Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-564cf476b6-jjt9s Total loading time: 0.24 Render date: 2021-06-19T17:49:36.609Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Use of semi-intensive shrimp farms as alternative foraging areas by migratory shorebird populations in tropical areas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 August 2018

JUAN G. NAVEDO
Affiliation:
Bird Ecology Lab, Instituto de Ciencias Marinas y Limnológicas, Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia, Región de Los Ríos, Chile; and Estación Experimental Quempillén, Chiloé, Universidad Austral de Chile, Ancud, Región de Los Lagos, Chile.
GUILLERMO FERNÁNDEZ
Affiliation:
Unidad Académica Mazatlán, Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mazatlán, Sinaloa, México.
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Summary

Evaluating the ability of anthropogenic habitats to serve as surrogates for natural habitats is an increasingly relevant issue in conservation biology. This issue is especially urgent in tropical coastal wetlands that support large concentrations of migratory shorebird populations and are under pressure from development. Here we evaluated the species composition, abundance, and habitat use of Nearctic migratory shorebirds using recently harvested aquaculture ponds during two non-breeding seasons at shrimp farms surrounding Bahía Santa María (BSM), northwestern Mexico. We also estimated shorebird densities at intertidal units in BSM during and after the harvesting season to explore the connectivity with shrimp farms. Over 25,000 individuals of 25 shorebird species used the surveyed farms (∼13% of shrimp-farm development in BSM; 2014–2015: 10 farms, 994 ha; 2015–2016: 8 farms, 924 ha) during the harvest season. The most abundant species were: Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri, Willet Tringa semipalmata, Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa, dowitchers Limnodromus spp., Black-necked Stilt Himantopus mexicanus and American Avocet Recurvirostra americana. Numbers of birds decreased as the harvest cycle progressed. Most birds (> 70%) were foraging on the ponds, regardless of tidal stage, while numbers increased during high tide for the most abundant species. At surveyed intertidal areas, shorebird densities were overall similar within and between non-breeding seasons. These results indicate that shrimp farms offer ephemeral but consistent foraging habitats used by non-breeding shorebirds, even in vast coastal wetlands offering a high availability of natural intertidal mudflats. Assuming a similar shorebird use in other shrimp ponds not surveyed within BSM, a significant proportion (> 1% of the biogeographic population) of Willet, Marbled Godwit, and Western Sandpiper, as well as imperilled Red Knot Calidris canutus, might use shrimp farms throughout the harvesting season. Before including current semi-intensive shrimp farms within management plans of BSM, further research is mandatory to assess their utility as alternative foraging habitats for shorebird conservation at tropical areas.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © BirdLife International 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Andres, B. A., Smith, P. A., Morrison, R. I. G., Gratto-Trevor, C. L., Brown, S. C. and Friis, C. A. (2012) Population estimates of North American shorebirds 2012. Wader Study Group Bull. 119: 178194.Google Scholar
Athearn, N. D., Takekawa, J. Y., Bluso-Demers, J. D., Shinn, J. M., Brand, L. A., Robinson-Nilsen, C. W. and Strong, C. M. (2012) Variability in habitat value of commercial salt production ponds: Implications for waterbird management and tidal marsh restoration planning. Hydrobiologia 697: 139155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basso, E., Fonseca, J., Drever, M. C. and Navedo, J. G. (2018) Effects of intertidal habitat availability on the use of anthropogenic habitats as foraging grounds by shorebirds: a case study on semi-intensive shrimp farms. Hydrobiologia 809: 1929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, S. and Hoye, B. J. (2014) Migratory animals couple biodiversity and ecosystem functioning worldwide. Science 344: 1242552.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berlanga-Robles, C. A., Ruiz-Luna, A., Bocco, G. and Vekerdy, Z. (2011) Spatial analysis of the impact of shrimp culture on the coastal wetlands on the Northern coast of Sinaloa. Ocean Coast. Manage. 54: 535543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butchart, S. H. M. (and 44 co-authors) (2010) Global biodiversity: Indicators of recent declines. Science 328: 11641168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Calle, L., Gawlik, D. E., Xie, Z., Green, L., Lapointe, B. and Strong, A. (2016) Effects of tidal periodicities and diurnal foraging constraints on the density of foraging wading birds. Auk 133: 378396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheek, M. D. (2009) Commercial shrimp ponds versus seminatural mudflats as wading bird foraging habitat in northwest Ecuador. Waterbirds 32: 248264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CESASIN (Comité de Sanidad Acuícola de Sinaloa, A.C.) (2016) http://www.cesasin.mx/.Google Scholar
Cooney, R. (2004) The precautionary principle in biodiversity conservation and natural resource management: An issue paper for policy-makers, researchers and practitioners. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN.Google Scholar
Cumming, G. S., Barnes, G. A., Perz, S., Schmink, M., Sieving, K. E., Southworth, J., Binford, M., Holt, R. D., Stickler, C. and van Holt, T. (2005) An exploratory framework for the empirical measurement of resilience. Ecosystems 8: 975987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de la Fuente, G. and Carrera, E. (2005) Cambios de uso de suelo en la zona costera del Estado de Sinaloa. México: Ducks Unlimited de México, A.C.Google Scholar
Elphick, C. S. (2000) Functional equivalency between rice fields and semi-natural wetland habitats. Conserv. Biol. 14: 181191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engilis, A. Jr., Oring, L. W. Carrera, E., Nelson, J. W. and López, A. M. (1998) Shorebird surveys in Ensenada Pabellones and Bahia Santa Maria, Sinaloa, Mexico: critical winter habitats for Pacific Shorebirds. Wilson Bull. 110: 332341.Google Scholar
Fernández, G. and Lank, D. B. (2008) Effects of habitat loss on shorebirds during the non-breeding season: Current knowledge and suggestions for action. Ornitol. Neotrop. 19(Supp.): 633640.Google Scholar
Fonseca, J., Basso, E., Serrano, D. and Navedo, J. G. (2017) Effects of tidal cycles on shorebird distribution and foraging behaviour in a coastal tropical wetland: insights for carrying capacity assessment. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 198: 279287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, J. M. H., Sripanomyom, S., Giam, X. and Wilcove, D. S. (2015) The ecology and economics of shorebird conservation in a tropical human-modified landscape. J. Appl. Ecol. 52: 14831491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, A. C. (and 50 co-authors) (2015) Prioritization of knowledge needs for sustainable aquaculture: a national and global perspective. Fish Fish. 16: 668683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kloskowski, J., Green, A. J., Polak, M., Bustamante, J. and Krogulec, J. (2009) Complementary use of natural and artificial wetlands by waterbirds wintering in Doñana, south-west Spain. Aquat. Conserv. 19: 815826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowther, P. E., Douglas, H. D. and Gratto-Trevor, C. L. (2001) Willet (Tringa semipalmata). N° 579 in Poole, A. and Gill, F., eds. The birds of North America. Washington, DC: The American Ornithologists’ Union. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Ma, Z., Li, B., Zhao, B., Jing, K., Tang, S. and Chen, J. (2004) Are artificial wetlands good alternatives to natural wetlands for waterbirds? A case study on Chongming Island, China. Biodivers. Conserv. 13: 333350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marquez-Ferrando, R., Figuerola, J., Hooijmeijer, J. C. E. W. and Piersma, T. (2015) Recently created man-made habitats in Doñana provide alternative wintering space for the threatened Continental European black-tailed godwit population. Biol. Conserv. 171: 127135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masero, J. A. (2002) Why don’t Knots Calidris canutus feed extensively on the crustacean Artemia? Bird Study 49: 304306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masero, J. A. (2003) Assessing alternative anthropogenic habitats for conserving waterbirds: salinas as buffer areas against the impact of natural habitat loss for shorebirds. Biodivers. Conserv. 12: 11571173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, R. I. G. and Ross, K. (2009) Atlas of Nearctic shorebirds on the coast of Mexico. Ottawa, Canada: Environment Canada. Canadian Wildlife Service, Special publication.Google Scholar
Munro, M. (2017) What´s killing the world´s shorebirds? Nature 541: 1620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, N. J., Clemens, R. S., Phinn, S. R., Possingham, H. P. and Fuller, R. A. (2014) Tracking the rapid loss of tidal wetlands in the Yellow Sea. Frontiers Ecol. Environm. 12: 267272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Navedo, J. G. and Masero, J. A. (2007) Measuring potential negative effects of traditional harvesting practices on waterbirds: a case study with migrating curlews. Anim. Conserv. 10: 8894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Navedo, J. G., Arranz, D., Herrera, A. G., Salmón, P., Juanes, J. A. and Masero, J. A. (2013) Agroecosystems and conservation of migratory waterbirds: importance of coastal pastures and factors influencing their use by wintering shorebirds. Biodivers. Conserv. 22: 18951907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Navedo, J. G., Fernández, G., Fonseca, J. and Drever, M. C. (2015a) A potential role of shrimp farms for the conservation of Nearctic shorebird populations. Estuaries Coasts 38: 836845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Navedo, J. G., Fernández, G., Valdivia, N., Drever, M. C. and Masero, J. A. (2017) Identifying management actions to increase foraging opportunities for shorebirds at semi-intensive shrimp farms. J. Appl. Ecol. 54: 567576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Navedo, J. G., Hahn, S., Parejo, M., Abad-Gómez, J. M., Gutiérrez, J. S., Villegas, A., Sánchez-Guzmán, J. M. and Masero, J. A. (2015b) Unravelling trophic subsidies of agroecosystems for biodiversity conservation: Food consumption and nutrient recycling by waterbirds in Mediterranean rice fields. Sci. Total Environ. 511: 288297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Navedo, J. G., Sauma-Castillo, L. and Fernández, G. (2012a) Foraging activity and capture rate of large Nearctic shorebirds wintering at a tropical coastal lagoon. Waterbirds 35: 301311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Navedo, J. G., Masero, J. A., Sánchez-Guzmán, J. M., Abad-Gómez, J. M., Gutiérrez, J. S., Sansón, E. G., Villegas, A., Costillo, E., Corbacho, C. and Morán, R. (2012b) International importance of Extremadura, Spain, for overwintering migratory dabbling ducks: a role for reservoirs. Bird Conserv. Internatn. 22: 316327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newbold, T. (and 42 co-authors) (2015) Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520: 4550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Páez-Osuna, F., Gracia, A., Flores-Verdugo, F., Lyle-Fritch, L. P., Alonso-Rodriguez, R., Roque, A. and Ruiz-Fernández, A. C. (2003) Shrimp aquaculture development and the environment in the Gulf of California ecoregion. Mar. Poll. Bull. 46: 806815.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Page, G. W. and Gill, R. E. Jr. (1994) Shorebirds in western North America: late 1800s to late 1900s. Stud. Avian Biol. 15: 147160.Google Scholar
Page, G. W., Palacios, E., Alfaro, L., Gonzalez, S., Stenzel, L. E. and Jungers, M. (1997) Numbers of wintering shorebirds in coastal wetlands of Baja California, Mexico. J. Field Ornithol. 68: 562574Google Scholar
Reynolds, M. D. (and 19 co-authors) (2017) Dynamic conservation for migratory species. Sci. Adv. 3: e1700707.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rocha, A. R., Ramos, J. A., Paredes, T. and Masero, J. A. (2017) Coastal saltpans as foraging grounds for migrating shorebirds: an experimentally drained fish pond in Portugal. Hydrobiologia 790: 141155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, D. I., Piersma, T. and Hassell, C. J. (2006) Roost availability may constrain shorebird distribution: Exploring the energetic costs of roosting and disturbance around a tropical bay. Biol. Conserv. 133: 225235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sánchez-Guzmán, J. M., Morán, R., Masero, J. A., Corbacho, C., Costillo, E., Villegas, A. and Santiago-Quesada, F. (2007) Identifying new buffer areas for conserving waterbirds in the Mediterranean basin: the importance of the rice fields in Extremadura, Spain. Biodivers. Conserv. 16: 33333344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sebastián-González, E. and Green, A. J. (2016) Reduction of avian diversity in created versus natural and restored wetlands. Ecography 39: 11761184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senner, S. E., Andres, B. A. and Gates, H. R. (2016) Pacific Americas shorebird conservation strategy. New York, USA: National Audubon Society. Available at: http://www.shorebirdplan.org.Google Scholar
Serrano, D., Ramírez-Félix, E. and Valle-Levison, A. (2013) Tidal hydrodynamics in a two-inlet coastal lagoon in the Gulf of California. Cont. Shelf Res. 63: 112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sripanomyom, S., Round, P. D., Savini, T., Trisurat, Y. and Gale, G. A. (2011) Traditional salt-pans hold major concentrations of overwintering shorebirds in Southeast Asia. Biol. Conserv. 144: 526537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
USSCPP (U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan Partnership) (2016) U.S. Shorebirds of Conservation Concern ─ 2016. http://www.shorebirdplan.org/science/assessment-conservation-status-shorebirds/Google Scholar
Valiela, I., Kinney, E., Culbertson, J., Peacock, E. and Smith, S. (2009) Global losses of mangroves and salt marshes. Pp 107142 in Duarte, C. M., ed. Global loss of coastal habitats. Rates, causes and consequences. Madrid, Spain: Fundación BBVA.Google Scholar
Walton, M. E. M., Vilas, C., Coccia, C., Green, A. J., Cañavate, J. P., Prieto, A., van Bergeijk, S. A., Medialdea, J. M., Kennedy, H., King, J. and Le Vay, L. (2015) The effect of water management on extensive aquaculture food webs in the reconstructed wetlands of the Doñana Natural Park, Southern Spain. Aquaculture 448: 451463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wetlands International (2012) Waterbird population estimates. Fifth Edition. Summary Report. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wetlands International.Google Scholar

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Use of semi-intensive shrimp farms as alternative foraging areas by migratory shorebird populations in tropical areas
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Use of semi-intensive shrimp farms as alternative foraging areas by migratory shorebird populations in tropical areas
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Use of semi-intensive shrimp farms as alternative foraging areas by migratory shorebird populations in tropical areas
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *