Testing the efficacy of a boundary fence at an important tropical seabird breeding colony and key tourist destination
Carol A. Devney A C and Bradley C. Congdon BA AIMS@JCU, Australian Institute of Marine Science, School of Marine & Tropical Biology, James Cook University, PO Box 6811, Cairns, Qld 4870, Australia.
B School of Marine & Tropical Biology, James Cook University, PO Box 6811, Cairns, Qld 4870, Australia.
C Corresponding author. Email: carol.devney@jcu.edu.au
Wildlife Research 36(4) 353-360 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR08143
Submitted: 4 October 2008 Accepted: 6 February 2009 Published: 1 June 2009
Abstract
Tourists have the potential to detrimentally impact breeding seabirds, particularly at popular destinations such as on the Great Barrier Reef. Michaelmas Cay is a significant seabird rookery and prime tourist destination on the reef. In 1990, Queensland Parks & Wildlife Service erected a fence to separate tourists from fragile nesting habitat. We used two independent assessments during different breeding seasons to determine the potential impacts of tourism on two pelagic seabird species breeding on the cay. In the first quasi-experiment, egg losses by sooty terns (Sterna fuscata) and common noddies (Anous stolidus) were monitored at four distances (3, 6, 18 and 36 m) from a tourist enclosure. Our second quasi-experiment involved monitoring adult provisioning rates, chick growth and chick survival of sooty terns at two locations, one adjacent to the tourist fence and one 50 m away. At plots 3–6 m from the fence, we observed higher among-week variation in egg loss but no differences in total egg loss as compared with the more distant plots. The only difference observed between plots during our second quasi-experiment was that nest predation was higher at the tourist fence plot. Our research suggests that as long as the effects observed do not influence post-fledging survival or gull predation does not impact under different conditions, current management protocols are appropriately facilitating shared usage between wildlife and the tourism industry at Michaelmas Cay.
Acknowledgements
We sincerely thank M. Short (QPWS, Cairns), the crew and managers of Ocean Spirit cruises, and the QPWS Reef Heron crew. Volunteers D. Devney, A. Adkins and P. Yuda contributed to collection of chick-provisioning data. Essential funding was provided by QPWS, a James Cook University Graduate Research Support Scheme Grant, a Stuart Leslie Bird Research Award, a GBRMPA Science for Management Award, and an AIMS@JCU Ph.D. Scholarship. Work was authorised under QPWS Permit WITK02630504, Australian Bird and Band Banding Scheme Authority Nos 1386 and 2665 and JCU Ethics Approval A944_04.
Anderson, D. W. , and Keith, J. O. (1980). The human influence on seabird nesting success: conservation implications. Biological Conservation 18, 65–80.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Beale, C. M. , and Monaghan, P. (2004). Human disturbance: people as predation-free predators? Journal of Applied Ecology 41, 335–343.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Erwin, R. M. (1980). Breeding habitat use by colonially nesting waterbirds in two Mid-Atlantic U.S. regions under different regimes of human disturbance. Biological Conservation 18, 39–51.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Geist, C. , Liao, J. , Libby, S. , and Blumstein, D. T. (2005). Does intruder group size and orientation affect flight initiation distance in birds? Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 28, 69–73.
Hill, G. E. , and Barnes, A. (1989). Census and distribution of wedge-tailed shearwaters Puffinus pacificus burrows on Heron Island, November 1985. Emu 89, 135–139.
Ikuta, L. A. , and Blumstein, D. T. (2003). Do fences protect birds from human disturbance? Biological Conservation 112, 447–452.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Martín, J. , de Neve, L. , Fargallo, J. A. , Polo, V. , and Soler, M. (2004). Factors affecting the escape behaviour of juvenile chinstrap penguins, Pygoscelis antarctica, in response to human disturbance. Polar Biology 27, 775–781.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rodgers, J. A. , and Smith, H. T. (1995). Set-back distances to protect nesting bird colonies from human disturbance in Florida. Conservation Biology 9, 89–99.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Shealer, D. A. , and Haverland, J. A. (2000). Effects of investigator disturbance on the reproductive behavior and success of black terns. Waterbirds 23, 15–23.
Stokes, T. , Hulsman, K. , Ogilvie, P. , and O’Neill, P. (1996). Management of human visitation to seabird islands of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Corella 20, 1–13.
Vos, D. K. , Ryder, R. A. , and Graul, W. D. (1985). Response of breeding great blue herons to human disturbance in northcentral Colorado. Colonial Waterbirds 8, 13–22.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Walker, B. G. , Boersma, P. D. , and Wingfield, J. C. (2005). Physiological and behavioral differences in Magellanic penguin chicks in undisturbed and tourist-visited locations of a colony. Conservation Biology 19, 1571–1577.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Walker, B. G. , Boersma, P. D. , and Wingfield, J. C. (2006). Habituation of adult Magellanic penguins to human visitation as expressed through behavior and corticosterone secretion. Conservation Biology Series 20, 146–154.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wilson, R. P. , Culik, B. , Danfeld, R. , and Adelung, D. (1991). People in Antarctica – how much do Adélie penguins Pygoscelis adeliae really care? Polar Biology 11, 363–370.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Yorio, P. , and Boersma, P. D. (1992). The effect of human disturbance on Magellenic penguin behaviour and breeding success. Bird Conservation International 2, 161–173.
Yorio, P. , Frere, E. , Gandini, P. , and Schiavini, A. (2001). Tourism and recreation at seabird breeding sites in Patagonia, Argentia: current concerns and future prospects. Bird Conservation International 11, 231–245.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |