Artificial Nesting Structures for Eurasian A decision-making and guidance document Giorgos Catsadorakis

Lake Kerkini National Park, Greece. © Steve Mills / Birdwing Artificial Nesting Structures for Eurasian pelicans A decision-making and guideline document Giorgos Catsadorakis

We are grateful to the following people who contributed greatly to the preparation of this guide by offering criticism, comments and suggestions, photographs, literature and all kinds of information and data: Olga Alexandrou (SPP, Greece), Taulant Bino (Albanian Ornithological Society), Sebastian Bugariu (SOR/ Romanian Ornithological Society), Alain J. Crivelli (Biological Station Tour du Valat, France), Nela Vešović Dubak (Public Enterprise for National Parks of Montenegro), Orhan Gül, Tommy King (USDA/APHIS, USA), Hillary Koll and Steve Mills (Birdwing, UK/Greece), Tanyo Michev and Pavel Simeonov (LeBalkan, Bulgaria), Taej Mundkur (Wetlands International), Theodoros Naziridis ( Kerkini National Park, Greece), Andrej Vizi (Natural History Muse­um of Montenegro), the Management Body of the Evros Delta National Park, Greece. Julia Henderson (SPP, Greece) edited the text and greatly improved the language of the document.

Recommended citation: Catsadorakis, G. 2017. Artificial Nesting Structures for Eurasian pelicans. A decision-making and guideline document. Society for the Protection of Prespa, Greece.

The MAVA Foundation supports the Society for the Protection of Prespa, including its projects for the conservation of pelicans ARTIFICIAL NESTING STRUCTURES FOR EURASIAN PELICANS. A decision-making and guidance document

Background / general information

Both the Dalmatian (Pelecanus crispus) and or when it decreases and the become declining in quality and becoming gradually the (Pelecanus onocrotalus) accessible to terrestrial predators. In addition, sub-optimal for the , or they completely are large, ground-nesting breeding in nests and eggs, especially those which are low disintegrate and the birds have to shift to other, the Western and Central Palearctic (Montenegro, and closer to water, are frequently inundated by new sites (Catsadorakis & Crivelli, 2001). , Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, , wave action during high tides or during storms, In general, there are a number of requirements Ukraine, , Iran, Kazakhstan, India and or are flooded by rising water levels, which may that have to be fulfilled in for pelicans Mongolia). From a conservation point of view, result in the destruction of nests, eggs and chicks to settle at a site to breed: a. abundance and the former is listed as “Vulnerable” in IUCN’s Global or cause nest abandonment thus decreasing availability of prey () on-site or on other sites Red List, while the latter is listed as of “Least breeding success. close enough; b. availability of proper roosting/ Concern”. Their colonies are situated on islands Over time nesting islands get degraded through resting sites (safe islands, or coastal open areas and/or in the interface between marsh vegetation use by the birds, wave erosion, storms, heavy with a view around them); and c. safe nesting and open water in , river deltas and marshes, snowfalls, etc. They normally shrink in size, islands, free of disturbance. Some wetlands may as well as in coastal or inland lagoons. They nest colonially on the ground of vegetated or non- vegetated islands, which are either earthen or consist of rhizomes of helophytes, mainly the common reed australis. They do not have natural enemies and cases of predation pressure on eggs and chicks by avian predators vary but are usually low (Crivelli et al. 1994). nesting deters or prevents terrestrial predators from accessing colonies. However, pelican breeding colonies, being large and easily located, are subject to deliberate or unintentional disturbance by humans. Pelican colonies are additionally threatened by natural or anthropogenic changes to the water levels of the water bodies where they nest, either when the water level rises and floods nesting islands, Dalmatian pelicans nesting on a raised wooden platform, Lake Kerkini, Greece. © Theodoros Naziridis

3 ARTIFICIAL NESTING STRUCTURES FOR EURASIAN PELICANS. A decision-making and guidance document

fulfil all or some of these requirements. Pelicans recent years, an increase in the total population site, has been the building of artificial nesting will not establish nesting colonies at wetlands of pelicans, mainly due to successful conservation structures (hereafter ANS). These have been where all the requirements are not met. measures in some key places (e.g. Prespa and successfully used since at least 1962 in the Volga Human interventions in the hydrological regimes Amvrakikos, Greece), has led many managers Delta, in what is now Russia (Bondarev 1976, of wetlands, in combination with the impacts of and conservationists to try to accommodate Vinogradov et al. 1982), later in other countries climate change, have resulted in the diminishment these increasing numbers of potential breeders such as Greece, Bulgaria and Turkey, and more of the qualities and the value of natural wetlands on the one hand, and on the other hand to start recently in Romania, Montenegro and Albania. as pelican nesting grounds. Furthermore, due to thinking of attracting pelicans to begin nesting in Elevated nesting platforms have also been built alterations in the hydrological regime of natural wetlands where they occur but they do not nest, and used successfully for other species of pelican wetlands, pelicans are continuously forced to or to recolonise wetlands where they nested in such as in Uppalapadu, Andhra Pradesh, India, for search for new nesting sites at artificial wetlands, the past. the nesting of the endangered spot-billed pelican impoundments and reservoirs; however, these In the last few decades, the main management (Pelecanus philippensis) (http://wikivisually.com/ are managed to serve other purposes, which measure applied to maintain satisfactory nesting wiki/Uppalapadu_Bird_Sanctuary). However, this are not necessarily compatible with the optimal pelican populations and sufficient breeding species is a tree-nesting and not a ground-nesting nesting and feeding conditions for pelicans. In success, or to attract pelicans to recolonise a species.

The main features of the ideal pelican nesting habitat • Large wetlands big enough and with sufficient resources (food and nesting substrate) to accommodate a colony of over 50 pairs of pelicans • Available nesting islands not significantly and/or frequently impacted by cold spells, adverse weather, storms, winds and waves • Nesting islands not threatened frequently by sudden and severe fluctuations of water levels; either by suddenly increasing or lowered water levels • Nesting sites free of frequent disturbance by humans, boats, wild , aircrafts, etc • Sufficient nest-building material easily available on nesting sites or close to them • Feeding waters with abundant and available prey on site or in adjacent sites at distances less than 50 km, for pelicans not having to spend a lot of energy to access them. • Aerial conditions (i.e. thermals, uplift winds, etc.) favourable to large soaring birds for low-cost movements • Calm and safe roosting and resting sites. Either isolated islands or large tracts of open spaces close to water where an unobstructed 360o view is possible and quick access to open water.

4 ARTIFICIAL NESTING STRUCTURES FOR EURASIAN PELICANS. A decision-making and guidance document

Scope and goal of this document

This document aims to provide an overview of the several scientific and practical issues associated with the building and use of ANS for pelicans. It also aims to provide guidance to managers and decision-makers about when, and under which conditions, they should decide to build such structures. It contains material that is intended to inform and to facilitate the process of decision-making and the solving of dilemmas after the decision is taken, and to help avoid mistakes and wrong decisions about deploying ANS to attract pelicans to breed. This is a document which mainly addresses the requirements of the , but there are also references to great white pelicans and hopefully it may prove useful to other species of pelicans.

Great white pelican (left) and Dalmatian pelican in full breeding ; Lake Kerkini National Park, Greece. © Kostas Papadopoulos

5 ARTIFICIAL NESTING STRUCTURES FOR EURASIAN PELICANS. A decision-making and guidance document

Types of ANS referred to herein a. Islands of dredged material b. Floating rafts Earthen islands are often created with dredged Floating structures, in the form of a raft, usually material to provide nesting and refuge habitats consist of a frame made from wood or metal. for birds and other wildlife. They range in size On this frame bands of reeds, or a platform of from a few square metres to over 0.8 km2, and are wooden planks, may be fastened, or a welded typically constructed using pebbles, stones, sand, wire fence may even be stretched and attached gravel or soil. These islands may be consolidated tightly, in the gaps between the struts of the using various techniques and materials, or stabi- frame. The latter has frequently been covered Constructing four wooden floating rafts, Lake Skadar, Montenegro. lised with emergent marsh vegetation. They may by a durable synthetic mat, which was further © Andrej Vizi be constructed singly or in groups, or they may covered with a thin layer of soil, debris and be used to increase the area of existing natural cut reed stems, or a thick layer of reed stems. islands. They have been constructed for American Special flotation materials, such as empty plastic white pelicans (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) (Yozzo or metal barrels/drums, or polystyrene cuboids, et al. 2004) and Dalmatian pelicans (Crivelli 1996, may be fastened underneath the structure. They Pyrovetsi 1997, Crivelli & Naziridis, unpublished). have been constructed and used in Russia, Bul- garia, Romania, Montenegro and Greece for both Dalmatian and great white pelicans. Fastening reed bundles onto floating rafts, which were initially used by pelicans for roosting and subsequently for nesting, 2007, Lake Sinoie, Romania. © Cristian Mititelu-Raileanu

Constructing artificial mounds of dredged material surrounded by ditches Dalmatian pelicans nesting on a pontoon (floating pier) at Lake Kerkini, Three joined 3 x 4m floating rafts after temporary use by pelicans; Lake Mikri to act as islands; Lake Kerkini, Greece. © Theodoros Naziridis Greece. © Theodoros Naziridis Prespa, Greece. © Giorgos Catsadorakis / SPP

6 ARTIFICIAL NESTING STRUCTURES FOR EURASIAN PELICANS. A decision-making and guidance document

Raised wooden platform with pelican nests on top and underneath, Lake Kerkini. © Theodoros Naziridis c. Elevated platforms supported by scaffolds d. Fixed wooden platforms resting Fixed elevated platforms have also been built in on the ground areas with high water level fluctuations, in order Such platforms are made of joined wooden planks to cope with flooding or lack of proper nest- that are attached to a wooden frame but the ing grounds. They have also been employed to whole structure is placed directly on the ground, prevent predators (wild boars, , etc.) from reaching eggs and chicks. Poles, which support the platform, are driven into the ground and are made from either wood or metal. The platform itself is usually made of wooden planks and is covered wholly or partly with nesting material, mostly cut reed stems or other aquatic or salt- marsh plants already used by pelicans in natural nests. They have been used for Dalmatian pelicans in Turkey, Albania, Bulgaria and Greece. They have Fixed wooden platform constructed to increase and raise the surface also been placed for use by spot-billed pelicans Metal scaffolding supporting raised platforms with pelican nests, Lake area available to pelicans for nesting, 2008, Ceaplace Island, Lake Sinoie, in India. Manyas, Turkey. © Orhan Gül Romania. © Cristian Mititelu-Raileanu

7 ARTIFICIAL NESTING STRUCTURES FOR EURASIAN PELICANS. A decision-making and guidance document

The fixed platform offered more space and this allowed for an increase in the number of breeding pairs over a few consecutive breeding seasons, Ceaplace Island, Romania. © Dan Bandacu usually after some kind of levelling so that it lies e. Artificial trampling of reed tussocks less flat; the birds may then use them as nesting horizontally. This was used in the , This is not a typical “structure” but is a kind of substrates the following spring. This method was Romania, to extend the surface area of a nesting management intervention that modifies naturally successfully used at Mikri Prespa Lake, Greece in island and at the same time increase the height occurring reed tussocks to simulate natural reed those years when it was suspected that the birds above water. They were supplied with a thick layer rhizome islands trampled by the birds and used suffered from a shortage of natural nesting islands (40-70 cm) of cut reeds or other aquatic or salt- as nesting sites. This process occurs naturally in (1987-1990), and also successfully for a long time marsh plant stems to be used as nesting material winter when a thick and heavy snow layer cov- in Srebarna, Bulgaria. by the birds. ers the reed-tufts and squashes them more or

8 ARTIFICIAL NESTING STRUCTURES FOR EURASIAN PELICANS. A decision-making and guidance document

Management efforts with ANS / History and lessons learnt

1. Volga Delta, Astrakhan, Russian Federation waterbirds including pelicans. In the early 1960s nesting sites of Dalmatian (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj- pelican in the lower delta had deteriorated due to ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search. strong winds raising water levels and nests being dspPage&n_proj_id=403&docType=pdf, Anony- flooded. Both floating rafts and fixed platforms mous 2000) were provided. Floating rafts, ca 15 m2 in area, made of wood poles and reed stems, were placed 4. Kerkini Reservoir, at protected sites within openings in the reed- Central Macedonia, Greece beds. They lasted for one season and then were In order to attract Dalmatian pelicans to nest at waterlogged and partially submerged. Frames of the site and cope with the 5-6m difference in wooden poles and reed mats supported by poles water level between winter and spring, first an driven into the ground and lying 50-70 cm above Adding reed bundles to the wooden floating platform, Lake Mikri Prespa, artificial island was constructed with dredged Greece. © Giorgos Catsadorakis / SPP water were first made in 1962. Ten to 32 pairs of material, with an area of ca 80m2. A variety of Dalmatian pelican and several great cormorants years with varying breeding success. Artificial waterbirds, including pelicans, used the island used them successfully for four years (Bondarev trampling of small, dense reed stands was also for roosting but no breeding took place in the 1976, Vinogradov et al. 1982). carried out for three years to provide further nesting “platforms” to pelicans and many of them 2. Mikri Prespa Lake, were used successfully by the birds for nesting Western Macedonia, Greece (Crivelli 1996 and Crivelli, A.J. & G. Catsadorakis, Cut reed stems were transported to natural islands unpublished data). to provide easily accessible nest material (1987). Floating rafts of various sizes (3x4 m to 10x4 m), 3. Amvrakikos Lagoons, Epirus, Greece made of wooden frames on which a thick layer In 2001 three artificial islets were made with of reed stems was fastened, were provided either dredged sediments, to be used as a nesting directly adjacent to natural nesting islands or ground for Dalmatian pelicans as part of the LIFE separately, to provide nesting sites in years of 99 NAT/GR/006475 project “Conservation Man- drought or flood when there was a shortage of agement of Amvrakikos Wetlands”. The island Two artificial islands, made of dredged material, after being used by pelicans; natural islands. Rafts were used two out of three was only used for roosting and resting by various Lake Kerkini, Greece. © Theodoros Naziridis

9 ARTIFICIAL NESTING STRUCTURES FOR EURASIAN PELICANS. A decision-making and guidance document

pelicans nested successfully on it and also in sub- sequent years. It was small (110 m2) and suffered some damage so it was substituted with a larger one (180m2) in 2009 which was also very success- ful and accommodated higher numbers of nest- ers. A floating raft made of pieces of styrofoam covered with concrete floating material used for docks was also placed in 2014 and used success- fully by Dalmatian pelicans, and an artificial island of dredged material was constructed between Dalmatian pelicans nesting on a raised wooden platform, Lake Kerkini, the two existing platforms in winter 2015 (Th. Greece. © Theodoros Naziridis Raised metal platforms, Lake Manyas, Turkey. © Orhan Gül Naziridis, KNPMB, in litt.) first two years. In April 1990 13 Dalmatian pelican 1965 wooden platforms were built in trees and nests were built and eggs were laid, which were 5. Lake Manyas / Kuscenneti National Park, Dalmatian pelicans bred successfully on these for all later abandoned, apparently due to human Turkey years. They needed lots of maintenance and were intrusion (Pyrovetsi 1997, Williams et al. 2013). The destruction of natural islands forced Dalma- also vulnerable to strong winds. Pelican numbers In March 1988 two floating rafts were built and tian pelicans to nest in trees, unsuccessfully. In initially rose and then declined. In 2003 and 2006 placed in suitable areas. They were ca 20m2 in the national park authority built and placed 28 area, and composed of a combination of a metal elevated wooden platforms on steel scaffolds. frame, two wooden poles and floating drums They are still used extensively and successfully underneath, while they were also covered with a by Dalmatian pelicans and nesting numbers have synthetic mat, itself covered with soil and debris increased steadily since then (Onmuş et al. 2011) on top. Dalmatian pelicans did not colonise the rafts. They were extensively used as resting sites 6. Lake Srebarna, Lower Danube, Bulgaria by a variety of waterbirds instead, and common This breeding colony of Dalmatian pelicans is a terns (Sterna hirundo) nested on the rafts success- century old. Its problems started after the Second fully in both years. World War with the drainage of a great part of the An elevated wooden platform was built in 2002 huge wetland complex Kalarash-Silistra and espe- and efforts to attract Dalmatian pelicans to nest Raised wooden platforms among trees, Lake Manyas, Turkey. cially with negative changes in the water regime, at the site were re-launched in 2003. Dalmatian © Alain J. Crivelli advancing succession, an increasing number of

10 ARTIFICIAL NESTING STRUCTURES FOR EURASIAN PELICANS. A decision-making and guidance document

Wooden floating rafts with a soil layer prior to being dragged into place, Lake Skadar, Montenegro. © Nela Vešović Dubak

Raised wooden platforms and floating rafts occupied by nesting pelicans, Lake Srebarna, Bulgaria. © Ivan Yantsev wild boars and the appearance of jackals in North levels. They were all successful and they helped a Bulgaria after the 1980s. lot in raising the number of breeding pairs at this The building of artificial platforms for Dalmatian site (Simeonov 2011). pelicans in Srebarna started in 1988 with the building of a floating raft and has continued suc- 7. Lake Skadar, Montenegro cessfully to date (Crivelli et al. 1991; Simeonov Major threats to the small breeding colony of 2011, Michev & Kamburova 2012). The first fence Dalmatian pelicans at Lake Skadar (Montenegro) to keep out predators and to attract new pairs were the frequent flooding of nesting islands by was built in 1990. In 1998 an elevated platform quickly rising water levels in spring (naturally) Floating raft with nests and a solar-powered camera, Lake Skadar, (2 m above ground) was built by Foundation and human disturbance by fishermen and tourists Montenegro. © Andrej Vizi Le Balkan-Bulgaria, with the financial support (Vizi 1975, Saveljic et al. 2004). Two wooden of Swarovski Optik. In 1999 a second elevated floating rafts (3 x 4 m) were provided in 2004 but flood destroyed most of these. In 2011, Dalma- platform was built as well as artificial floating soon disappeared (D. Saveljic-CZIP 2012, in litt.) tian pelicans used some of the remaining rafts platforms (rafts), while in 2010 a third pile plat- Eleven 2 x 3 m wooden floating rafts (with a frame but again floods forced an end to the breeding form was built. Mowed reed stems were piled on of wooden beams, polystyrene board, two plank season. a surface of 600 m2 to raise the level of the nests layers, above and below, and a layer of reed stems In autumn 2013, four 3.5 x 4 m rafts were placed in order for them not to be affected by high water for nesting material) were placed in 2010. A great close to the natural island and an additional one

11 ARTIFICIAL NESTING STRUCTURES FOR EURASIAN PELICANS. A decision-making and guidance document

in 2014. In subsequent years Dalmatian pelicans made of wooden planks whilst Salicornia stems nested successfully both on the natural sites and/ were provided to be used as nesting material. It or on rafts with similar breeding success. The rafts was placed ca 150 m away from the natural nest- suffered some damage from sinking and weather- ing island. To date (2016) it has not been used by ing. (A. Vizi - MMNH, in litt.). Dalmatian pelicans (Taulant Bino, in litt.).

8. Karavasta Lagoon, Albania 9. Danube Delta and lagoons, Romania Dalmatian pelicans nest on a natural nesting At the end of the 1990s, small floating platforms island which suffered from erosion and flooding were set up in Hrecisca Buhaiova (S. Bugariu, in high waters, and the placement of an ANS was SOR, in litt.). In 2004, a small project for prevent- thus judged necessary. An elevated platform ing the further erosion of the island of Ceaplace was first built in December 2014 and enlarged (S. Bugariu, SOR, in litt.) was also implemented. 2 in November 2015. Surfaces were 32 and 64 m . As part of the LIFE05 NAT/RO/000169 project Aerial photo of the fixed wooden platform constructed on Ceaplace Island, The upper surface was 1.2 m above water and was “Saving Pelecanus crispus in Danube Delta” a few Romania, 2008. © Sebastian Bugariu

Raised wooden platform equipped with access ramp and provided with Wooden posts driven into the lakebed to support an underwater fence of woven willow branches, protecting Ceaplace Island from the erosive action of nesting material, Karavasta lagoon, Albania. © Taulant Bino waves and water currents, Lake Sinoie, Romania. © Cristian Mititelu-Raileanu

12 ARTIFICIAL NESTING STRUCTURES FOR EURASIAN PELICANS. A decision-making and guidance document

artificial floating rafts were set up close to islands plants to be used as nesting material, although in the Sinoie lagoon, and an underwater wooden these were twice blown away by strong winds. fence was constructed to prevent erosion through After securing nesting material against winds, tempering the action of water currents. On the the raft remained for two consecutive summers. It island of Ceaplace a fixed platform (320 m2) was was only used occasionally by pelicans and other constructed, aimed at increasing the available birds for resting (Birdwing and Evros Delta Na- nesting area, and on the Prundul cu Pasari Islands tional Park Management Body, unpublished data). two floating rafts were built and an underwater fence was constructed to limit erosion. In total eight floating rafts of 320 2m total surface were constructed and placed on site. The total size of the nesting population was raised by more than 25% (Fantana et al. 2009).

10. Evros Delta, Evros Delta National Park, Thrace, Greece Dalmatian pelicans nested in the Evros / Meriç Delta until the 1960s. In winter 2012 an effort was started to attract them to nest in the delta area again in Greece. At first a small area was cleared of salt marsh vegetation on an island in a protected lagoon that was considered suitable for nesting, and where pelicans had often been observed to roost. In spring 2013 this area was flooded by high waters and an elevated platform was therefore built the following November at the same spot. The platform was made of wooden poles driven into the ground supporting a platform of planks, which measured 5 x 5 m and was 1.2 m above A low raised wooden platform was used by Dalmatian pelicans as a roosting site only, August 2014, Evros Delta, Greece. water. It was also provided with dry salt-marsh © Panagiotis Ioannidis / Evros Delta National Park

13 ARTIFICIAL NESTING STRUCTURES FOR EURASIAN PELICANS. A decision-making and guidance document

Potential negative biological and non – biological impacts of ANS

Biological impacts rafts (i.e., anchor lines too short or too long) can In recent years ANS have become really popular similarly result in nest failure, especially in cases and are increasingly considered as a means of of fluctuating water levels. The length of anchor enabling pelicans to nest or improving their nest- cables, chains or ropes must be estimated care- ing success. However, many times ANS have been fully to follow the anticipated increase of water either poorly constructed or sited, and sometimes level, and should also not be extremely long at they have been sought or deployed unnecessarily. the same time, because the whole structure will Supervision by qualified managers is required to then move too much. An incident took place in avoid improperly constructed or unnecessarily Prespa, Greece, in the 1990s, when a case of ex- deployed ANS. traordinary rise of water level was not anticipated It is emphasised that ANS should not be consid- by the raft-makers; the cables were too short and ered as a remedy for the stochasticity brought the raft was half-submerged until the cables could about by natural variability, which is sometimes be replaced by longer ones. In 2014, at Kerkini A wooden platform that has collapsed after being knocked over by a floating pier (with nests) which became detached after a storm; Lake Kerkini, Greece. expressed for example as “good” years or “bad” Reservoir, Greece, the cables anchoring a floating © Theodoros Naziridis years for an or a population. Poorly designed or maintained ANS can cause raft broke in a storm and the wind caused the raft accidental mortality or nest failure. to drift until it collided with a nearby elevated Floating rafts with inadequate buoyancy may be wooden platform and crushed the platform’s attractive nest sites to birds (De Sorbo et al. 2008), poles causing it to collapse. Fortunately no chick but can result in nest failure as materials become mortality was observed in this incident as chicks increasingly waterlogged over time. were already sufficiently grown. Several technical solutions have been tried to Another factor that is not frequently anticipated allow structures to follow the water level fluc- is how much the raft can sink with increased tuation without drifting a lot. Floating rafts are weight on it if more birds than expected use it at fastened to the bottom with anchors (weights) the same time. through cables, ropes or chains. Anchors are apt When elevated platforms are used, another fre- A floating wooden raft with nests started sinking after an extraordinary to drag (waves, underwater currents) and anchor increase of water level in spring; 1991, Lake Mikri Prespa, Greece. quent problem for chicks is that once they are in cables or ropes often break. Improperly anchored © Giorgos Catsadorakis / SPP the water they cannot return back to the platform.

14 ARTIFICIAL NESTING STRUCTURES FOR EURASIAN PELICANS. A decision-making and guidance document

A floating platform semi-sinking under the weight of hundreds of great A floating pier with nests and a wooden access ramp to enable chicks to Artificial island made of rocks and stones with pelican nests on top, Lake white and a few Dalmatian pelicans on Lake Sinoie, Romania. climb back to nests, Lake Kerkini, Greece. © Theodoros Naziridis Kerkini, Greece. © O. Alexandrou / SPP © Sebastian Bugariu

Thus, either a suitable ramp should be construct- for nesting, as high exposure to wind and wave rafts and earthen islands are often much less ob- ed and/or an accessible alternative alighting place action could result in eggs getting wet or rolling trusive than elevated platforms. Aesthetic issues must be constructed very close to the platform, out of nests, or non-use by divers. are important to many people, and the pressure or under it. to maintain visually pleasing environments will The importance of sheltering from weather has Non-biological impacts increase. With recognition and care, the most rea- not been evaluated for pelican rafts and plat- Numerous important considerations about ANS sonable aesthetic concerns can be met (Ball 1990). forms. According to the direction and power of are not fundamentally biological in nature, such ANS suffer from many kinds of degradation. Float- wind it might be more favourable for the birds to as aesthetic issues, agency policies, cost, durability, ing rafts, for example, have been constructed for nest on the ground, even though there may be maintenance requirements and the potential for pelicans in areas where water levels fluctuate. a high risk of flooding for the lower nests, than depredation or other nuisance problems that some- They have been highly accepted by pelicans, but to suffer risks of hypothermia from strong winds times accompany an increasing bird population. practical problems have plagued many projects. on the elevated platform (if it is indeed the case Some people object to ANS because of their ob- For example in high-latitude / altitude wetlands, that wind power is weaker on the ground than trusiveness or artificiality. The type of structure, ice damage is severe unless rafts are removed >1 m above it!). For example, Merrie (1996) and placement location, materials used, colour and each fall. Also, some animals may destroy unpro- C. R. DeSorbo (pers. observ.) showed that unshel- shape are key aesthetic issues. Structures that are tected flotation material. Furthermore, floating tered rafts in diver territories were inappropriate not easily seen are least likely to offend. Floating wooden structures will become waterlogged

15 ARTIFICIAL NESTING STRUCTURES FOR EURASIAN PELICANS. A decision-making and guidance document

and will sink unless flotation materials have been The need for continuing maintenance is probably added. Wooden logs in the frames have been re- the most commonly overlooked disadvantage placed by PVC plastic tubes of a large diameter, of ANS. ANS programmes probably fail more with their open ends capped to act both as a sup- because of inadequate maintenance than for porting frame and flotation material. Nest mate- all other reasons combined. Consequently, a rial must be wired to the surface of the platform, programme should not be initiated unless the or kept in position by additional thin wooden necessary maintenance can be continued for at poles, to prevent it from being blown off. The least 10 years (Ball 1990). latter has happened in many cases.

Two raised wooden platforms in the landscape of Lake Kerkini, Greece. © Theodoros Naziridis

16 ARTIFICIAL NESTING STRUCTURES FOR EURASIAN PELICANS. A decision-making and guidance document

Protocol for evaluating the need for ANS

The underlying basic assumption is that the considered species is threatened threshold. Answers to the above critical questions must rely on the results locally, regionally or globally and it is in need of support in order to secure and conclusions of well-designed scientific research. and enhance its existing populations. A2. Need to enhance a very low breeding success The reasons for which a markedly low breeding success is repeatedly ob- SEQUENCE 1 served in a particular population, i.e. eggs and/or chicks suffer from high Interventions at sites already used by mortality/loss/abandonment, may be the following: existing nesting sites pelicans for nesting are of low quality (durability, nesting material availability, susceptibility to erosion, wave action, storms, etc); existing sites suffer from frequent floods STEP 1A: Identify as accurately as possible the issue to be tackled by or droughts (natural or anthropogenic) and there are no alternative sites introducing an ANS available; floods destroy nests/eggs and droughts make colonies accessible to terrestrial predators by creating bridges to nearby land. There are four main needs that may be addressed by an ANS: A3. Need to ensure that nesting sites are free of disturbance by A1. Need to accommodate an increasing or surplus population humans because natural ones suffer from heavy disturbance This means that there are strong indications of, or hard evidence for, a com- This may happen when natural nesting islands only occur in parts of the bination of the following events: many floaters (adult birds which are able to wetland which are heavily used by fishermen for fishing, tourists, boat traffic, breed but not actually breeding) occur seeking opportunities to nest; existing poachers, anglers, etc. Thus the colonies suffer from high levels of disturbance natural nesting sites are saturated; the particular population is very small and/ which it is difficult to stop because it is impossible to divert these activities or at the brink of extinction, and needs support to overcome a certain safety to somewhere else.

17 ARTIFICIAL NESTING STRUCTURES FOR EURASIAN PELICANS. A decision-making and guidance document

A4. Need to ensure safe nesting sites in view of imminent 2008). The “let alone” choices however, are not always directly compatible to negative changes conservation needs in the quickly changing habitats of the modern world It is foreseen that existing nesting sites are being degraded at high rates under human pressure. from various causes and shortly there will not be suitable sites available. For example, hydrological changes may have taken place which render natural STEP 1C. Is intervention with an ANS the right thing to do? nesting sites susceptible to erosion and degradation at very high rates and Alternative kinds of interventions should also not be overlooked or underes- it is anticipated that they will soon be destroyed and the birds will have to timated, and deserve careful consideration: Managing apparently unsuitable move to some other safer place to nest, but such sites are not available. natural sites to simulate nesting sites is an example of this approach. Tram- pling of naturally occurring clumps of reeds in winter to facilitate subsequent STEP 1B: Is intervention the right thing to do? use by pelicans has been proved very successful in Lake Prespa National Park, There has been a long debate about the pros and the cons of intervening Greece (Crivelli A. J. and G. Catsadorakis, unpublished data). Another alterna- with hands-on management in comparison to “let alone” tactics under varying tive kind of intervention would be to try to influence, and eventually modify, circumstances and conditions. This discussion has wide-ranging philosophi- hydrological attributes in order to amplify the rise and fall of the water level cal dimensions and, beyond purely conservation matters, it also entails other and thus critically improve the condition of pelican nesting islands. A third matters (aesthetics, cost-benefit ratios, etc.), as many important consider- example of an alternative intervention that should be examined as a sub- ations about whether to intervene or not are not fundamentally biological stitute to ANS would be to use management measures to consolidate sites in nature (Ball 1990). The natural vs the artificial is also a long and big debate and islands susceptible to erosion with a variety of existing techniques, as for (Birnbacher 2006), as well as the whole issue of naturalness (Schnitzler et al. example has been used in the Danube Delta in Romania (Fantana et al. 2009).

18 ARTIFICIAL NESTING STRUCTURES FOR EURASIAN PELICANS. A decision-making and guidance document

STEP 1D: In cases where a decision to intervene with an ANS has been arrived at

A number of crucial questions have to be answered after this decision has initially been reached: ▶ What kind of ANS? (Are islands preferable to elevated platforms or floating rafts?) ▶ How large would each ANS be? How many pieces of it will be placed? For how long they will be in place? Where exactly are they to be placed within the wetland? ▶ Will it be possible to carry out monitoring of the ANS and for how long? ▶ Which parameters are to be monitored and for how long? ▶ Is the cost for maintenance and guarding affordable in the long run? ▶ Is there an issue of a trade-off, such as between conservation needs and naturalness of the landscape for example? ▶ Have potentially negative impacts to other wildlife species or values been identified? There are often incompatibilities between various conservation targets. ▶ Will it be feasible to remove the ANS after a certain period if it has become unnecessary or undesired? ▶ Have all safety problems for the target species or other wildlife been taken into consideration beforehand? ▶ Final, but crucially: what is the target number of breeding pairs sought? This is closely connected to the carrying capacity of the ecosystem.

SEQUENCE 2: Interventons at sites where there are no nestng pelicans (or which had been used in the recent or distant past)

19 ARTIFICIAL NESTING STRUCTURES FOR EURASIAN PELICANS. A decision-making and guidance document

SEQUENCE 2 STEP 2.A Interventions at sites where Are there clear indications that adequate numbers of individuals of the species there are no nesting pelicans (including adults) are present in this particular wetland all year round, or for a few (or which had been used months during the breeding season? in the recent or distant past) If not, stop process If yes, proceed to Step 2.B

STEP 1A STEP 2.B Identify as accurately as possible the issue to be tackled Are all the requirements for ensuring the long-term breeding of the species in the by introducing an ANS specific wetland fulfilled? (For requirements see Box 1 above) Before any other consideration, a feasibility study should be undertaken to answer If not, stop process the following question: why do pelicans not use this wetland, or have not bred in this If yes, proceed to Step 2.C wetland up to now, or don’t breed in this wetland anymore (for those wetlands where they were breeding formerly)? The study should adopt an ecosystem approach. If STEP 2.C the study has a clear conclusion, then one can start to answer the steps below. If the Is the creation of a pelican colony possible given the existing legal and institutional conclusion is not clear, the procedure should stop and the studies needed in order constraints? to clarify the answer should be undertaken. If not, stop process Again, the underlying basic assumption that should be kept in mind is that this If yes, proceed to Step 2.D particular species is threatened in this part of the world, or globally, and it is in dire need of support in order to secure and enhance its existing populations. STEP 2.D The essence of the challenge is whether the position that the creation of a new nest- In cases where there are local human societies sharing the resources of the wetlands, ing colony will be beneficial for the overall of the species in the is there a minimum social acceptance by stakeholders of the decided management region can be convincingly defended. Adopting the logic of an integrated ecosystem measures for the creation of this new colony? approach, decision-makers should ask themselves whether they have any idea of If not, stop process the optimal carrying capacity of the site, in other words, for this particular site: ‘How If yes, proceed to Step 2.E many pelicans are enough?’ In fact, the case for ANS should be examined only in those situations where a site STEP 2.E fulfils all other requirements for the nesting of these species but does not have Is the adoption of the ANS strategy desirable and accepted from a philosophical available natural nesting sites. and aesthetic point of view (naturalness vs artificiality, alteration to the natural Thus, in cases where there is no nesting colony on-site and managers aspire to create landscape, etc) one, i.e. to attract birds to nest by providing them with ANS, then the issues to be If not, stop process dealt with are more numerous than for cases where pelicans already nest: If yes, proceed to Steps 1B, 1C and 1D.

20 ARTIFICIAL NESTING STRUCTURES FOR EURASIAN PELICANS. A decision-making and guidance document

Reflection and special considerations

As for many other issues in ecology and conservation science, the magic disturbances and alterations. These alterations, combined with the -purely- words regarding the whole issue of ANS are “trade-off” and “integrated ethical decision of human societies not to allow any species of organism to ecosystem approach”. Both are burdened with a complex interlinkage of violently disappear from the planet, have created the need for humans to reiterating ethical, practical and scientific dilemmas and decisions that have intervene in order to restore, to rehabilitate, etc. Duffy (1994) has written to be made. something about island ecosystems that also holds true for wetlands too: “... ANS are not equal in ecological value to natural nest-site alternatives, and we cannot really restore island ecosystems, yet we cannot leave them alone”. do not fully cope with ecosystemic problems for pelican populations, such However, the questions: “Under which circumstances can the active, hands- as the rapid degradation of nesting habitat or artificially fluctuating water on intervention of man in order to manage the populations of a wild animal levels. It is well known that although it is better to leave nature decide on be justified?”, and “Which is the threshold beyond which this intervention is questions such as which, what, when and how much, and for how long, the no longer justified?” have not been answered in a fit-for-all manner. diverse pressure on natural ecosystems from humans continuously creates

21 ARTIFICIAL NESTING STRUCTURES FOR EURASIAN PELICANS. A decision-making and guidance document

Key messages and recommendations

1. ANS can indeed improve the reproductive success of nesting birds. one pelican expert, decide if there are one or more reasons from those de- scribed above which make the building and placement of an ANS necessary. 2. ANS are not equal in ecological value to natural nest sites and do not fully solve problems for pelican populations relating to the capacities of the 5. Do not underestimate the importance of the conflict of values. A typical ecosystems they belong to. example is the impact of ANS upon landscape aesthetics.

3. ANS in natural wetlands can be considered only after >5 years of monitor- 6. With the help of other managers who have perhaps already applied similar ing (nesting numbers, nest distribution, presence of non-nesters, quality of measures, carefully prepare a budget for the endeavour. nesting islands, breeding success, causes of failure) has indicated a consistent nest-failure history due to predation, water-level fluctuation, erosion, preda- 7. With the help of one or more social scientists, carefully estimate how the tion, or disturbance, and other preventive approaches, such as education, pub- local society perceives the application of ANS, i.e. the degree of social ac- lic awareness, habitat protection, water-level stabilisation and limiting access ceptance. by guarding and cordoning off nest areas, have failed (DeSorbo et al. 2008). 8. Try to evaluate as carefully as possible, and with all possible available sci- 4. Make sure all available evidence is compiled in order to be able to clearly entific and research tools, what the increase in nesting pelicans will mean for answer the question: “Why do we wish to build and place an ANS in our wet- the ecosystem in terms of the impact on food resources, inflow of nutrients land?” In collaboration with, amongst others, at least one wetlands expert and to the wetland through droppings, competition with other species, etc.

22 ARTIFICIAL NESTING STRUCTURES FOR EURASIAN PELICANS. A decision-making and guidance document

9. Try also to assess in the most robust way possible what would be the impact 14. Often the first management intervention brings a need for an endless of the increase in nesting pelicans on the local economy. series of interventions; so, last but certainly not least, try to define the upper limit of the endeavour, i.e. when you will say “this number is enough”, and 10. Consider the potential negative impacts that the increase/creation of incorporate this maximum number in your plans in a clear way. a pelican population may have on other rare and valuable elements of the ecosystem. 15. Adherence to the protocols presented in this document will aid in en- suring that ANS are constructed and deployed appropriately to achieve the 11. Whilst designing the ANS remember that nest failure can also result from maximum benefit for pelican populations. improperly constructed or deployed rafts. 16. All decisions should be taken within the context of an integrated eco- 12. Make sure a well-designed monitoring system is in place for the next 10 system approach. years.

13. Make sure that the management entity responsible for managing the effort will be there to ensure the continuation of the maintenance (Ball 1990) and monitoring for at least 10 years.

23 ARTIFICIAL NESTING STRUCTURES FOR EURASIAN PELICANS. A decision-making and guidance document

In wetlands where pelicans occur for all or part of the year and managers wish to explore the possibility / feasibility of attracting them to establish a nesting colony in these wetlands:

▶ Make sure that guarding of a potential future colony, to keep it free of human disturbance, is completely guaranteed.

▶ Make sure that the local society is (at least) tolerant of this decision

▶ Make sure that there is sufficient, and available, prey to be able to sustain at least 50 pairs of pelicans for half a year.

▶ Make sure that the conceived ANS can be placed in an area whose management can be fully controlled by the co-operating managers, preferably within an officially protected area.

Use of artificial platforms by nesting pelicans after they were placed close to Ceaplace Island in 2007, Lake Sinoie, Romania. © Sebastian Bugariu

24 ARTIFICIAL NESTING STRUCTURES FOR EURASIAN PELICANS. A decision-making and guidance document

References

Fantana, C, S Bugariu, A Matis, A Barbu (compilers). DeSorbo, CR, J Fair, K Taylor, W Hanson, DC Evers, HS Schnitzler, A, J-C Génot, M Wintz & BW Hale. 2008. 2009. After LIFE conservation plan for the Dalmatian pelican Vogel & JH Cooley. 2008. Guidelines for Constructing and Naturalness and conservation in France. Journal of Agri- in the Danube Delta. LIFE05NAT/RO/000169 Project.. Deploying Common Loon Nesting Rafts. Northeastern cultural and Environmental Ethics 21: 423–436. Anonymous. 2000. Constructing artificial islands for rare naturalist 15: 75–86. Saveljić, D, B Rubinić, M Schneider-Jacoby & O Vizi. bird species in Western Avleri–Tsoukalio Lagoon, Amvrakikos Duffy, CD. 1994. Afterwards: an agenda for managing 2004. Breeding of Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus on Gulf, Greece. LIFE99NAT/GR/006475, “Conservation Man- seabirds and islands. 311-318 in: DN Nettleship, J Burger Skadar Lake. Acrocephalus 25 (122): 111 – 118. agement of Amvrakikos Wetlands”. and M Gochfeld (eds). 1994. Seabirds on islands; threats, Simeonov, P. 2011. Srebarna Dalmatian pelican colo- Ball, IJ. 1990. Artificial nest structures for Canada Geese. case studies and action plans. BirdLife Conservation Series ny-a successful example of international partnership for Waterfowl Management Handbook. Fish and Wildlife Leaf- No 1. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK. nature conservation. Regulus 8: 16-18. let 13.2.12. Fish and Wildlife Service, USA. Lumsden, HG. 1982. Artificial nesting sites for water- Vinogradov, VV, GM Rusanov, DV Bondarev & GA Krivo- Birnbacher, D. 2006. Naturalness: Is the “Natural” Prefer- birds. 179-199 in: DA Scott (ed.) Managing wetlands and nosov. 1982. Construction of nest sites and improvement able to the “Artificial”? Translated by David Carus. University their birds. A manual of wetland and waterfowl manage- of moulting sites for waterfowl in the Volga , Press of America, Maryland, USA. ment. IWRB, Slimbridge, UK. USSR. Pages 209-215 in: DA Scott (ed.) Managing wetlands Bondarev, DV. 1976. Rafts for nesting Pelecanus crispus. Merrie, TDH. 1996. Breeding success of raft-nesting and their birds. A manual of wetland and waterfowl man- The Volga River delta. In: Manual of wetland management. divers in Scotland. British Birds 89: 306-309. agement. IWRB, Slimbridge, Glos., UK. IWRB, Slimbridge, UK. Michev, T & N Kamburova (compilers). 2012. National Yozzo, DJ, P Wilber & RJ Will. 2004. Beneficial use of Burgess, ND & GJM Hirons. 1992. Creation and man- Action Plan for the Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus in dredged material for habitat creation, enhancement and agement of artificial nesting sites for wetland birds. Jour- Bulgaria, 2013-2022. IBER at BAS and MoEW (In Bulgarian.) restoration in New York–New Jersey Harbor. Journal of nal of Environmental Management 34: 285-295. Molina, KC, MA Ricca, AK Miles & C Schoneman. 2009. Environmental Management 73: 39–52 Catsadorakis, G & AJ Crivelli. 2001. Nesting Habitat Use of a nesting platform by -billed Terns and Black Vizi, O. 1975. O gnezdenju pelikana kudravog (Peleca- Characteristics and Breeding Performance of Dalmatian Skimmers at the Salton Sea, California. Western Birds 40: nus crispus Bruch 1832) na Skadarskom jezeru i problem Pelicans in Lake Mikri Prespa, NW Greece. Waterbirds 24: 267–277. njegove Zastite. Glas. Republ. zavoda zast. prirode. Prirod- 386-393. Onmuş, O, M Sıkı, G Sarıgül & AJ Crivelli. 2011. Status najackog muzeja 8: 5-13 (with English summary.) Crivelli, AJ, G Catsadorakis, H Jerrentrup, D Hatzilacou and development of the population of the globally threat- Williams, DR, RG Pople, DA Showler, LV Dicks, MF Child, & T Michev. 1991. Conservation and management of peli- ened Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus, in Turkey (Aves: EKHJ zu Ermgassen & WJ Sutherland. 2012. Bird Conserva- cans nesting in the Palearctic. ICBP Technical Publication Pelecanidae). Zoology in The 54: 3-17. tion: Global evidence for the effects of interventions. Exeter, No 12: 137-152. Pyrovetsi, M. 1997. Integrated Management to Create Pelagic Publishing. Crivelli, AJ (compiler). 1996. Action Plan for the Dalma- New Breeding Habitat for Dalmatian Pelicans Peleca- tian Pelican Pelecanus crispus in . Biological Station nus crispus in Greece. Environmental Management 21: of Tour du Valat, Arles, France. 657–667.

25 Lemos, Prespa | GR- 530 77 Agios Germanos | GREECE | +302385051211 | [email protected] | www.spp.gr