Managing conflict between nesting common terns and herring gulls
Jeffery D. Sullivan
A , Amy W. O’Donnell B , Lauren M. Lescure C , Andrew J. Rapp D , Carl R. Callahan B , Peter C. McGowan B , Tim Carney E and Diann J. Prosser A *
A U.S. Geological Survey, Eastern Ecological Science Center,
B U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chesapeake Bay Field Office,
C Contractor for U.S. Geological Survey, Eastern Ecological Science Center,
D Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Chesapeake Conservation Corps,
E Maryland Environmental Service,
Abstract
Due to the frequent depredation of eggs and chicks by herring gulls (Larus argentatus), numerous approaches to reduce their impact on tern colonies have been tested by wildlife managers. Previous studies have shown that the use of overhead lines presents a promising method to prevent gull nesting in tern colonies, but little work has evaluated if this approach is suitable for excluding both nesting and non-nesting gulls.
The goal of this study was to explore the efficacy of a preventative approach, overhead lines, versus a more widely practiced lethal approach, shooting and trapping. Specifically, we aimed to determine if methods differ in their abilities to deter both gull nesting and presence within treatment areas and identify impacts on common tern (Sterna hirundo) nesting within treatment areas.
We applied separate management strategies to two common tern colonies. In one colony, we removed herring gulls via shooting followed by trapping and nest removal, and in the other colony, we erected overhead lines with subsequent trapping at nests established in the treatment area.
Gulls appeared to adapt quickly to shooting efforts, limiting efficacy and resulting in no significant change in abundance from pre-treatment levels (P = 0.981). However, gull use of both the colony and surrounding brush declined significantly (P < 0.001) following trapping and nest removal. Meanwhile, the number of gulls in the colony area declined from a pre-treatment average of 56 to only six, following the erection of overhead lines (P < 0.001). Although six gull nests were established within the treatment area (overhead lines), they were not replaced once the parents were trapped and nests destroyed.
Tern nesting appeared to be unaffected by any of the implemented management activities. Our data suggest that overhead lines may present an alternative to lethal control when seeking to minimise the impacts of gulls on tern colonies.
The data presented in this manuscript can be used to guide managers in selecting actions to reduce conflict between gulls and breeding common terns. By using data-informed practices, managers can select the method best suited for their specific needs and priorities.
Keywords: breeding, common tern, conservation, conservation management, herring gull, overhead lines, targeted trapping, wildlife management.
References
Anderson JGT, Shlepr KR, Bond AL, Ronconi RA (2016) Introduction: a historical perspective on trends in some gulls in eastern North America, with reference to other regions. Waterbirds 39, 1-9.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Arnold JM, Oswald SA, Nisbet ICT, Pyle P, Patten MA (2020) Common tern (Sterna hirundo). Birds of the World. Available at https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.comter.01 [Accessed October 2022]
Belant JL (1997) Gulls in urban environments: landscape-level management to reduce conflict. Landscape and Urban Planning 38, 245-258.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Blackwell BF, Seamans TW, Helon DA, Dolbeer RA (2000) Early loss of herring gull clutches after egg-oiling. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28, 70-75.
| Google Scholar |
Blokpoel H, Tessier GD (1983) Monofilament lines exclude ring-billed gulls from traditional nesting areas. Bird Control Seminars Proceedings 255, 15-20.
| Google Scholar |
Blokpoel H, Tessier GD, Andress RA (1997) Successful restoration of the Ice Island common tern colony requires on-going control of ring-billed gulls. Waterbirds 20, 98-101.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Burger J, Lesser F (1978) Selection of colony sites and nest sites by common terns Sterna hirundo in Ocean City, New Jersey. Ibis 120, 433-449.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Burness GP, Morris RD (1992) Shelters decrease gull predation on chicks at a common tern colony. Journal of Field Ornithology 63, 186-189.
| Google Scholar |
Donehower CE, Bird DM, Hall CS, Kress SW (2007) Effects of gull predation and predator control on tern nesting success at Eastern Egg Rock, Maine. Waterbirds 30, 29-39.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Engeman RM, Hartmann JW, Beckerman SF, Seamans TW, Abu-Absi S (2012) Egg oiling to reduce hatch-year ring-billed gull numbers on Chicago’s beaches during swim season and water quality test results. EcoHealth 9, 195-204.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Fitch MA, Shugart GW (1983) Comparative biology and behavior of monogamous pairs and one male-two female trios of herring gulls. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 14, 1-7.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Guillemette M, Brousseau P (2001) Does culling predatory gulls enhance the productivity of breeding common terns? Journal of Applied Ecology 38, 1-8.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Hall TC (2018) The use of egg addling in wildlife damage management. Chapter 16 in Green M editor. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for the Use of Wildlife Damage Management Methods by USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services. USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services. Available at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/wildlifedamage/programs/nepa/ct-ws-risk_assessments [Accessed October 2022]
Kress SW (1983) The use of decoys, sound recordings, and gull control for re-establishing a tern colony in Maine. Waterbirds 6, 185-196.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Langlois Lopez S, Bond AL, O’Hanlon NJ, Wilson JM, Vitz A, Mostello CS, Hamilton F, Rail J-F, Welch L, Boettcher R, Wilhelm SI, Anker-Nilssen T, Daunt F, Masden E (2022) Global population and conservation status of the great black-backed gull Larus marinus. Bird Conservation International 33, E23.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Laurich B, Drake C, Gorman OT, Irvine C, MacLaurin J, Chartrand C, Hebert CE (2019) Ecosystem change and population declines in gulls: shifting baseline considerations for assessing ecological integrity of protected areas. Journal of Great Lakes Research 45, 1215-1227.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Lenth RV (2021) emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. R package version 1. Available at https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/emmeans/emmeans.pdf
MacLean SA, Bonter DN (2013) The sound of danger: threat sensitivity to predator vocalizations, alarm calls, and novelty in gulls. PLoS ONE 8, e82384.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Maryland Environmental Service (2017) About Poplar Island. Available at http://www.poplarislandrestoration.com/Home/About [Accessed October 2022]
Maryland Natural Heritage Program (2021) List of rare, threatened, and endangered animals of Maryland. Annapolis, MD. Available at https://dnr.maryland.gov/wildlife/Documents/rte_Animal_List.pdf [Accessed October 2022]
Maxson SJ, Mortensen SA, Goodermote DL, Lapp CS (1996) Success and failure of ring-billed gull deterrents at common tern and piping plover colonies in Minnesota. Waterbirds 19, 242-247.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Morris RD, Blokpoel H, Tessier GD (1992) Management efforts for the conservation of common tern Sterna hirundo colonies in the Great Lakes: two case histories. Biological Conservation 60, 7-14.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Olijnyk CG, Brown KM (1999) Results of a seven year effort to reduce nesting by herring and great black-backed gulls. Waterbirds 22, 285-289.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Oro D, Martínez-Abraín A (2007) Deconstructing myths on large gulls and their impact on threatened sympatric waterbirds. Animal Conservation 10, 117-126.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Scopel LC, Diamond AW (2017) The case for lethal control of gulls on seabird colonies. The Journal of Wildlife Management 81, 572-580.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Seamans ME, Dwyer C (2021) Annual mortality limit for four gull species in the Atlantic flyway. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 12, 453-463.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Soldatini C, Albores-Barajas YV, Torricelli P, Mainardi D (2008) Testing the efficacy of deterring systems in two gull species. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 110, 330-340.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Sullivan JD, Marbán PR, Mullinax JM, Brinker DF, McGowan PC, Callahan CR, Prosser DJ (2020) Assessing nest attentiveness of common terns via video cameras and temperature loggers. Avian Research 11, 22.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Weaver DK, Kadlec JA (1970) A method for trapping breeding adult gulls. Bird Banding 41, 28-31.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
