Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T04:57:19.445Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of investigator disturbance on egg laying, chick survival and fledging mass of short-tailed shearwaters (Puffinus tenuirostris) and little penguins (Eudyptula minor)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

C Vertigan ,
CR McMahon ,
V Andrews-Goff  and
MA Hindell
C Vertigan*
Affiliation:
Marine Predator Unit, Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS), University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
CR McMahon
Affiliation:
Marine Predator Unit, Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS), University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia School of Environmental Research, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Northern Territory 0909, Australia
V Andrews-Goff
Affiliation:
Marine Predator Unit, Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS), University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
MA Hindell
Affiliation:
Marine Predator Unit, Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS), University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: caitlin.vertigan@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field-based animal researchers need to balance the potential adverse effects of their research activities against the benefits of research outcomes, but the data required to do this are often lacking. Assessing, and subsequently reporting the effects of researcher activities on wild animal populations can be difficult, so that studies to detect these effects sometimes lack rigour or fail to encompass sufficient time to ensure that the effects are tested under a range of environmental stresses. We monitored the effect of investigators working in colonies of two seabirds, the short-tailed shearwater (Puffinus tenuirostris) and the little penguin (Eudyptula minor). Disturbance of breeding birds while checking nests or the weighing of chicks to monitor growth are very common activities for demographic and ecological studies, but how these activities may influence the birds is rarely measured. We investigated differing levels of disturbance during both activities between 2002-03 and 2008-09 to assess their effect on egg laying, chick survival and growth rate and observed no effect for nest checking or handling of short-tailed shearwaters and indeterminate effects for handling in little penguins. Over a period of several years the study has observed a large-scale decline in the number of breeding shearwaters and includes years when control nests had above and below average breeding success.

Keywords

animal welfareEudyptula minorinvestigator disturbancelittle penguinPuffinus tenuirostrisshort-tailed shearwater
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , February 2012 , pp. 101 - 111
Copyright
© 2012 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

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

Angelier, F, Weimerskirch, H and Chastel, O 2011 Capture and blood sampling do not affect foraging behaviour, breeding success and return rate of a large seabird: the black-browed albatross. Polar Biology 34: 353–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballard, G, Ainley, DG, Ribic, CA and Barton, KR 2001 Effect of instrument attachment and other factors on foraging trip duration and nesting success of Adélie penguins. Condor 103(3): 481–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beale, CM and Monaghan, P 2004 Human disturbance: people as predation-free predators? Ecology 41: 335–343Google Scholar
Blackmer, AL, Ackerman, JT and Nevitt, GA 2004 Effects of investigator disturbance on hatching success and nest-site fidelity in a long-lived seabird, Leach's storm-petrel. Biological Conservation 116: 141–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booth, AM, Minot, EO, Imber, MJ and Fordham, RA 2000 Aspects of the breeding ecology of the North Island little shearwater Puffinus assimilis haurakiensis. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 27: 335–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnham, KP and Anderson, DR 2001 Kullback-Leibler information as a basis for strong inference in ecological studies. Wildlife Research 28: 111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnham, KP and Anderson, DR 2004 Multimodel inference: understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods & Research 33: 261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cairns, D 1980 Nesting density, habitat structure and human disturbance as factors in Black Guillemot reproduction. The Wilson Bulletin 92(3): 352–361Google Scholar
Carey, M 2009 The effects of investigator disturbance on procellariiform seabirds: a review. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 36: 367–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, M 2011 Investigator disturbance reduces reproductive success in short-tailed shearwaters Puffinus tenuirostris. Ibis 153(2): 363–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casper, R 2009 Guidelines for the instrumentation of wild birds and mammals. Animal Behaviour 78: 1477–1483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conway, CJ and Garcia, V 2005 Research notes: effects of radiotransmitters on natal recruitment of burrowing owls. Journal of Wildlife Management 69: 404–4082.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuthbert, R and Davis, LS 2002 Adult survival and productivity of Hutton's Shearwaters. Ibis 144: 423–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, R 2005 Animal-rights group sues over ‘disturbing'work on sea lions. Nature 436: 315CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dalton, R 2006 Sea-lion studies come to a halt after court judgement. Nature 441: 677CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, WE Jr and Parsons, KC 1991 Effects of investigator disturbance on the survival of snowy egret nestlings. Journal of Field Ornithology 62(4): 432–435Google Scholar
de Villiers, M 2008 Human disturbance to wildlife in the broader Antarctic region: a review of findings. http://www.scar.org/treaty/atcmxxxi/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Fraser, G, Jones, IL, Williams, JC, Hunter, FM and Byrd, GV 1999 Breeding biology of crested auklets at Buldir and Kasatochi Islands, Alaska. The Auk 116(3): 690–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frid, A and Dill, LM 2002 Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. Conservation Ecology 6: 11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, JA 2007 Approaches to measuring the effects of human disturbance on birds. Ibis 149: 9–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, JJ and Bradshaw, CJA 2004 The ‘capacity to reason’ in conservation biology and policy: the southern elephant seal branding controversy. Journal for Nature Conservation 12: 25–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamer, KC and Hill, JK 1993 Variation and regulation of meal size and feeding frequency in Cory's shearwater Calonectris diomedea. Journal of Animal Ecology 62: 441–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamer, KC, Nicholson, LW, Hill, JK, Wooller, RD and Bradley, JS 1997 Nestling obesity in Procellariiform seabirds: temporal and stochastic variation in provisioning and growth of short-tailed shearwaters Puffinus tenuirostris. Oecologia 12(1): 4–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockey, PAR and Hallinan, J 1981 Effect of human disturbance on the breeding behaviour of jackass penguins Spheniscus demersus. South African Journal of Wildlife Research 11: 59–62Google Scholar
Hull, CL and Wilson, J 1996 The effect of investigators on the breeding success of Royal, Eudyptes schlegeli, and Rockhopper Penguins, E. chrysocome, at Macquarie Island. Polar Biology 16: 335–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, S and Wilson, RP 2002 The potential costs of flipperbands to penguins. Functional Ecology 16(1): 141–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koricheva, J 2003 Non-significant results in ecology: a burden or a blessing in disguise? Oikos 102: 397Google Scholar
Marchant, S, Higgins, PJ and Ambrose, SJ 1990 Handbook of Australian, New Zealand & Antarctic Birds, Volume 1 Handbook of Australian, New Zealand, and Antarctic Birds Part A. Ratites to Petrels Part B. Australian Pelicans to Ducks. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
McMahon, CR, Bradshaw, CJA and Hays, GC 2006 Branding can be justified in vital conservation research. Nature 439: 392CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McMahon, CR, Bradshaw, C and Hays, GC 2007 Applying the heat to research techniques for species conservation. Conservation Biology 21: 271–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMahon, CR, Field, IC, Bradshaw, CJA, White, GC and Hindell, MA 2008 Tracking and data-logging devices attached to elephant seals do not affect individual mass gain or survival. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 360: 71–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minteer, BA and Collins, JP 2008 Why we need an ‘ecological ethics’. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3: 332–337Google Scholar
Pinheiro, J, Bates, D, DebRoy, S and Sarkar, D 2009 R Development Core Team. Nlme: Linear and Non-linear Mixed Effects Models. R Package Version 3.1-92. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlmeGoogle Scholar
Reilly, PN and Cullen, JM 1981 The Little Penguin Eudyptula minor in Victoria II: breeding. Emu 81(1): 1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodway, MS, Montevecchi, WA and Chardine, JW 1996 Effects of investigator disturbance on breeding success of Atlantic puffins Fratercula arctica. Biological Conservation 76: 311–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saffer, VM, Bradley, JS, Wooller, RD and Meathrel, CE 2000 The effect of human activity on the growth rates of Short-tailed Shearwater Puffinus tenuirostris chicks. Emu 100: 49–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Safina, C and Burger, J 1983 Effects of human disturbance on reproductive success in the Black Skimmer. Condor 85: 164–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandvik, H and Barrett, RT 2001 Effect of investigator disturbance on the breeding success of the black-legged kittiwake. Journal of Field Ornithology 72: 30–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saraux, C, Le Bohec, C, Durant, JM, Viblanc, VA, Gauthier-Clerc, M, Beaune, D, Park, YH, Yoccoz, NG, Stenseth, NC and Le Maho, Y 2011 Reliability of flipper-banded penguins as indicators of climate change. Nature 469: 203–206CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schultz, MA and Klomp, NI 2000 Chick-provisioning behaviour of two shearwaters breeding in south-eastern Australia. Austral Ecology 25: 319–326Google Scholar
Skira, I 1991 The short-tailed shearwater: a review of its biology. Corella 15: 45–52Google Scholar
Verboven, N, Ens, BJ and Dechesne, S 2001 Effect of investigator disturbance on nest attendance and egg predation in Eurasian Oystercatchers. The Auk 118(2): 503–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vertigan, C 2010 The life history of short-tailed shearwaters (Puffinus tenuirostris) in response to spatio-temporal environmental variation. PhD Thesis, University of Tasmania, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Weimerskirch, H and Cherel, Y 1998 Feeding ecology of short-tailed shearwaters: breeding in Tasmania and foraging in the Antarctic? Marine Ecology Progress Series 167: 261–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, M, De Villiers, M and Majiedt, P 2009 The effect of frequency and nature of pedestrian approaches on the behaviour of wandering albatrosses at sub-Antarctic Marion Island. Polar Biology 32: 197–205Google Scholar
Wilson, R and McMahon, CR 2006 Measuring devices on wild animals: what constitutes acceptable practice? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4: 147–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woehler, E, Riddle, M and Ribic, C 2003 Long-term population trends in southern giant petrels in East Antarctica. In: Huiskes, A, Gieskes, W, Rozema, J, Schorno, R, van der Vies, S and Wolff, W (eds) Antarctic Biology in a Global Context pp 290–295. Backhuys Publishers: Leiden, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Wooller, R, Bradley, J, Skira, I and Serventy, D 1990 Reproductive success of short-tailed shearwaters Puffinus tenuirostris in relation to their age and breeding experience. Journal of Animal Ecology 59(1): 167–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar