson, Jonathan Barnard, Stuart Butchart, John Croxall, Mike Evans, Lincoln Fishpool, Richard Grimmett, Vicky Jones and Ian May. In addition, John Sherwell worked enthusiastically and efficiently to provide many key publications, at short notice, and I’m grateful to him for that. I also thank the authors of, and contributors to, Kirby et al. (2008) which was a major review of the status of migratory bird species and which laid the foundations for this work. Borja Heredia, from CMS, and Taej Mundkur, from Wetlands International, also provided much helpful advice and assistance, and were instrumental in steering the work. I wish to thank Tim Jones as well (the compiler of a parallel review of CMS instruments) for his advice, comment and technical inputs; and also Simon Delany of Wetlands International. Various members of the CMS Flyway Working Group, and other representatives from CMS, BirdLife and Wetlands International networks, responded to requests for advice and comment and for this I wish to thank: Olivier Biber, Joost Brouwer, Nicola Crockford, Carlo C. Custodio, Tim Dodman, Roger Jaensch, Jelena Kralj, Angus Middleton, Narelle Montgomery, Cristina Morales, Paul Kariuki Ndang'ang'a, Paul O’Neill, Herb Raffaele and David Stroud.
  • The Impact of Predation by Introduced Mammals on Endemic Shorebirds in New Zealand: a Conservation Perspective

    The Impact of Predation by Introduced Mammals on Endemic Shorebirds in New Zealand: a Conservation Perspective

    Biological Conservation 99 (2001) 47±64 www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon The impact of predation by introduced mammals on endemic shorebirds in New Zealand: a conservation perspective John E. Dowding a,*, Elaine C. Murphy b aPO Box 36-274, Merivale, Christchurch 8030, New Zealand bScience and Research Unit, Department of Conservation, Private Bag 4715, Christchurch, New Zealand Abstract The avifauna of New Zealand has been severely depleted since human colonisation and currently contains a disproportionately high number of threatened species. Of the 23 threatened shorebird species worldwide, six are endemic to New Zealand. We review the status of New Zealand's endemic shorebirds and examine the impact on them of various threats, particularly predation by introduced mammals. The conservation status of the 10 extant species (three oystercatchers, one stilt, four plovers and two snipe) is outlined and the factors that predisposed them to predation by introduced mammals are summarised. Individual species accounts are presented, including data on population trends, known or suspected impacts of predation, identi®cation of important predator species, other threats, and conservation measures currently in place or required. One species and two subspecies are extinct, three species are con®ned to predator-free islands and another is found only on the Chatham Islands group. Six survive on the mainland but three have declined to varying degrees and are assigned threatened status by Collar et al. (1994). Only one plover and two oystercatchers are still relatively numerous and/or widespread. Rats, cats and mustelids have had the greatest overall impacts. Conservation measures in place to mitigate the eects of introduced predators include the formulation of recovery plans, predator control around breeding areas, captive breeding and rearing programmes and the founding of new populations by translocation.
  • Impacts of Deforestation on the Conservation Status of Endemic Birds in the North Maluku Endemic Bird Area from 1990-2003

    Impacts of Deforestation on the Conservation Status of Endemic Birds in the North Maluku Endemic Bird Area from 1990-2003

    Impacts of Deforestation on the Conservation Status of Endemic Birds in the North Maluku Endemic Bird Area from 1990-2003 John Vetter Dr. Jennifer Swenson, Advisor May 2009 Master's Project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Environmental Management degree in the Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University May 2009 Abstract Satellite imagery has become a powerful tool to analyze land-use trends across large portions of the globe, including remote areas where access is logistically or political impossible. Due to the rapid pace of deforestation, the high biodiversity contained within, and the difficulty of access and standardized field surveys, the tropics are a key front for using remote sensing to identify target areas for conservation action and, more recently, to inform species-level trends. This study focuses on deforestation in eastern Indonesia, which has some of the highest rates of forest clearing in the world from mining, plantation expansion, timber extraction, and shifting agriculture. Forest loss on the highly biodiverse islands of the North Maluku district in eastern Indonesia was examined from 1990 to 2003 and the conservation status of 39 restricted-range avian species found in the area was re-assessed from these trends. Of the land area available for analysis, forests declined from 86% to just under 70% in these thirteen years, with much of this occurring in the lowlands (below 400m). Consequently, those species with large amounts of their range at low elevations were disproportionately affected, with 10 out of 25 endemic species being under more threat than currently listed by the IUCN Red List and only 3 being considered safer than currently listed.
  • Stilt 50 Final 16-04-07

    Stilt 50 Final 16-04-07

    Stilt 50 ( 2006 ): 215-223 Are we neglecting non-migratory shorebirds? ARE WE NEGLECTING THE NON-MIGRATORY SHOREBIRDS OF THE EAST ASIAN– AUSTRALASIAN FLYWAY? MICHAEL A WESTON Birds Australia National Office, 415 Riversdale Rd, Hawthorn East, 3123, Australia (from February 2007: Green Building, 60 Leicester St, Carlton 3053, Australia) A recurrent debate within the Australasian Wader Study Group (AWSG) is whether resident (non-migratory) shorebirds are being neglected in favour of migratory species in terms of research and conservation efforts. This paper examines whether migrants have attracted a disproportionate research and conservation effort from the AWSG, by using articles published in Stilt as an index of effort. More articles (223 cf. 110) and more pages (912 cf. 267) have been dedicated specifically to migrants. Articles on migrants (4.3 ± 2.2 [mean ± standard deviation] pages) were longer than those on residents (2.5 ± 1.8 pages). These differences might reflect the fact that there are more migrants in the East Asian–Australasian Flyway since the ratio of migrant to resident species is 1.4:1 or 2:1 depending on which species are considered to use the flyway. Even when corrections are applied for this imbalance (for the 1.4:1 ratio only), a disproportionate number of pages and articles have still been devoted to migrants. Overall, it appears that there is a bias towards research and conservation effort on migratory species, with the cumulative magnitude of the bias to date equating to the number of pages in 3.8 average-length editions of Stilt . I speculate on some of the causes of the apparent bias.
  • SHOREBIRDS (Charadriiformes*) CARE MANUAL *Does Not Include Alcidae

    SHOREBIRDS (Charadriiformes*) CARE MANUAL *Does Not Include Alcidae

    SHOREBIRDS (Charadriiformes*) CARE MANUAL *Does not include Alcidae CREATED BY AZA CHARADRIIFORMES TAXON ADVISORY GROUP IN ASSOCIATION WITH AZA ANIMAL WELFARE COMMITTEE Shorebirds (Charadriiformes) Care Manual Shorebirds (Charadriiformes) Care Manual Published by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums in association with the AZA Animal Welfare Committee Formal Citation: AZA Charadriiformes Taxon Advisory Group. (2014). Shorebirds (Charadriiformes) Care Manual. Silver Spring, MD: Association of Zoos and Aquariums. Original Completion Date: October 2013 Authors and Significant Contributors: Aimee Greenebaum: AZA Charadriiformes TAG Vice Chair, Monterey Bay Aquarium, USA Alex Waier: Milwaukee County Zoo, USA Carol Hendrickson: Birmingham Zoo, USA Cindy Pinger: AZA Charadriiformes TAG Chair, Birmingham Zoo, USA CJ McCarty: Oregon Coast Aquarium, USA Heidi Cline: Alaska SeaLife Center, USA Jamie Ries: Central Park Zoo, USA Joe Barkowski: Sedgwick County Zoo, USA Kim Wanders: Monterey Bay Aquarium, USA Mary Carlson: Charadriiformes Program Advisor, Seattle Aquarium, USA Sara Perry: Seattle Aquarium, USA Sara Crook-Martin: Buttonwood Park Zoo, USA Shana R. Lavin, Ph.D.,Wildlife Nutrition Fellow University of Florida, Dept. of Animal Sciences , Walt Disney World Animal Programs Dr. Stephanie McCain: AZA Charadriiformes TAG Veterinarian Advisor, DVM, Birmingham Zoo, USA Phil King: Assiniboine Park Zoo, Canada Reviewers: Dr. Mike Murray (Monterey Bay Aquarium, USA) John C. Anderson (Seattle Aquarium volunteer) Kristina Neuman (Point Blue Conservation Science) Sarah Saunders (Conservation Biology Graduate Program,University of Minnesota) AZA Staff Editors: Maya Seaman, MS, Animal Care Manual Editing Consultant Candice Dorsey, PhD, Director of Animal Programs Debborah Luke, PhD, Vice President, Conservation & Science Cover Photo Credits: Jeff Pribble Disclaimer: This manual presents a compilation of knowledge provided by recognized animal experts based on the current science, practice, and technology of animal management.
  • CMS/CAF/Inf.4.13 1 Central Asian Flyway Action Plan for Waterbirds and Their Habitat Country Report

    CMS/CAF/Inf.4.13 1 Central Asian Flyway Action Plan for Waterbirds and Their Habitat Country Report

    CMS/CAF/Inf.4.13 Central Asian Flyway Action Plan for Waterbirds and their Habitat Country Report - INDIA A. Introduction India situated north of the equator covering an area of about 3,287,263 km2 is one of the largest country in the Asian region. With 10 distinctly different bio geographical zones and many different habitat types, the country is known amongst the top 12 mega biodiversity countries. India is known to support 1225 species of bird species, out of these 257 species are water birds. India remains in the core central region of the Central Asian Flyway (CAF) and holds some crucial important wintering population of water bird species. India is also a key breeding area for many other water birds such as Pygmy cormorant and Ruddy-shelduck, globally threatened water birds such as Dalmatian Pelican, Lesser White-fronted Goose, Siberian crane, oriental white stork, greater adjutant stork, white winged wood duck etc. Being located in the core of the CAF, and several important migration routes the country covers a large intra-continental territory between Arctic and Indian Ocean. Being aware of the importance of the wetlands within the geographic boundary of the India for migrating avifauna, India has developed a wetland conservation programme. India currently has 19 RAMSAR sites. India has identified more than 300 sites which has the potential to be consider as the RAMSAR sites. However, being the second most populus nation in the world with agricultural economy, wetlands are one of the most used habitat with water bird and human interface. Much of the Indian landmass also being dependent to the normal monsoonal rainfall for precipitation is also subjected to extremes of drought and flood making the wetlands vulnerable to drastic ecological changes.
  • Annex4 CAF Action Plan.Doc

    Annex4 CAF Action Plan.Doc

    AEWA MOP Inf. 4.6 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals MEETING TO CONCLUDE AND ENDORSE THE PROPOSED CENTRAL ASIAN FLYWAY ACTION PLAN TO CONSERVE MIGRATORY WATERBIRDS AND THEIR HABITATS New Delhi, 10-12 June 2005 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CMS/CAF/Report Annex 4 CENTRAL ASIAN FLYWAY ACTION PLAN FOR THE CONSERVATION OF MIGRATORY WATERBIRDS AND THEIR HABITATS As finalised by Range States of the Central Asian Flyway at their second meeting in New Delhi, 10-12 June 2005 AEWA MOP Inf. 4.6 Contextual Note on the Central Asian Waterbirds Flyway Action Plan The Meeting to Conclude and Endorse the Proposed Central Asian Flyway Action Plan to Conserve Migratory Waterbirds and their Habitats took place in New Delhi, India, from 10-12 June 2005. The New Delhi Meeting was the second official meeting of the Central Asian Flyway (CAF) Range States since they first met in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, in 20011, to discuss a draft action plan for the CAF and various legal and institutional options to support an action plan’s implementation. The New Delhi meeting was attended by nearly 100 participants including delegates from 23 of 30 Range States and a number of international and national level non-governmental organisations. CMS organised the meeting, in cooperation with Wetlands International, who also provided technical advice to the CMS Secretariat and in-kind support to the meeting. The Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests hosted the event with organisational support from the Wildlife Institute of India. The Governments of India, the Netherlands and Switzerland, as well as CMS, AEWA, the Global Environment Facility, and the UNEP Regional Offices for West Asia, Asia and the Pacific, and Europe (Pan-European Biodiversity and Landscape Strategy) provided generous financial contributions.
  • Genetic Analyses Reveal an Unexpected Refugial Population of Subantarctic Snipe (Coenocorypha Aucklandica)

    Genetic Analyses Reveal an Unexpected Refugial Population of Subantarctic Snipe (Coenocorypha Aucklandica)

    16 Genetic analyses reveal an unexpected refugial population of subantarctic snipe (Coenocorypha aucklandica) LARA D. SHEPHERD* OLIVER HADDRATH Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, Department of Natural History, PO Box 467, Wellington 6140, New Zealand Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Canada MARIANA BULGARELLA COLIN M. MISKELLY Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, PO Box 467, Wellington 6140, New Zealand PO Box 467, Wellington 6140, New Zealand School of Biological Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand ABSTRACT: Auckland Island snipe (Coenocorypha aucklandica aucklandica) are presumed to have occurred throughout the Auckland Island archipelago but became restricted to a subset of the islands following mammal introductions. Snipe were known to have survived on Adams Island, Ewing Island, and Disappointment Island. However, it is uncertain whether snipe were continually present on Enderby Island and/or adjacent Rose Island. These islands lie near Ewing Island, and both hosted a suite of introduced mammals until the last species were eradicated in 1993. Using SNPs generated by ddRAD-Seq we identified four genetically distinct groups of snipe that correspond to the expected three refugia, plus a fourth comprised of Enderby Island and Rose Island. Each genetic group also exhibited private microsatellite alleles. We suggest that snipe survived in situ on Rose and/or Enderby Island in the presence of mammals, and discuss the conservation implications of our findings. Shepherd, L.D.; Bulgarella, M.; Haddrath, O.; Miskelly, C.M. 2020. Genetic analyses reveal an unexpected refugial population of subantarctic snipe (Coenocorypha aucklandica). Notornis 67(1): 403–418.
  • Adobe PDF, Job 6

    Adobe PDF, Job 6

    Noms français des oiseaux du Monde par la Commission internationale des noms français des oiseaux (CINFO) composée de Pierre DEVILLERS, Henri OUELLET, Édouard BENITO-ESPINAL, Roseline BEUDELS, Roger CRUON, Normand DAVID, Christian ÉRARD, Michel GOSSELIN, Gilles SEUTIN Éd. MultiMondes Inc., Sainte-Foy, Québec & Éd. Chabaud, Bayonne, France, 1993, 1re éd. ISBN 2-87749035-1 & avec le concours de Stéphane POPINET pour les noms anglais, d'après Distribution and Taxonomy of Birds of the World par C. G. SIBLEY & B. L. MONROE Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1990 ISBN 2-87749035-1 Source : http://perso.club-internet.fr/alfosse/cinfo.htm Nouvelle adresse : http://listoiseauxmonde.multimania.
  • Order CHARADRIIFORMES: Waders, Gulls and Terns Family SCOLOPACIDAE Rafinesque: Sandpipers and Allies Subfamily GALLINAGININAE Ol

    Order CHARADRIIFORMES: Waders, Gulls and Terns Family SCOLOPACIDAE Rafinesque: Sandpipers and Allies Subfamily GALLINAGININAE Ol

    Text extracted from Gill B.J.; Bell, B.D.; Chambers, G.K.; Medway, D.G.; Palma, R.L.; Scofield, R.P.; Tennyson, A.J.D.; Worthy, T.H. 2010. Checklist of the birds of New Zealand, Norfolk and Macquarie Islands, and the Ross Dependency, Antarctica. 4th edition. Wellington, Te Papa Press and Ornithological Society of New Zealand. Pages 191-193. Order CHARADRIIFORMES: Waders, Gulls and Terns The family sequence of Christidis & Boles (1994), who adopted that of Sibley et al. (1988) and Sibley & Monroe (1990), is followed here. Family SCOLOPACIDAE Rafinesque: Sandpipers and Allies Scolopacea Rafinesque, 1815: Analyse de la Nature: 70 – Type genus Scolopax Linnaeus, 1758. Christidis & Boles (1994) noted that the sequence of genera and species in the Scolopacidae varies considerably between works, and that there are no substantive data to favour any one sequence over another. The sequence adopted by Checklist Committee (1990) is generally followed here in the interests of consistency. Subfamily GALLINAGININAE Olphe-Galliard: Snipes Gallinaginae [sic] Olphe-Galliard, 1891: Contrib. Faune Ornith. Europe Occidentale 14: 18 – Type genus Gallinago Brisson, 1760. Higgins & Davies (1996) and Worthy (2003) are followed here in the use of the subfamily name Gallinagininae for the snipes. The correct spelling of the name is explained by Worthy (2003). Genus Coenocorypha G.R. Gray Coenocorypha G.R. Gray, 1855: Cat. Genera Subgen. Birds Brit. Mus.: 119 – Type species (by original designation) Gallinago aucklandica G.R. Gray. The elevation of Coenocorypha barrierensis, C. iredalei and C. huegeli to species level follows Worthy, Miskelly & Ching (2002). The order in which the species are treated follows that of Holdaway et al.
  • Subantarctic Islands Rep 11

    Subantarctic Islands Rep 11

    THE SUBANTARCTIC ISLANDS OF NEW ZEALAND & AUSTRALIA 31 OCTOBER – 18 NOVEMBER 2011 TOUR REPORT LEADER: HANNU JÄNNES. This cruise, which visits the Snares, the Auckland Islands, Macquarie Island, Campbell Island, the Antipodes Islands, the Bounty Islands and the Chatham Islands, provides what must surely be one of the most outstanding seabird experiences possible anywhere on our planet. Anyone interested in seabirds and penguins must do this tour once in their lifetime! During our 18 day voyage we visited a succession of tiny specks of land in the vast Southern Ocean that provided an extraordinary array of penguins, albatrosses, petrels, storm-petrels and shags, as well as some of the world’s rarest landbirds. Throughout our voyage, there was a wonderful feeling of wilderness, so rare these days on our overcrowded planet. Most of the islands that we visited were uninhabited and we hardly saw another ship in all the time we were at sea. On the 2011 tour we recorded 125 bird species, of which 42 were tubenoses including no less than 14 forms of albatrosses, 24 species of shearwaters, petrels and prions, and four species of storm- petrels! On land, we were treated to magical encounters with a variety of breeding penguins (in total a whopping nine species) and albatrosses, plus a selection of the rarest land birds in the World. Trip highlights included close encounters with the Royal, King and Gentoo Penguins on Macquarie Island, face-to-face contact with Southern Royal Albatrosses on Campbell Island, huge numbers of Salvin’s and Chatham Albatrosses
  • Supporting References for Nelson & Ellis

    Supporting References for Nelson & Ellis

    Supplemental Data for Nelson & Ellis (2018) The citations below were used to create Figures 1 & 2 in Nelson, G., & Ellis, S. (2018). The History and Impact of Digitization and Digital Data Mobilization on Biodiversity Research. Publication title by year, author (at least one ADBC funded author or not), and data portal used. This list includes papers that cite the ADBC program, iDigBio, TCNs/PENs, or any of the data portals that received ADBC funds at some point. Publications were coded as "referencing" ADBC if the authors did not use portal data or resources; it includes publications where data was deposited or archived in the portal as well as those that mention ADBC initiatives. Scroll to the bottom of the document for a key regarding authors (e.g., TCNs) and portals. Citation Year Author Portal used Portal or ADBC Program was referenced, but data from the portal not used Acevedo-Charry, O. A., & Coral-Jaramillo, B. (2017). Annotations on the 2017 Other Vertnet; distribution of Doliornis remseni (Cotingidae ) and Buthraupis macaulaylibrary wetmorei (Thraupidae ). Colombian Ornithology, 16, eNB04-1 http://asociacioncolombianadeornitologia.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/11/1412.pdf [Accessed 4 Apr. 2018] Adams, A. J., Pessier, A. P., & Briggs, C. J. (2017). Rapid extirpation of a 2017 Other VertNet North American frog coincides with an increase in fungal pathogen prevalence: Historical analysis and implications for reintroduction. Ecology and Evolution, 7, (23), 10216-10232. Adams, R. P. (2017). Multiple evidences of past evolution are hidden in 2017 Other SEINet nrDNA of Juniperus arizonica and J. coahuilensis populations in the trans-Pecos, Texas region.