Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T03:15:01.660Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Compromise between seabird enjoyment and disturbance: the role of observed and observers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2008

ALEJANDRO MARTÍNEZ-ABRAÍN ,
DANIEL ORO ,
DAVID CONESA  and
JUAN JIMÉNEZ
ALEJANDRO MARTÍNEZ-ABRAÍN
Affiliation:
IMEDEA (CSIC-UIB), C/Miquel Marquès 21, 07190 Esporles, Majorca, Spain
DANIEL ORO*
Affiliation:
IMEDEA (CSIC-UIB), C/Miquel Marquès 21, 07190 Esporles, Majorca, Spain
DAVID CONESA
Affiliation:
Departamento de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, Grupo de Estadística Espacial y Temporal en Epidemiología y Medio Ambiente, C/ Dr. Moliner 50, 46100 Burjassot València, Spain
JUAN JIMÉNEZ
Affiliation:
Conselleria de Medio Ambiente, Generalitat Valenciana, C/Francisco Cubells 7, 46011 València, Spain
*
*Correspondence: Dr Daniel Oro e-mail: d.oro@uib.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Natural areas are increasingly visited by people, and urban human visitors expect to watch wildlife as close as possible, but this may have associated disturbance costs. Here, effects of number of visitors and bird density on flight initiation distance (FID) as a proxy of disturbance vulnerability were evaluated in the large ground-nesting yellow-legged gull, Larus michahellis. Mean FID decreased with increasing number of visitors and with increasing gull densities, suggesting that (1) ground-nesting gulls habituate to massive human presence, while retaining their antipredatory mechanisms, and (2) dense groups of gulls were more reluctant to fly away. This density effect may be due to the increased risk of clutch predation by conspecifics at high densities and, if so, FID is a reliable metric of disturbance vulnerability in ground-nesting gulls. In conclusion, set-back distances are specific to local populations and it is unnecessary to ban or restrict human visits to ground-nesting gull colonies; redistributing visits, taking into account both the number of visitors and gull density, is preferable.

Keywords

disturbanceevidence-based decision makingflight initiation distanceground-nesting gullshabituationmanagementwildlife observation
Type
Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , June 2008 , pp. 104 - 108
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, D.W. & Keith, J.O. (1980) The human influence on seabird nesting success: conservation implications. Biological Conservation 18: 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beale, C.M. & Monaghan, P. (2004) Human disturbance: people as predation-free predators? Journal of Applied Ecology 41: 335–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumstein, D.T. (2003) Flight-initiation distance in birds is dependent on intruder starting distance. Journal of Wildlife Management 67: 852–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumstein, D.T. (2006) Developing an evolutionary ecology of fear: how life history and natural history traits affect disturbance in birds. Animal Behaviour 71: 389–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumstein, D.T. & Daniel, J.C. (2005) The loss of anti-predator behaviour following isolation on islands. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 272: 1663–1668.Google Scholar
Blumstein, D.T., Anthony, L.L., Harcourt, R. & Ross, G. (2003) Testing a key assumption of wildlife buffer zones: is flight initiation distance a species-specific trait? Biological Conservation 110: 97–100.Google Scholar
Bonenfant, M. & Kramer, D.L. (1996) The influence of distance to burrow on flight initiation distance in the woodchuck, Marmota monax. Behavioral Ecology 7: 299–303.Google Scholar
Boyle, S.A. & Samson, F.B. (1985) Effects of nonconsumptive recreation on wildlife: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13: 110–116.Google Scholar
Burger, J. & Gochfeld, M. (1991) Human distance and birds: tolerance and response distances of resident and migrant species in India. Environmental Conservation 18: 158–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardenas, Y.L., Shen, B., Zung, L. & Blumstein, D.T. (2005) Evaluating temporal and spatial margins of safety in galahs. Animal Behaviour 70: 1395–1399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carney, K.M. & Sydeman, J. (1999) A review of human disturbance effects on nesting colonial waterbirds. Waterbirds 22: 68–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, W.E. (2003) Effect of risk on aspects of escape behaviour by a lizard, Holbrookia propinqua, in relation to optimal escape theory. Ethology 109: 617–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, W.E. (2005) When and how do predator starting distances affect flight initiation distances? Canadian Journal of Zoology 83: 1045–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, W.E., Pérez-Mellado, V., Baird, T., Baird, T.A., Caldwell, J.P. & Bit, L.J. (2003) Effects of risk, cost, and their interaction on optimal escape by nonrefuging Bonaire whiptail lizards, Cnemidophorus murinus. Behavioral Ecology 14: 288–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, W.E., Pérez-Mellado, V. & Hawlena, D. (2006) Magnitude of food reward affects escape behaviour and acceptable risk in Balearic lizards, Podarcis lilfordi. Behavioral Ecology 17: 554–559.Google Scholar
Ellemberg, U., Mattern, T., Seddon, P.J. & Jorquera, G.L. (2006) Physiological and reproductive consequences of human disturbance in Humboldt penguins: the need for species-specific visitor management. Biological Conservation 133: 95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellison, L.N. & Cleary, L. (1978) Effects of human disturbance on breeding of double-crested cormorants. The Auk 95: 510–517.Google Scholar
Fernández-Juridic, E., Jiménez, M.D. & Lucas, E. (2001) Alert distance as an alternative measure of bird tolerance to human disturbance: implications for park design. Environmental Conservation 28: 263–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Juridic, E., Vaca, R. & Schroeder, N. (2004) Spatial and temporal responses of forest birds to human approaches in a protected area and implications for two management strategies. Biological Conservation 117: 407–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finney, S.K., Pearce-Higgins, J.W. & Yalden, D.W. (2005) The effect of recreational disturbance on an upland breeding bird, the golden plover Pluvialis apricaria. Biological Conservation 121: 53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, G.S. (1999) Behavioural and hormonal responses of Magellanic penguins (Spheniscus magellanicus) to tourism and nest site visitation. Biological Conservation 90: 143–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geist, C., Liao, J., Libby, S. & Blumstein, D.T. (2005) Does intruder group size and orientation affect flight initiation distance in birds? Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 28: 69–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, J.A., Norris, K. & Sutherland, W.J. (2001) Why behavioural responses may not reflect the population consequences of human disturbance. Biological Conservation 97: 265–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goss-Custard, J.D., Triplet, P., Sueur, F. & West, A.D. (2006) Critical thresholds of disturbance by people and raptors in foraging wading birds. Biological Conservation 127: 88–97.Google Scholar
Gulbransen, D., Segrist, T., del Castillo, P. & Blumstein, D.T. (2006) The fixed stope rule: an inter-specific study. Ethology 112: 1056–1061.Google Scholar
Hill, D., Hockin, D., Price, D., Tucker, G., Morris, R. & Treweek, J. (1997) Bird disturbance: improving the quality and utility of disturbance research. Journal of Applied Ecology 34: 275–288.Google Scholar
Ikuta, L.A. & Blumstein, D.T. (2003) Do fences protect birds from human disturbance? Biological Conservation 112: 447–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López, M.J. (2000) Costs of refuge use affect escape decisions of Iberian rock lizards Lacerta monticola. Ethology 106: 483–492.Google Scholar
McClung, M.R., Seddom, P.J., Massaro, M. & Setiawan, A.N. (2004) Nature-based tourism impacts on yellow-eyed penguins Megadyptes antipodes: does unregulated visitor access affect fledging weight and juvenile survival? Biological Conservation 119: 279–285.Google Scholar
Robert, H.C. & Ralph, C.J. (1975) Effects of human disturbance on the breeding success of gulls. Condor 77: 495–499.Google Scholar
Roberts, G. & Evans, P.R. (1993) Responses of foraging sanderlings to human approaches. Behaviour 126: 29–44.Google Scholar
Rodgers, J.A. & Smith, H.T. (1995) Set-back distances to protect nesting bird colonies from human disturbance in Florida. Conservation Biology 9: 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stankovich, T. & Blumstein, D.T. (2005) Fear in animals: a meta-analysis and review of risk assessment. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 272: 2627–2634.Google Scholar
Stankovich, T. & Coss, R.G. (2006) Effects of predator behaviour and proximity on risk assessment by Columbian black-tailed deer. Behavioural Ecology 17: 246–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, N.V. & Blumstein, D.T. (2005) Variation in human disturbance differentially affects predation risk assessment in western gulls. The Condor 107: 178–181.Google Scholar
William, E.C. (2006) Dynamic risk assessment: prey rapidly adjust flight initiation distance to changes in predator approach speed. Ethology 112: 858–864.Google Scholar
Yorio, P. & Quintana, F. (1996) Efectos del disturbio humano sobre una colonia mixta de aves marinas en Patagonia. Hornero 14: 60–66.Google Scholar