The Waterbirds of Durban Bay Current and Historical Population Trends by David G
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
VOLUME 35 /// 2012 SPECIAL EDITION tHe Waterbirds oF durban baY Current and Historical Population Trends by David G. Allan durban•natural•science•museum•novitates editor D.G Allan Curator of Birds Durban Natural Science Museum P.O. Box 4085 Durban 4000, South Africa e-mail: [email protected] editorial board L. Richards Curator of Mammals e-mail: [email protected] K.A. Williams Curator of Entomology e-mail: [email protected] subscriPtion details Librarian Durban Natural Science Museum P.O. Box 4085 Durban 4000, South Africa e-mail:[email protected] cover image Pied Kingfisher Photo: Hugh Chittenden Published by the Durban Natural Science Museum Durban Natural Science Museum Novitates 35 THE WATERBIRDS OF DURBAN BAY 1 THE WATERBIRDS OF DURBAN BAY – CURRENT AND HISTORICAL POPULATION TRENDS DAVID G. ALLAN Durban Natural Science Museum, P.O. Box 4085, Durban 4000, South Africa e-mail: [email protected] llan, D.G. 2012. The waterbirds of Durban Bay – Current and historical population trends. Durban Natural Science Museum Novitates 35: A 1-74. This monograph reviews the current and historical population trends of waterbirds in Durban Bay primarily based on the results of information from 278 waterbird counts. The historical information comes from 71 waterbird counts made by a variety of observers and mainly covering the period 1965 to January 1999, but with some information dating back to the late 1880s. The current information comes mainly from an unbroken series of 168 monthly counts covering the entire Bay made during the 14 years July 1999 – June 2013. These latter counts are supplemented by 39 additional counts made in selected regions of the Bay during March 1999 – February 2002. A total of 92 waterbird species were recorded in the Bay during all these counts. For the 57 species that occurred at the highest frequency, detailed species accounts are presented. These include two graphs showing the long- and short-term trends, which are interpreted in the accounts. The accounts also present details of site selection and seasonality of occurrence of each species in the Bay. Additional details, e.g. breeding, are also mentioned where relevant. Details of the remaining 35 species recorded at lower frequencies are summarized in an appendix. Of the 57 waterbird species featuring in the species accounts, nine (16%) have become locally extinct (six historically and four recently), 20 (35%) are currently decreasing (six markedly), nine (16%) are currently increasing (five markedly) and 19 (33%) show currently stable populations. Relevant to taxonomic guilds, migratory waders (and all waders combined), gulls, herons, kingfishers and wagtails are currently decreasing, terns, cormorants, ibises and spoonbills, and storks are currently stable, and waterfowl, resident waders, aquatic raptors and pelicans are currently increasing. Relevant to dietary guilds, piscivores are currently stable but invertebrate feeders are currently decreasing. The information for all waterbirds combined reveals a decreasing overall trend in both the long- and short-term. The decreasing/stable trends shown by the numerically superior invertebrate feeders/gulls have a stronger influence on the overall trends than the increasing/stable patterns shown by the numerically inferior piscivores. Concerning key sites, Centre Bank, with its expansive intertidal flats, is the most important site, supporting 46% of waterbirds, despite comprising only 8% of the area of the Bay. Centre Bank is particularly important for migratory waders. The next most important area is the intertidal flats at Bayhead, which support 23% of the Bay’s waterbirds in just 3% of the Bay’s area. Combined, Centre Bank and Bayhead support 69% of the waterbirds in just 11% of the area of the Bay. By contrast, the intensively developed commercial harbour regions support only 9% of the waterbirds, despite covering 83% of the Bay. Severe concern is expressed as to the overall continuing diminution of waterbird numbers in the Bay and the implications thereof. KEYWORDS: abundance, conservation, counts, Durban Bay, Palearctic migrants, waterbirds. INTRODUCTION and McInnes et al. (2005). A key feature identified in Allan et al. (1999) was the extent to which waterbird habitats have been lost and transformed due Situated in the centre of a major city, the waterbird populations of Durban to commercial harbour developments. Between 1902 and 1999 infilling for Bay are well-known both historically and in recent times in terms of their harbour and industrial development reduced the overall size of the Bay species richness and abundance. Allan et al. (1999) provided a detailed from about 1968 ha to 853 ha, a reduction of 57% in total aquatic habitat review of the position up to and including 1999. That review demonstrated (Fig. 1). Intertidal mud- and sand-flats, the primary habitat in Durban Bay for large-scale decreases in the abundance of many waterbird species in the Palearctic waders, has been reduced by about 86%, from 1166 ha to 165 Bay. This applied particularly to a substantial proportion of the Palearctic ha. Mangrove swamps have been even harder hit and have been reduced wader species but also included representatives from the flamingoes, by about 97% from 438 ha to 15 ha. By contrast and concomitant with herons, ibises and storks. These decreases were attributed to rampant dredging to allow the passage of large commercial ships, the extent of habitat loss related to the development of the Bay as a major commercial permanently inundated open-water has increased by about 1.85 times from harbour. Aspects of that investigation were presented in a popular format 364 ha to 673 ha. The original open-water areas, however, were shallow in Allan (1999). Allan et al. (2002) examined the patterns of seasonal (likely mainly <2 m deep), whereas dredging now ensures that most of occurrence of the waterbird populations of the Bay based on regular counts these regions now comprise deep water (up to 14 m deep). Concerning the made during the three years July 1999 – June 2002. McInnes et al. (2005) shorelines fringing the outer extremities of the Bay, a key habitat for the undertook a detailed investigation of the key sites for the conservation of majority of waterbird species, less than 5% of these are in a natural waterbirds in the Bay based on regular counts extending to the four years condition, the remainder largely comprising concrete quaysides and steep July 1999 – June 2003. They identified the Centre Bank and Bayhead shorelines artificially reinforced with rubble. Only three small rivers feed regions as being of paramount importance for the waterbird populations. into the Bay and all are channelized with concrete in their lower reaches. Regular monthly counts of waterbirds have continued at Durban Bay up These provide relatively limited freshwater inflow into the Bay, which is to the present. The primary aim of this publication is to deliver an update on essentially a seawater-dominated system subject to tidal influence trends in the abundance of the Bay’s waterbird populations conveyed within throughout and which has been classified as an ‘estuarine embayment’. the full context of the earlier information. This update is particularly A central feature of this publication is to present the results of pertinent in the face of ongoing further harbour development proposals, monthly counts initiated in July 1999 and continued up to the present including current plans involving modifications to the Centre Bank region. (June 2013). In contrast to the major habitat transformations, and associated impacts on waterbird populations, that occurred in Durban STUDY AREA Bay prior to this period, harbour developments during 1999 – 2013 were Several studies, dating back many decades, describe aspects of the few, relatively minor in extent and not focused on the key waterbird sites, general ecology of Durban Bay, e.g. Day & Morgans (1956), Begg (1978, i.e. Centre Bank and Bayhead (Fig. 2). The three most noteworthy 1984), Forbes et al. (1996) and Pillay et al. (2008). Details of Durban Bay developments were: 1 - quayside extension into deep, open-water habitat specifically as a habitat for waterbirds are presented in Allan et al. (1999) in the ‘Harbour East’ area just south-east of T-jetty (in place by March 2 THE WATERBIRDS OF DURBAN BAY Durban Natural Science Museum Novitates 35 2004), quayside extension into inter-tidal sandflats in the ‘Fish Wharf’ area (in place by April 2011), and 3 - the widening of the harbour mouth (achieved by March 2009). The waterbird counts conducted during 1999 – 2013 therefore were conducted during an apparent period of relative habitat stability, compared with earlier times. METHODS Allan et al. (1999 & 2002) and McInnes et al. (2005) provide detailed general background about, and a discussion of methodology used during, the various waterbird counts made in Durban Bay upon which this publication is based. The sources of the various historical (i.e. prior to February 1999) waterbird-count data are summarized in Table 1. These sources provide information from some 71 waterbird counts. Many of these, however, did not include all waterbird species; those in this category typically focused only on Charadriform waders, especially Palearctic waders. Also included are additional incidental records of one-off counts of single or only a few species from a wide variety of sources cited in the local bird club newsletter, the earliest of these dating back to August 1900 (see Allan et al. 1999 for additional detail). A crucial aspect to note relevant to all FIG. 1. Modifications to Durban Bay since historical times, showing the reduction in the total these historical counts is that none of them covered the entire Bay region, size of the Bay, the increase in the expanse of open-water areas, and the decrease in the extent of unlike the recent counts made from the naval patrol vessel (as described intertidal mud- and sand-flats concomitant with commercial harbour development (from Allan below), and are therefore undercounts to an unknown degree.