DOCSLIB.ORG

Nesting Stage and Nest Defense by Common Terns Author(S): Brian G

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nesting Stage and Nest Defense by Common Terns Author(S): Brian G Nesting Stage and Nest Defense by Common Terns Author(s): Brian G. Palestis Source: Waterbirds, 28(1):87-94. 2005. Published By: The Waterbird Society DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1675/1524-4695(2005)028[0087:NSANDB]2.0.CO;2 URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/ full/10.1675/1524-4695%282005%29028%5B0087%3ANSANDB%5D2.0.CO %3B2 BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/ page/terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non- commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. Nesting Stage and Nest Defense by Common Terns BRIAN G. PALESTIS Department of Biological Sciences, Wagner College, Staten Island, New York 10301, USA Internet: [email protected] Abstract.—Several hypotheses predict that nest defense should increase as the nesting cycle progresses, but the predicted pattern of increase differs. Previous studies of nest defense in gulls and terns have given conflicting re- sults. Most of these have treated colonies as a unit, thus breeding asynchrony may have obscured temporal patterns. Common Tern (Sterna hirundo) nest defense against Great Black-backed Gulls (Larus marinus) was observed during two years, and responses of individuals or pairs of known nesting stage were recorded. Responses of terns to observ- ers were also recorded. Mobbing of gulls did not increase as incubation progressed, contradicting parental invest- ment models, but did increase as chicks aged. Chicks were defended more strongly by parents than were eggs. Responses to Great Black-backed Gulls were more frequent during the second wave of nesting, when the potential for re-nesting would be very low. There was no association between clutch size and nest defense. Aggression by terns to observers was rare during incubation, but became common immediately after hatching and remained frequent until the chicks fledged. The temporal pattern of mobbing in the semi-precocial Common Tern most closely resem- bles that predicted for species with altricial young. However, interpretation is complicated by the fact that gulls prey more frequently on chicks than eggs. Received 25 July 2004, accepted 30 August 2004. Key words.—Antipredator behavior, breeding phenology, mobbing, parental care, Sterna hirundo, Common Tern. Waterbirds 28(1): 87-94, 2005 Birds are highly flexible in their responses Montgomerie and Weatherhead 1988). Hy- to predators, as interactions with predators in- potheses based on either offspring conspicu- volve not only predator recognition but also as- ousness and value to predators (Harvey and sessment of risk (McLean and Rhodes 1991). Greenwood 1978) or feedback between par- Because mobbing is a potentially costly activity, ents and offspring (McLean and Rhodes nest defense should vary with the threat that 1991) predict a constant level of defense dur- particular species represent (Patterson et al. ing incubation, because eggs do not become 1980; Buitron 1983; Curio et al. 1983; Clode et more conspicuous with age (until pipping). al. 2000). Even within a single species of nest All three categories of hypotheses predict predator, antipredator responses should vary that, at least in altricial species, parents with the context of the encounter (McLean should defend chicks more strongly than and Rhodes 1991; Curio 1993). In the present eggs, because chicks are more valuable and study, the responses of the Common Tern more conspicuous than eggs. Most authors (Sterna hirundo) to the Great Black-backed have predicted that parental defense of Gull (Larus marinus) are compared across stag- chicks in altricial species should increase as es of the tern nesting cycle. chicks age and then decline at fledging Avian nest defense often increases in in- (Barash 1975; Andersson et al. 1980; Mont- tensity as the breeding season progresses gomerie and Weatherhead 1988) or shortly (reviews in Knight and Temple 1986b; thereafter (McLean and Rhodes 1991). Nest Montgomerie and Weatherhead 1988; Re- defense in precocial species, on the other dondo 1989; Brunton 1990; McLean and hand, should peak shortly after hatching Rhodes 1991), and several hypotheses have (Barash 1975; Andersson et al. 1980; Mont- been proposed to explain and predict tem- gomerie and Weatherhead 1988). These de- poral variation in nest defense. Models clines in parental nest defense are expected based on optimal parental investment and because fledglings can escape predation via offspring reproductive value predict an in- flight and precocial chicks can hide from crease in defense throughout incubation, predators, and because predators are less because the value of offspring increases and likely to remove an entire brood at once if the ability to re-nest decreases as offspring chicks have dispersed from the nest site. All age (Barash 1975; Andersson et al. 1980; of these models predict that large clutches or 87 88 WATERBIRDS broods should be defended more strongly This study was observational, involving natural en- than smaller clutches or broods, although counters with nest predators. Field observations were made from a small boat anchored approximately 20 to very few empirical studies have supported 30 m from the island. Most observations were made this prediction (Rytkönen 2002). alone, but occasionally with the help of an assistant. Ex- In the semi-precocial gulls and terns (Lar- cluding terns in the center of the island, which were dif- ficult to see from the boat, terns tended to nest along idae), seasonal patterns should be intermedi- three edges of the island on wrack (mainly dead eel- ate to those predicted for altricial and grass, Zostera). A typical observation session consisted of precocial species, since their young are mo- 3 h of observation, one at each of these edges, and typi- cally four such sessions were performed per week at var- bile but typically remain near the nest site ious times of day. Observations totaled 124 h in 2001 (see Nisbet 2002 for Common Tern). The re- and 163 h in 2002. sults of previous studies of larid nest defense Whenever a nest predator approached or entered the colony, the responses of the visible individuals were have often contradicted one another (see recorded. The variable analyzed was the proportion of Discussion), and thus no clear pattern has encounters that elicited a response, called a “tern fly- emerged. One weakness of most previous ing up”. Only encounters with predators that flew di- rectly over or within approximately 20m of the island studies of nest defense in larids and other co- were included, thus excluding encounters with preda- lonial birds (including my own work; Palestis tors landing or attempting to land on the island, which 2000) is that researchers did not examine the were rare and more likely to elicit a response from terns (Hatch 1970; Becker 1984; Cavanagh and Griffin responses of individuals or breeding pairs, 1993). Although the responses of terns to several spe- but instead treated the entire colony as one cies of nest predator were recorded, only responses to unit (for a recent exception see Meehan and Great Black-backed Gulls (hereafter, “gulls”) are ana- lyzed here, for three reasons: 1) This species was ob- Nisbet 2002). Because the behavior of many served frequently (relative to other predators) and individuals was combined, reproductive asyn- consistently throughout the study: on average, approx- chrony may have obscured seasonal patterns imately 3-4 encounters per hour in both years, with no trend across nesting stages. 2) At Pettit Island, terns of nest defense, as not every pair in a colony mob this species more frequently than other species would be at the same stage of the nesting cy- (Palestis and Burger 1997). 3) This was the only spe- cle at a given point in time. Although mob- cies observed preying on tern young, although such events were very rare (only one in the two years of the bing may spread among neighbors in a tern present study). colony (Burger and Gochfeld 1991), not all Occasionally, terns nesting close to the edge of the members of a colony or subcolony will re- island flew toward the observers in the boat. This aggres- sion usually occurred immediately after arrival, when I spond to the same encounter with a nest was preparing to enter the colony, or soon after I left the predator. For example, Burger and Gochfeld colony. In addition to responses to gulls, the frequency (1991) report that in colonies with 100 to 250 of aggression by terns toward the observers in the boat is also quantified. Mobbing while observers were on the Common Terns, the average number of terns island was not quantified. flying up in response to a predator was only All nest sites that were potentially visible from the 23.4 and was highly variable (SD ± 22.0). Dif- boat were marked with numbered tongue depressors. Typically four censuses were performed per week, which ferences in nesting stage may explain some of included tracking the contents of marked nests and this variation. This study was conducted to ex- searching for and marking new nests. In 2001, 15 incu- amine temporal changes in nest defense by bating adults were captured in nest traps and uniquely marked in combinations of blue, red and green on their Common Terns of known nesting stage.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Compendium of Avian Ecology
    Compendium of Avian Ecology ZOL 360 Brian M. Napoletano All images taken from the USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/id/framlst/infocenter.html Taxonomic information based on the A.O.U. Check List of North American Birds, 7th Edition, 1998. Ecological Information obtained from multiple sources, including The Sibley Guide to Birds, Stokes Field Guide to Birds. Nest and other images scanned from the ZOL 360 Coursepack. Neither the images nor the information herein be copied or reproduced for commercial purposes without the prior consent of the original copyright holders. Full Species Names Common Loon Wood Duck Gaviiformes Anseriformes Gaviidae Anatidae Gavia immer Anatinae Anatini Horned Grebe Aix sponsa Podicipediformes Mallard Podicipedidae Anseriformes Podiceps auritus Anatidae Double-crested Cormorant Anatinae Pelecaniformes Anatini Phalacrocoracidae Anas platyrhynchos Phalacrocorax auritus Blue-Winged Teal Anseriformes Tundra Swan Anatidae Anseriformes Anatinae Anserinae Anatini Cygnini Anas discors Cygnus columbianus Canvasback Anseriformes Snow Goose Anatidae Anseriformes Anatinae Anserinae Aythyini Anserini Aythya valisineria Chen caerulescens Common Goldeneye Canada Goose Anseriformes Anseriformes Anatidae Anserinae Anatinae Anserini Aythyini Branta canadensis Bucephala clangula Red-Breasted Merganser Caspian Tern Anseriformes Charadriiformes Anatidae Scolopaci Anatinae Laridae Aythyini Sterninae Mergus serrator Sterna caspia Hooded Merganser Anseriformes Black Tern Anatidae Charadriiformes Anatinae
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Common Tern Survey and Reproductive Monitoring Reporting
    Common Tern Survey and Reproductive Monitoring Reporting Office: Seney NWR (US Coast Guard Station, St. Ignace) Species: Common Tern (Sterna hirundo) JUSTIFICATION AND OBJECTIVES The Common Tern is a circumpolar colonial waterbird that in North America breeds in coastal areas of the northern United States and Canada. In the Midwest, the Common Tern is listed as a Conservation Priority due to habitat loss (and competition for habitat), predation, and pollution. Within the Great Lakes region, competition with Ring-billed Gulls for breeding habitat is a major influence on Common Tern numbers. Habitat loss is also a result of increased human development along shorelines and on islands. In addition, human disturbance (such as loud noises) near a colony can cause adults to abandon their nests and the colony. Predators are also a threat to Common Terns because they prey upon both eggs and young. Mammalian predators include skunk, coyote, Norway rat, domesticated cat, fox, and mink. Other common predators include owls and gulls. Finally, aquatic pollutants pose a threat to Common Terns as they are mainly piscivorous and are especially vulnerable to pollutants which have an adverse effect on eggs and young. Starting in 2001, Seney NWR began to work cooperatively with the US Coast Guard at the St. Ignace moorings to protect one of the largest Common Tern colonies in Michigan, with a formal agreement signed between the parties in 2010. According to this agreement: “……between May 1 and September 30 (very conservative) no activity should be undertaken in the fenced portion of the pier. In addition, no buoys should be moved in or out of this area unless necessary for the safety of human life.
    [Show full text]
  • STATUS ASSESSMENT and CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS for the COMMON TERN (Sterna Hirundo) in the GREAT LAKES REGION
    STATUS ASSESSMENT AND CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE COMMON TERN (Sterna hirundo) IN THE GREAT LAKES REGION Francesca J. Cuthbert Linda R. Wires Kristina Timmerman University of Minnesota Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, & Conservation Biology 1980 Folwell Ave. St. Paul, MN 55108 USA September 2003 For additional copies, contact: Nongame Bird Coordinator U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Bldg., 1 Federal Drive Fort Snelling, MN 55111-4056 Recommended Citation: Cuthbert, F.J., Wires, L.R. and K. Timmerman. 2003. Status Assessment and Conservation Recommendations for the Common Tern (Sterna hirundo) in the Great Lakes Region. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Ft. Snelling, MN. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS………………………………………………………..iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY…………………………………………………….….1 BACKGROUND……………………………………………………………………..2 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………….…………………2 TAXONOMY…………………………………………………………………………….3 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION……………………………………………………………3 RANGE…………………………………………………………………………………...4 BAND RECOVERY DATA AND POPULATION BOUNDARIES……………….…5 HABITAT………………………………………………………………………………...6 Breeding Season Habitat Requirements…………………………………………...6 Post-Breeding Staging Habitat Requirements……………………………………..8 Winter Habitat Requirements……………………………………………………...8 BIOLOGY………………………………………………………………………..………8 Migration and Wintering Grounds………………………………………………...8 Reproduction………………………………………………………………………9 Diet and Foraging Ecology………………………………………………………10 Mortality and Longevity…………………………………………………………11 POPULATION SIZE AND TRENDS………………...………………………..12
    [Show full text]
  • Common Tern Minnesota Conservation Plan
    Williams Jim Credit Common Tern Minnesota Conservation Plan Audubon Minnesota Spring 2014 The Blueprint for Minnesota Bird Conservation is a project of Audubon Minnesota written by Lee A. Pfannmuller ([email protected]) and funded by the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund. For further information please contact Mark Martell at [email protected] (651-739-9332). TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 5 Background ................................................................................................................................................... 5 Status ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 Legal Status ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Other Status Classifications .................................................................................................................. 5 Range ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 Historical Breeding Range ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Common Tern Scientific Name: Sterna Hirundo Irish Name: Geabhróg
    Bird Life Common Tern Scientific Name: Sterna hirundo Irish Name: Geabhróg he Common Tern is a migratory sea bird that arrives in T Ireland to breed around April. It leaves again for western or southern Africa around October. The Common Tern has a number of breeding sites in Ireland, including Dublin Port, where it nests on manmade floating rafts, known as pontoons. As Common Terns nest on shingle beaches of small stones and pebbles, the pontoon have shingles placed on them to replicate the tern's natural nesting environment. The birds lay their eggs in a small shallow scrape, which protects them from the wind and stops the eggs from rolling away. Their camouflaged mottled eggs are very hard to see, keeping them safe from predators. The Common Tern is a very graceful bird with its slender beak, streamline body, long narrow wings and pointed forked tail. These characteristics make it ideal for fast flying, flying strong winds and diving for small fish - its staple food. Image of courtesy Robbie Murphy It has grey upperparts and white underparts, a black cap on its When the Common Tern feeds it hovers over the head and on its wing tips, an orange-red bill with a black tip and water and dives on seeing a fish. long red legs. Colour Me Sketches courtesy of Audrey Murphy/Sherkin Island Marine Station Terns Species in Ireland FACT FILE: Five species of tern breed in Ireland: the Colour: Grey upperparts with black crown, Common Tern, Sandwich Tern, Roseate white underparts, red legs and bill. Tern, Little Tern and Arctic Tern.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Tern Sterna Hirundo and Arctic Tern S. Paradisaea Hybridization Produces Fertile Offspring
    Tern hybrid produces backcross offspring Common Tern Sterna hirundo and Arctic Tern S. paradisaea hybridization produces fertile offspring Carolyn S. Mostello 1* , Derek LaFlamme 1,2 and Patricia Szczys 3 * Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] 1 Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife, 1 Rabbit Hill Road, Westborough, Massachusetts 01581, USA; 2 Central Connecticut State University, 1615 Stanley Street, New Britain, Connecticut 06053, USA; 3 Eastern Connecticut State University, 83 Windham Street, Willimantic, Connecticut 06226, USA. Abstract This study provides the first molecular evidence for hybridization between Arctic Terns Sterna paradisaea and Common Terns S. hirundo . We studied a mixed pair (P1; male Arctic Tern and female Common Tern) and its offspring on Penikese Island, Massachusetts, USA in 2007–2015. The pair maintained a long-term pair bond (8 years); its reproductive performance was comparable to that of Common Terns and higher than that of Arctic Terns at the site. Molecular analyses confirmed that all young raised by the pair (at least 5 males and 4 females) were biological offspring. We describe hybrid young and the adult hybrid in detail to facilitate field identification. Although F1 hybrid young were intermediate between the parent species in certain characteristics, dark feathers extending below the eye, in particular, gave them a distinctly Arctic Tern-like appearance; however, all had secondary feathers that were darker than the wing-coverts, like Common Terns. We detected one male F1 hybrid that returned to breed; it retained some features intermediate between the parent species, but we qualitatively judged it to be more Common Tern-like. It mated with a Common Tern and produced three confirmed backcross hybrid young that closely resembled Common Terns.
    [Show full text]
  • COMMENTARY Disturbance, Habituation, and Management of Waterbird Colonies
    0051105 COMMENTARY Disturbance,Habituation, and Managementof WaterbirdColonies IANC. T. NISBET I.C.T. Nisbet & Company, 150 Alder Lane, North Falmouth, MA 02556, USA Internet: [email protected] Abstract.-This Commentary presents a critique of studies of effects of human disturbance on breeding colonial waterbirds, including a recent review by Carney and Sydeman (1999). It challenges the mind-set that the effects of disturbance are always adverse, and the resulting management principle that disturbance should be minimized. I argue that many studies do not withstand critical scientific scrutiny, and that published papers and reviews system- atically overstate the adverse effects of human disturbance. I propose definitions of the terms "disturbance", "habit- uation" and "tolerance", as well as classifications of types of disturbance and types of effect. Contrary to prevailing opinions, there is little scientifically acceptable evidence that human disturbance causes substantial harm to terns (Sternaspp.), gulls (Larus spp.) or herons (Ardeidae), although it is likely that sporadic incidents of harassment and vandalism are under-reported. Convincing evidence of adverse effects has been presented for several other species and groups of species; most well-documented cases have been early in the nesting cycle and/or mediated by diurnal avian predators. Although there are no formal studies of habituation, many or most colonial waterbirds can become extremely tolerant of repeated human disturbance. I recommend that, where appropriate, waterbird colonies should be managed for multiple uses (including research, education, and recreation) by deliberately promoting habituation. Although many field biologists are careful to investigate the effects of their activities and are successful in minimizing them, others appear insufficiently aware of the potential for harm, so that there is a need for more complete guidelines and better training.
    [Show full text]