Assessing aural and visual cueing as tools for seabird management
-
Published source details
Arnold J.M., Nisbet I.C.T. & Veit R. (2011) Assessing aural and visual cueing as tools for seabird management. Journal of Wildlife Management, 75, 495-500.
Published source details Arnold J.M., Nisbet I.C.T. & Veit R. (2011) Assessing aural and visual cueing as tools for seabird management. Journal of Wildlife Management, 75, 495-500.
Summary
Use vocalisations to attract birds to safe areas
A replicated, controlled study in 2000–2001 on Muskeget Island, Massachusetts, USA (Arnold et al. 2011) found that common terns Sterna hirundo interacted more often with plots when vocalizations were played, and only nested within the range of vocalizations. In 2000, more tern activity was recorded in a plot with vocalizations and decoys (landing: 2 terns/h; aerial response: 18 terns/h) than in a plot with decoys only (landing: <1 terns/h; aerial response: 0 terns/h). In two of three cases across both years, terns interacted more with plots on days when vocalizations were played (landing: 2–17 terns/h; aerial response: 18–34 terns/h) than on days when they were not (landing: 0–8 terns/h; aerial response: 0–1 terns/h). In the other case, there was no clear difference between days. The first 50 nests each year were all within the range of the vocalizations (≤101 m from, and downwind of, a speaker). During the 2000 and 2001 breeding seasons, calls from a mixed tern colony were played over a beach (one speaker, in a different area each year). There were also two 100–200 m2 decoy plots: one within and one beyond the range of the vocalizations. Calls were toggled on (24 h) and off (24 h) over a 7–10 day period each year, during which behavioural observations were made.
Use decoys to attract birds to safe areas
A replicated, controlled study in 2000–2001 on Muskeget Island, Massachusetts, USA (Arnold et al. 2011) reported that decoys did not attract common terns Sterna hirundo to nesting sites. In two of two years, no terns nested amongst decoys – whether these were within the range of vocalizations or not. In 2000, behavioural observations recorded low activity over a plot containing decoys without vocalizations (landing: <1 tern/h; aerial response: 0 terns/h). In 2001, terns interacted significantly less often with a plot containing decoys and vocalizations (landing: 7 terns/h; aerial response: <1 tern/h) than a plot subject to vocalizations only (landing: 17 terns/h; aerial response: 34 terns/h). This result may have been affected by the location of the plots relative to the speaker and wind direction. During the 2000 and 2001 breeding seasons, calls from a mixed tern colony were played over a beach (one speaker, in a different area each year). Two 100–200 m2 decoy plots were established: one within and one beyond the range of the vocalizations. There were ≤22 decoys/plot, 3–4 m apart. Behavioural observations were made over 90-minute periods at dawn and dusk.
Output references
|