Drivers of colony failure in a vulnerable coastal seabird, the Australian Fairy Tern (Sternula nereis nereis)
C. N. Greenwell A B * and J. N. Dunlop CA Environmental and Conservation Sciences, College of Science, Health, Murdoch University, 90 South Street, Murdoch, WA, Australia.
B Centre for Sustainable Aquatic Ecosystems, Harry Butler Institute, Murdoch University, 90 South Street, Murdoch, WA, Australia.
C Independent Consultant.
Abstract
Understanding breeding success and site threat profiles is critical to conservation planning, particularly for species of conservation concern. Regular surveillance is fundamental to observing spatiotemporal changes at breeding colonies. Still, it can be challenging for species with broadly distributed, unpredictable populations susceptible to various threats. In these cases, cooperative networks and citizen science programs offer an opportunity to support monitoring and conservation efforts.
This study aimed to assess the outcomes, threats and sources of breeding failure at Australian Fairy Tern (Sternula nereis nereis) colonies.
Through collaborative surveillance, this study identified the outcomes and threats at 77 monitored colonies over five breeding seasons between 2017/18 and 2021/22. The leading causes of nest failure were then considered against the Recovery Plan for the Australian Fairy Tern to understand how the observed threats compare with the identified risks in this plan.
Nearly half (48%) of all colonies failed, with predation (32%) and inundation (27%) being the biggest causes of failure. At least 10 native and four invasive/domestic species contributed to the mortality of eggs, chicks, and/or adults or complete colony failure. Disturbance, including off-road vehicles, was identified as a recurring threat, impacting at least 30% of colonies.
These identified threats have the potential to drive population-level effects and were consistent with those identified under the Recovery Plan.
This study highlights the importance of developing practical solutions, including habitat protection, the control of invasive species and education programs to safeguard colonies and boost breeding success.
Keywords: Australian Fairy Tern, beach-nesting birds, breeding failure, conservation planning, inundation, Laridae, predation, site threat profiles, Sternula nereis nereis.
Introduction
Understanding breeding success and site-specific threat profiles is a core component of population monitoring and recovery planning (Burger 1989; Martin et al. 2012). For some long-lived seabirds, population declines associated with breeding failure can be difficult to detect because populations can remain relatively stable for many years, despite low levels of recruitment, before effects of poor breeding success are realised, i.e. cryptic population decline (Burger 1989; Piper et al. 2020).
The habit of nesting on shorelines, often just beyond the high-water mark, exposes beach-nesting birds such as Sternula (small terns) to a range of threats, with predators, extreme weather events and disturbance from human activities identified globally as the major threats to breeding success (Burger 1989; Gochfeld and Burger 1992; Zavalaga et al. 2008; Ratcliffe et al. 2008; Garnett et al. 2014, 2021; Lacey and O’Brien 2015; Greenwell et al. 2019a; Wilson et al. 2020; BirdLife International 2021; Greenwell 2021). Documenting site-specific threats and sources of breeding failure among Sternula can be difficult due to their unpredictable nesting locations, which can occur over expansive areas of coastline and islands, and their tendency to periodically shift colony sites between breeding seasons (Baling et al. 2009; Greenwell et al. 2021b). Collaborative approaches and citizen science programs offer a chance to support management efforts and increase the opportunities for monitoring through time (Tulloch et al. 2013). These data, collected over the longer term, may allow new or emerging threats to be identified and mitigation strategies that enhance breeding success to be developed.
The Fairy Tern (Sternula nereis) has three distinct and geographically isolated populations found in Australia (S. n. nereis), New Zealand (S. n. davisae) and New Caledonia (S. n. exsul) (BirdLife International 2018; Baling and Brunton 2022). Globally, the species is considered Vulnerable to extinction (BirdLife International 2018). The Australian Fairy Tern (hereafter Fairy Tern) is listed as Vulnerable under the Australian Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth), with fewer than 7600 mature individuals estimated Australia-wide (Greenwell et al. 2021e).
Historically, the loss of breeding habitat and disturbance of colonies, associated with an increasing coastal human population, have contributed to poor breeding success, low recruitment and decreased populations, particularly in the eastern states of Australia (Baling et al. 2009; Commonwealth of Australia 2020). Additionally, contractions in the distribution of suitable prey following a reduction in water quality associated with the Millennium Drought (a drought that affected much of southern Australia) contributed to dramatic population decreases in the Coorong, SA, between 2000 and 2007 (Paton and Rogers 2009; Paton et al. 2009). Nonetheless, the key threatening processes affecting the Fairy Tern are numerous and also include predation by invasive species, native birds, changes in water levels and extreme weather events, which are likely to be more severe in the future as a result of anthropogenic climate change (Indian Ocean Climate Initiative 2012; Garnett et al. 2013; Commonwealth of Australia 2020; Greenwell et al. 2021e). Based on peer-reviewed literature and expert opinion, a qualitative threat prioritisation matrix was developed under the National Recovery Plan for the Australian Fairy Tern (hereafter Recovery Plan), which outlines the risks posed to Fairy Terns at regional and population scales (Commonwealth of Australia 2020).
In Western Australia, a winter breeding and, possibly, sedentary population occurs off the Pilbara coast, and a semi-migratory spring/summer breeding population occurs from ~North West Cape, south to Israelite Bay (Commonwealth of Australia 2020; Dunlop and Greenwell 2021). The population (~5000–6000 mature individuals) is considered stable in the evidence of any time series to the contrary (Commonwealth of Australia 2020; Dunlop and Greenwell 2021; Greenwell et al. 2021e). Yet, the loss of historically important breeding habitat due to intense recreational activity (Singor 1998, 2021), rising sea and estuary levels, and changes in sedimentation patterns (e.g. Peel-Harvey Estuary and Pelican Point in Swan-Canning Estuary) (Dunlop 2016; Dunlop 2018) leading to frequent breeding failure in some locations has triggered targeted management intervention over the past decade, particularly in the south-west. Considering the numerous threats that have the potential to impact a Fairy Tern colony during any single breeding attempt, almost all publicly accessible colonies are likely to require some protective measures to reduce threats at breeding sites (Greenwell et al. 2021b) – key objectives under the Recovery Plan (Commonwealth of Australia 2020).
To better understand breeding success and the threats impacting Fairy Terns, this study quantified the sources of failure at 77 monitored colonies over five breeding seasons (2017/18–2021/22) from data collected through the Western Australian Fairy Tern Network. Additionally, observations of threats and individual nest failure were summarised to better understand the sources of mortality of Fairy Tern eggs, chicks and/or adults during the breeding season. Finally, the leading causes of nest failure were considered against the Recovery Plan’s threat prioritisation matrix to understand how the observed threats compare to the identified risks in this plan.
Methods
In total, 84 known Fairy Tern colonies from 54 locations were recorded along the Western Australian coast between 2017/18 and 2021/22, and where possible, were monitored (Fig. 1, Table 1). Easily accessible sites near population centres or land manager offices were regularly monitored, i.e. daily or ≥weekly (Table 1). These sites included Point Walter, Rous Head, Penguin Island, Rottnest Island, Woodman Point, Becher Point, Mandurah, Peel Inlet, Dawesville, Bunbury and Irwin Inlet. Attempts were made to document the outcomes at each colony, i.e. whether the colony was successful and how many chicks were produced. However, this was not always possible due to site accessibility and limited numbers of observers for remote locations. Observations were made by land and wildlife managers and researchers, and, to a lesser extent, volunteers from the Western Australian Fairy Tern Network (for further detail, see Dunlop and Greenwell 2021; Greenwell et al. 2021b). All records were collated by C. Greenwell.
Map identifying the locations of monitored Australian Fairy Tern (Sternula nereis nereis) colonies in Western Australia between 2017/18 and 2021/22. ▲ = breeding locations; ● = major Western Australian towns. Inset shows the extent of coastline where colonies were recorded in relation to the Australian continent.
Site | Season | Breeding pairs (n) | Colony outcome | Reason for failure (identification method) | Observed threats and sources of mortality | Monitoring routine | Observer(s) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rous Head (Perth) | 2017/18 | 250 | High CP | Human disturbance, silver gull, black rat | ≥Weekly | CG | ||
Lake Bagdad, Rottnest Island | 2017/18 | 176 | Failed | Flooded (I) | Flooded, 1/500-year rainfall event (eggs, chicks) | ≥Weekly | CG, RP, RIA | |
Carnac Island | 2017/18 | 125 | High CP | ≥Monthly | DBCA | |||
Mackenna Point, Bunbury | 2017/18 | 70 | High CP | Silver gull | ≥Weekly | CT, DBCA | ||
Point Walter (Perth) | 2017/18 | 65 | Moderate-high CP | Human disturbance | ≥Weekly | TW | ||
Cape Vlamingh, Rottnest Island | 2017/18 | 50 | Failed | Tidal Inundation (I) | Tidal inundation during storm front (eggs) | ≥Weekly | RP, RIA | |
Causeway, Garden Island | 2017/18 | 50 | Moderate CP | Vehicle strike (adults, chicks) | ≥Weekly | GD | ||
Nairns, Peel Inlet (Mandurah) | 2017/18 | 33 | Failed | Tidal Inundation (DO) | Tidal inundation during storm front (eggs) | ≥Weekly | CC, WAFTN | |
Milligan Island, Green Head | 2017/18 | 20 | Moderate-high CP | ≥Weekly | AS, DBCA, SP | |||
Causeway, Garden Island | 2017/18 | 17 | Moderate CP | Silver gull | ≥Weekly | GD | ||
Lake Thetis, Cervantes | 2017/18 | 5 | Failed | Unknown | ≥Weekly | AS, DBCA | ||
Hangover Bay, Cervantes | 2017/18 | 5 | High CP | ≥Weekly | AS, DBCA | |||
Lake Bagdad, Rottnest Island | 2017/18 | 4 | Moderate CP | ≥Weekly | CG, RP, RIA | |||
Rous Head (Perth) | 2018/19 | 220 | High CP | Australian hobby (adult), nankeen kestrel, cat, human disturbance, silver gull, black rat | Daily | CG | ||
Lake Bagdad, Rottnest Island | 2018/19 | 191 | Moderate CP | Silver gull | ≥Weekly | CG, RP, RIA | ||
Wedge Island | 2018/19 | 150 | High CP | Partial tidal inundation (eggs) | ≥Monthly | AS, ASh, DBCA | ||
Mandurah Marina (sanctuary) | 2018/19 | 111 | Failed | Predation (WC, T, DO) | Cat (adults, chicks), nankeen kestrel (chicks), silver gull (eggs) beach erosion | Daily | CG | |
Carnac Island | 2018/19 | 100 | High CP | Australian sea lion (crushed eggs) | ≥Monthly | DBCA | ||
Leeman Lake | 2018/19 | 95 | Moderate-high CP | ≥Weekly | AS, SP, DBCA | |||
Point Walter (Perth) | 2018/19 | 75 | Low CP | Red fox (eggs, chicks), human disturbance | Daily | CG | ||
Mandurah Marina (beach) | 2018/19 | 43 | Failed | Predation, erosion (WC, T, DO) | Nankeen kestrel (chicks), silver gull (eggs), dogs, human disturbance | Daily | CG | |
Parkin Pt, Garden Island | 2018/19 | 40 | Failed | Eggs buried (DO) | Tidal inundation checked after storm front (eggs) | ≥Weekly | GD | |
Irwin Inlet, Peaceful Bay | 2018/19 | 15 | Moderate CP | ≥Weekly | PM, JL | |||
Causeway, Garden Island | 2018/19 | 15 | Failed | Predation (I) | Black rat (broken eggs) | ≥Weekly | GD | |
Green Islands, JBMP | 2019/20 | 250 | High CP | ≥Monthly | AS, DBCA | |||
Bunbury Outer Harbour | 2019/20 | 168 | Failed | Unknown | Presumably predation, unconfirmed. Cat (tracks), peregrine falcon. | ≥Weekly | SK, RB, MP, DBCA | |
Parkin Pt, Garden Island | 2019/20 | 144 | High CP | ≥Weekly | CG | |||
Point Walter (Perth) (Colony 1) | 2019/20 | 135 | High CP | Human disturbance | Daily | CG | ||
Lake Herschel, Rottnest Island | 2019/20 | 120 | High CP | Silver gull, Australian raven | ≥Weekly | CG, RP | ||
Carnac Island | 2019/20 | 106 | High CP | Human disturbance | ≥Monthly | DBCA | ||
Penguin Island | 2019/20 | 90 | Low CP | Predation (DO) | Silver gull (egg, chicks), black-shouldered kite (chicks), greater crested tern (chicks), arctic jaeger, white-bellied sea-eagle, human disturbance | Daily | CG, MP, WAFTN | |
Parkin Pt, Garden Island | 2019/20 | 25 | Failed | Predation (T, I) | Black rat, ghost crab (broken, missing eggs) | Daily | CG | |
Irwin Inlet, Peaceful Bay | 2019/20 | 25 | Moderate CP | Peregrine falcon, white-bellied sea eagle | ≥Weekly | PM, JL, DBCA | ||
Coal Point, Broke Inlet | 2019/20 | 22 | Moderate-high CP | ≥Monthly | PM, JL, DBCA | |||
Northies, Wanagarren | 2019/20 | 19 | Failed | Predation (T, I) | Red fox (eggs) | ≥Weekly | AS, DBCA | |
Hangover Bay, Cervantes | 2019/20 | 15 | Failed | Predation (T, I) | Red fox (eggs) | ≥Weekly | AS, DBCA | |
Cape Vlamingh, Rottnest Island | 2019/20 | 12 | Failed | Unknown | Possible tidal inundation, unconfirmed | ≥Weekly | RP, RIA | |
Wellstead Estuary | 2019/20 | 10 | Failed | Predation (I) | Silver gull (eggs), human disturbance | ≥Weekly | SE | |
Wedge to Grey Track | 2019/20 | 10 | Failed | Tidal Inundation (I) | *1 fledgling recorded | ≥Weekly | AS, DBCA | |
Whitlock Island (Jurien Bay) | 2019/20 | 6 | Moderate CP | ≥Monthly | AS, DBCA | |||
Favourite Island, JBMP | 2019/20 | 5 | Moderate CP | ≥Monthly | AS, DBCA | |||
Kangaroo Point, Cervantes | 2019/20 | 4 | Failed | Predation (T, I) | Red fox (eggs) | ≥Weekly | AS, DBCA | |
Cowaramup | 2019/20 | 1 | Failed | Disturbance (I) | Human disturbance | Twice | MS | |
Point Malcolm, Israelite Bay | 2019/20 | Moderate CP | Pacific gull *Colony with chicks/fledglings found late in season | Once | SC, AD | |||
Wedge Island | 2020/21 | 270 | High CP | ≥Monthly | AS, ASh, DW, ER, ND, DBCA | |||
Point Walter (Perth) (Colony 2) | 2020/21 | 150 | High CP | Partial tidal inundation, human disturbance | Daily-weekly | CG | ||
Carnac Island | 2020/21 | 150 | Failed | Unknown | Possible tidal inundation, unconfirmed | ≥Monthly | DBCA, SG | |
Pyramids Beach, Dawesville | 2020/21 | 110 | High CP | Silver gull (eggs), dogs (chicks), human disturbance, black rat | Daily | CG, WAFTN | ||
Point Walter (Perth) (Colony 1) | 2020/21 | 100 | Failed | Tidal Inundation (I) | Australian hobby (adult), peregrine falcon, Australian pied oystercatcher (egg), human disturbance | Daily | CG | |
Point Peron (Perth) | 2020/21 | 60 | Failed | Predation (WC) | Red foxes (eggs), human disturbance | Daily | CG | |
Strickland Bay, Rottnest Island | 2020/21 | 30 | Failed | Tidal Inundation (I) | Daily-weekly | CG, RP, RIA | ||
Leschenault Estuary, Bunbury | 2020/21 | 18 | Failed | Disturbance (I) | Off-road vehicle(s) (eggs) | ≥Weekly | CT, PM, DBCA | |
Hill River | 2020/21 | 17 | Failed | Predation (T, I) | Red fox (eggs), dog, off-road vehicle(s) | ≥Weekly | AS, DBCA | |
North West Cape | 2020/21 | 10 | Low CP | Human disturbance, off-road vehicles | ≥Weekly | MP JG, GG | ||
Becher Point, Warnboro (Perth) | 2020/21 | 8 | Failed | Predation (DO, I) | Red fox, Australian raven (eggs) | Daily | BM, CH | |
Green Islands | 2020/21 | 7 | Failed | Unknown | ≥Monthly | AS, ASh, DW, ER, DBCA | ||
Causeway, Garden Island | 2020/21 | 7 | Failed | Eggs removed | Eggs removed to prevent vehicle strike. Black rat | ≥Weekly | CG, SB, DBCA | |
Parkin Pt, Garden Island | 2020/21 | 5 | Failed | Tidal Inundation (I) | ≥Weekly | CG | ||
Penguin Island | 2020/21 | 4 | Failed | Unknown | Possible egg burial, unconfirmed | Daily | DBCA, SG | |
Bunbury Outer Harbour | 2020/21 | 1 | Failed | Unknown | ≥Weekly | CT, DBCA | ||
Rous Head, North Fremantle | 2020/21 | 1 | Failed | Disturbance (WC) | Human disturbance | Daily | CG, MR, MP | |
Lake Herschel, Rottnest Island | 2021/21 | 30 | Failed | Predation (DO) | Ruddy turnstone (eggs), Australian raven, silver gull | Daily | CG | |
Collins Pt, Garden Island | 2021/21 | 29 | Failed | Tidal Inundation (I) | ≥Weekly | CG, SB | ||
Pyramids Beach, Dawesville | 2021/22 | 350 | High CP | Australian hobby (adult), dugite (chick), cat (chicks), silver gull (eggs), dog | Daily | CG, WAFTN | ||
Pearse Lake, Rottnest Island | 2021/22 | 168 | High CP | ≥Weekly | RP, RIA | |||
Wedge Island | 2021/22 | 140 | Failed | Tidal Inundation (I) | ≥Weekly | AS, TL, RW, DBCA | ||
Leeman Lake | 2021/22 | 140 | High CP | Peregrine falcon (fledgling), red fox | ≥Weekly | AS, DBCA | ||
Point Walter (Perth) | 2021/22 | 130 | High CP | Human disturbance | Daily-weekly | CG | ||
Carnac Island | 2021/22 | 30 | Moderate CP | Human disturbance | Weekly-Fortnightly | ME, SG, DBCA | ||
Jorndee Creek, Cape Arid | 2021/22 | 25 | High CP | Pacific gull, silver gull, rat (probably native brown rat), cat, swamp harrier, white-bellied sea-eagle | Twice | TM, KN, PN, DBCA | ||
Broke Inlet | 2021/22 | 23 | Moderate CP | Unidentified snake (chick) | ≥Monthly | JL, DBCA | ||
Fishermans Island, Jurien Bay | 2021/22 | 22 | Failed | Tidal Inundation (I) | Australian sea lion (eggs) | ≥Monthly | RW, AS, TL, DBCA | |
Peel Inlet (Mandurah) | 2021/22 | 14 | Low CP | Daily-weekly | JVJ, SVJ | |||
Hangover Bay, Cervantes | 2021/22 | 6 | Failed | Predation (T, I) | Red fox (eggs), off-road vehicle(s) | ≥Weekly | RW, AS, DBCA | |
Denham | 2021/22 | 4 | Failed | Tidal Inundation (I) | Tidal inundation (eggs) | Daily | DW | |
Boundary Island, Mandurah | 2021/22 | 4 | Low CP | Red fox, Australian raven | ≥Weekly | JVJ, SVJ, NG | ||
Woodman Point, Cockburn | 2021/22 | 3 | Failed | Unknown | Red fox, kite surfers, human disturbance, dogs, cats (2), silver gull | Daily | SH, WG, WFTN |
Under Colony Outcome, CP = chick production. Observed threats that resulted in egg, chick or adult mortality are shown in bold face, and the associated life history stage in brackets. Under Reason for Failure, method of identification is recorded as direct observation (DO), wildlife camera (WC), animal tracks (T) or the outcome was inferred (I) from other evidence at the site (see methods). Under Observer, initials are shown in bold face where monitoring was undertaken by a researcher, observations by a land manager are shaded grey and white space indicates observations were made by volunteers.
Observers: TW, Toni Webster; WAFTN, WA Fairy Tern Network; CC, Cherilyn Corker; DBCA, Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions; RP, Ron Priemus; RIA, Rottnest Island Authority; GD, Georgia Davies; AS, Alanna Smith; CG, Claire Greenwell; CT, Christine Taylor; PM, Peter Moore; JL, Janine Liddelow; AS, Annie Shaw; ND, Nic Dunlop; SP, Sean Plozza; SE, Steve Elson; MS, Marcus Singor; SK, Sue Kalab; RB, Rebecca Bloomfield; MP, Merryn Pryor; SC, Sarah Comer; AD, Alan Danks; PM, Peter Morris; RW, Roger Whitelaw; ER, Emma Rowe; BM, Brad Marayan; CH, Cathy Hurst; SB, Steve Booth; MP, Mark Panhuyzen; JG, John Greer; GG, Grant Griffin; MR, Mackenzie Rowtcliff, DW, Drew Wassam; JVJ, Jamie van Jones; SVJ, Sebastian van Jones; NG, Natalie Goddard; ME, Melissa Evans; TL, Toby Larke; TM, Tessa Murray; KN, Kim Norris; PM, Pam Norris; SH, Sumedha Herath; WG, Wayne Gerrard.
Fairy Tern colonies were observed using binoculars or spotting scopes from the outskirts of the colonies at distances that minimised the potential for disturbance. Brooding behaviour, i.e. sitting adults or the presence of chicks within a nest cup, was the metric used to estimate the total number of nests. In some instances, nests were mapped, allowing colony growth to be tracked over time (Greenwell et al. 2021b, 2021c, 2021d). The total numbers of nests and/or chicks were recorded on most visits, noting that some colonies were observed intensively as part of other research projects (Greenwell et al. 2021b, 2021c, 2021d).
Seven colonies could not be revisited during the active nesting period and outcomes at those sites were not determined, leaving a total of 77 colonies from 49 locations where observations were recorded. Consequently, those seven colonies were excluded from the analysis.
In this study, colony failure was defined as the abandonment by at least 90% of all breeding pairs, noting that one or two chicks may have fledged from two of the colonies that were classified as having failed. Single-pair nesting attempts (n = 3) were included in the analysis because nests at those sites failed soon after egg-laying, presumably in the early stages of colony development, and may have gone on to support a larger number of breeding pairs had they not failed. Understanding the sources of failure during this vulnerable early colony formation period is critical to informing conservation management.
Threats and causes of colony failure were determined through direct observations and wildlife cameras, or in some cases, predation was evidenced by tracks in the sand and broken eggs (inferred predation). Occasionally, direct observations of red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) close to colonies, in addition to tracks and broken eggs supported the determination of inferred predation. Tidal inundation was inferred by observing the high-water mark, algal wrack and/or the movement of eggs past the highest tide, sometimes on consecutive days of monitoring (Table 1).
To reduce the potential for colony disturbance, the number of chicks produced per pair was not an obtainable measure. However, breeding success at each site was subjectively categorised as having low (<30% of pairs), moderate (~40–70% of pairs) or high (>70% of pairs) chick production, i.e. few to many chicks produced, based on the apparent number of chicks observed relative to the number of breeding pairs around the peak of nesting. The causes of nest failure were then considered against the Recovery Plan’s threat prioritisation matrix to understand how the observed threats compared to the identified risks in this plan.
Results
Colony outcomes
From the 77 colonies monitored, 27% (n = 21) had high breeding success, 18% (n = 14) were moderately successful, 7% (n = 5) had low breeding success and 48% (n = 37) failed (Fig. 2, Table 1). Among those that failed, predation (32%, n = 12) and inundation (27% n = 10) were, purportedly, the biggest causes of colony failure, followed by human disturbance, i.e. fishing, walking, camping, kite surfing (8%, n = 3, Fig. 2). The sources of failure were not able to be determined at 22% (n = 8) of the monitored colonies (Fig. 2).
Sources of colony failure (percentage of occurrence) at 77 monitored Australian Fairy Tern (Sternula nereis nereis) colonies in Western Australia between 2017/18 and 2021/22. Numbers shown inside bars indicate the number (n) of occurrences the source of failure was observed.
Non-native species were recorded at 29 colonies during the study period (Fig. 3). Red foxes, black rats (Rattus rattus) and cats (Felis catus) were believed to be implicated in the failure of at least nine colonies, and in all cases, predation was evidenced by tracks in the sand and broken eggs (inferred predation), direct observations and/or wildlife cameras (Table 1). Red foxes appear to have contributed to the failure of at least six colonies (Table 1) and the partial failure of a colony at Point Walter in 2018/19 (Greenwell et al. 2021b). Predation by a single, free-roaming cat purportedly led to the failure of one colony of 111 pairs in Mandurah in 2018 (Greenwell et al. 2019a), and black rats are believed to have predated eggs (inferred predation) at two colonies at Garden Island (Table 1, C. Greenwell, pers. obs; G. Davies, pers. comm.). Two colonies purportedly failed following predation by native species – one by ruddy turnstone (Arenaria interpres) at Rottnest Island (Greenwell 2021) and the other by silver gulls (Chroicocephalus novaehollandiae) at Wellstead Estuary (S. Elson, pers. comm.).
Threats observed (percentage of occurrence) at 77 monitored Australian Fairy Tern (Sternula nereis nereis) colonies in Western Australia between 2017/18 and 2021/22. Numbers shown inside bars indicate the number (n) of occurrences the threat was observed.
Natural weather events, i.e. inundation, flooding (heavy rainfall) and egg burial from strong winds, contributed to the failure of at least 33% (n = 12) of colonies and were recorded in all years (Table 1). Tidal inundation (27%, n = 10) was the most persistent source of ‘natural’ failure, recorded in 4 of the 5 years of observation (Fig. 2, Table 1). In 2017/18 on Rottnest Island, a 1/500-year rainfall event caused the flooding and abandonment of an entire colony of 176 pairs. In 2018, beach erosion and predation by a nankeen kestrel (Falco cenchroides) contributed to the failure of a colony in Mandurah, following predation by a cat at a nearby colony (Table 1, Greenwell et al. 2019a).
Human disturbance, including off-road vehicles, caused the failure of 8% (n = 3) of colonies (Fig. 2). On two occasions, off-road vehicles were implicated, evidenced by tyre tracks through the nesting area (Table 1). At the Leschenault Estuary mouth, near Bunbury, a colony in the early stages of development consisting of ~18 nests was destroyed by a vehicle(s) that drove, in circles, within the sign-posted nesting area (Table 1, C. Taylor, P. Morris, pers. comm.). At Rous Head in 2020/21, the first nest to be established was abandoned between Christmas Day and Boxing Day due to human disturbance. A beach towel, empty beer bottles and a beach ball were found in the fenced breeding area, and these activities were detected on wildlife cameras (M. Pryor, pers. comm.). On a beach in Cowaramup, a single nest was abandoned before it could be fenced off, presumably due to disturbance (Table 1, M. Singor, pers. comm.).
Individual nest failure, predation and colony disturbance
Human disturbance was observed at many monitored sites, including Mandurah Marina, Dawesville, Penguin Island, Point Walter, Rous Head, Carnac Island, Wedge Island, Hangover Bay and North West Cape (Table 1). For example, at Point Walter, fishers and other recreational users intermittently breached the fenced exclusion zone and disturbed nesting Fairy Terns as they walked along the narrow sandbar in all years (C. Greenwell, pers. obs.). At Rous Head, fishers and beachgoers were often observed or detected on wildlife cameras, walking through the fenced site (C. Greenwell, pers. obs.). At Woodman Point, numerous disturbances were documented, including off-leash dogs, recreational fishers that walked through the nesting site and kite surfers (S. Herath, W. Garrard, pers. comm.). At Point Walter in 2018/19, predation of eggs and chicks by a red fox contributed to the partial failure of the colony, and on Penguin Island in 2019/20, predation by silver gull(s) and a juvenile crested tern (Thalasseus bergii) contributed to a high incidence of individual nest failure (≥70%; Fig. 4, Table 1).
Examples of disturbance, predation and colony failure at Australian Fairy Tern (Sternula nereis nereis) colonies in Western Australia between 2017/18 and 2021/22. (a) Red fox (Vulpes vulpes) at Point Peron, (b) adult silver gull (Chroicocephalus novaehollandiae) predating a chick at Penguin Island, (c) juvenile greater crested tern (Thalasseus bergii) predating a chick at Penguin Island, (d) Australian hobby (Falco longipennis) predating an adult tern at Dawesville, (e and f) dead Fairy Tern runner and fledgling following suspected predation and trapping of a cat at Dawesville, (g) incursion by an off-leash dog at Dawesville and (h) Fairy Tern chick with an injured wing from a suspected dog attack at Dawesville. Image credits: (a) Peter Moore; (b and c) Claire Greenwell; (d) Amy Loffler; (e–g) Julie White; (h) Paul Fenton.
Numerous native species were observed predating Fairy Tern eggs, chicks or adults (Fig. 4, Table 1). Predators included Australian pied oystercatcher (Haematopus longirostris; C. Greenwell, pers. obs.), ruddy turnstone (Greenwell 2021), silver gull (Greenwell et al. 2021b; S. Elson, C. Corker, pers. comm.); juvenile greater crested tern (Greenwell et al. 2021b), nankeen kestrel (C. Corker, C. Greenwell, pers. obs.), Australian hobby (C. Greenwell, pers. obs., A. Loffler, pers. comm.), dugite (Pseudonaja affinis; D. Martin, pers. comm.).
Arctic jaeger (Stercorarius parasiticus; S. Goodlich, pers. comm.), pacific gull (Larus pacificus; K & P Norris, pers. comm.), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus; C. Greenwell, pers. obs.; A. Smith, S. Kalab, pers. comm.), swamp harrier (Circus approximans), white-bellied sea-eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster; C. Greenwell, pers. obs., P. Moore, pers. comm.) were observed near or harassing colonies, and despite obvious disturbance to terns, no cases of predation by these species were confirmed (Fig. 4, Table 1). In addition, Australian sea lions (Neophoca cinerea) purportedly crushed several nests on Carnac Island in 2018/19 and Fisherman’s Island in 2020/21 (Table 1, S. Goodlich, A. Smith, pers. comm.).
In 2020/21, domestic dogs were a common source of disturbance at a colony in Dawesville, and are suspected of having injured or killed at least two Fairy Tern chicks (Fig. 4g, f, P. Fenton, pers. comm.). Subsequently, the beach was rezoned from an on-leash area to a dog prohibited area. At the same site in January 2022, a deceased 5-day-old chick with punctures in the body and four wing sets belonging to fledgling Fairy Terns were found (Fig. 4e, f, J. White, pers. comm.). On further investigation, animal tracks suspected of belonging to a cat were found on the colony’s outskirts. The following evening, a cat was trapped by the City of Mandurah (B. Beal-Richardson, pers. comm.). The cat was not collared, desexed, nor microchipped, and was believed to be semi-feral/unowned due to its poor body condition (i.e. an animal that is partially provisioned by people, deliberately or incidentally through garbage; Cove et al. 2018) (B. Beal-Richardson, pers. comm.). No further mammal tracks or instances of terrestrial predation were found following the trapping and removal of the cat in the 2021/22 season.
Discussion
Nearly half of all known and monitored Fairy Tern colonies in Western Australia failed between 2017/18 and 2021/22. Predation, inundation and to a lesser extent, human disturbance, were the biggest drivers of failure, accounting for ~68% of colony failures, and were observed across the State.
Predation
At least 14 predators (10 native and 4 invasive/domestic) were observed at Fairy Tern colonies during the 5 years of monitoring and contributed to egg, chick and/or adult mortality or complete colony failure. The high incidence of colony failure associated with invasive and domestic predators reinforces the need for monitoring and targeted predator removal or deterrence, both in the lead-up to and during the breeding season, i.e. pre-emptive and reactive controls. This is particularly important at frequently used sites, which may be subject to a build-up of predators or where the locations of colonies become predictable to predators over time (Ward et al. 2011; Dunlop 2018; Greenwell et al. 2019b). Red foxes, black rats and cats have been identified as key invasive predators impacting the breeding success of Fairy Terns elsewhere on mainland Australia (Trees and Natural Resources 1997; Maguire 2008; Paton and Rogers 2009; Lacey and O’Brien 2015; Commonwealth of Australia 2020). The development of local/regional protocols by land management agencies may be useful for informing predator control efforts, particularly at short notice, to prevent swift colony decline (Greenwell et al. 2019a; Commonwealth of Australia 2020). Improved regulation of pet animals, i.e. dog prohibition and/or strict leashing requirements and cat containment, in areas adjacent to colony sites would also likely improve outcomes for nesting terns.
Inundation
Inundation was a major source of colony failure due to the tern’s preference for breeding sites in low-laying sandy beach habitat, often just above the intertidal zone. Inundation frequency is predicted to increase with climate change, driven by sea-level rise and higher sea surface levels (Indian Ocean Climate Initiative 2012; Garnett et al. 2013), engineering impacts (e.g. the Dawesville Cut influencing water levels on the Peel Inlet), and more severe and frequent summer storm events. Flood mitigation strategies, such as raising the height of colony areas or encouraging settlement in low flood risk areas, should be developed and implemented as a priority to provide a safe habitat for beach-nesting species, including Fairy Terns, and to improve breeding productivity (Garnett et al. 2013).
In New Zealand, options used to reduce inundation risk for Fairy Terns (Sternula nereis davisae) have included sand-bagging nests from tidal surges, ditch and dyke systems to reduce flooding risk of low laying nests and oyster shell banks to increase substrate height and reduce the impacts of tides and storm surges (Ferreira et al. 2005; Department of Environment and Conservation New Zealand 2019). Alternatively, managed and/or engineered sites (generally on dredge-spoil) dedicated specifically to breeding may provide an effective long-term solution, with elevated sites removing the potential for inundation (Krogh and Schweitzer 1999; Jenniges and Plettner 2008; Pakanen et al. 2014; Greenwell et al. 2019b, 2021a).
Human disturbance
Although human disturbance only accounted for 8% (n = 3) of colony failures, disturbance was recorded at ≥30% (n = 23) of colonies. The incidence of disturbance may be underestimated, particularly during the settlement and early egg-laying periods before the colony site has been identified or at remote sites that are difficult to monitor regularly. In these cases, colony abandonment is more likely to occur before protective measures are introduced, such as the installation of temporary fencing and signage. During the early settling period, site attachment is relatively low due to the low investment of time and energy into egg laying or incubation and moving to an alternative site may outweigh the risk of remaining at a disturbed site (Nisbet 1981; Safina and Burger 1983; Burger and Gochfeld 1991; Nisbet 2000; Greenwell et al. 2021b).
In the early stages of colony formation, the first eggs to be laid are often intermittently incubated or deserted at night, potentially as a mechanism for assessing potential nest predators or increasing egg synchrony and reducing the time the colony is detectable by predators (Gochfeld 1980; Atwood 1986; Nisbet 2000; Jovani and Grimm 2008; Greenwell et al. 2019b). During this period, fewer terns may be present at the breeding site, thus group defence strategies, including dive-bombing intruders, are likely to be lower (Brunton 1999).
Fairy Terns often form colonies on spits and wide sandy beaches located near estuary mouths, on nearshore islands or salt lakes, or within sheltered coastal embayments where small baitfish are abundant (Higgins and Davies 1996; Paton et al. 2009; Lacey and O’Brien 2015; Greenwell et al. 2021b, 2021d). The protection of these important coastal landforms should be prioritised to improve the long-term conservation needs of Fairy Terns and other beach-nesting species, such as Australian pied oystercatchers and red-capped plovers (Charadrius ruficapillus), and to preserve their high natural value. Reducing the impact of recreational activities, particularly from off-leash dogs and unregulated, highly destructive off-road vehicles in these sensitive habitats, is critical for maintaining ecosystem function (Williams et al. 2009; Schlacher et al. 2015; Maguire 2018).
When breeding behaviour is anticipated or identified, pre-emptive or proactive management interventions may be used to reduce human disturbance. Interventions such as seasonal site closures and restricting human access by erecting temporary fencing and signage near nesting areas are often effective in reducing disturbance, facilitating an increase in reproductive success (Burger and Leonard 2000; Lafferty et al. 2006; Medeiros et al. 2007; Maguire 2008).
Unidentified failures
Outcomes could not be documented at several colonies due to their remoteness or a lack of resources to undertake regular monitoring. Documenting the outcomes of breeding success is a key objective under the Recovery Plan to better target management actions (Commonwealth of Australia 2020). Engaging local observers, including commercial operators, and/or expanding the opportunities for citizen science programs may effectively support monitoring and management efforts (Tulloch et al. 2013; Greenwell et al. 2021c).
Conservation implications
This study highlighted the numerous threats Fairy Terns face during a breeding attempt. The observed threats were consistent with those identified under the Fairy Tern Recovery Plan risk matrix and recognised as having major consequences, i.e. at the population level (Commonwealth of Australia 2020). To address these threats and maintain or increase the current population trajectory, practical solutions, including the development of effective predator control and flood mitigation strategies are critical for addressing the major sources of colony failure. Identifying the beaches most at risk of sea-level rise and inundation – and those that may act as refuge sites (i.e. likely to be relatively unaffected by sea level rise before 2100) or retreat pathways (i.e. where the affected natural value has the capacity to retreat landward, enabling birds to nest elsewhere), similar to work completed in Tasmania – is urgently needed (DPIPWE 2015).
Disturbance was intermittently observed in at least one-third of colonies but was identified as the only cause of abandonment at three sites. It is possible that increased education, early identification and protection of colonies and pre-emptive management at regularly-used sites have helped to reduce (but not completely eliminate) the impacts of disturbance compared with historical levels (Singor 1998; Dunlop 2016; Singor 2021), particularly in the higher population centres in the south-west, where Fairy Tern conservation now has a large network of active volunteer observers, managers and wider community support.
The community-led, collaborative approach adopted for management and monitoring in Western Australia has enabled the early identification and protection of breeding sites and the collection and reporting of information on the threats faced by Fairy Terns during the breeding season. Strategies that raise awareness and educate the general public about Fairy Tern conservation are likely to further reduce disturbance at breeding colonies, help foster stronger community stewardship and increase citizen scientist participation over time.
Acknowledgements
We extend our sincere thanks to the Western Australian Fairy Tern Network members for their significant and sustained contributions. This important research would not have been possible without the help of these committed managers, researchers and a very long list of volunteers. Special thanks to Julie White, Paul Fenton, Cherilyn Corker, David Martin, Amy Loffler, Toni Webster, Ron Priemus, Georgia Davies, Alanna Smith, Christine Taylor, Peter Moore, Janine Liddelow, Annie Shaw and the KMAC Ranger team, Sean Plozza, Steve Elson, Marcus Singor, Sue Kalab, Rebecca Bloomfield, Merryn Pryor, Sarah Comer, Alan Danks, Peter Morris, Roger Whitelaw, Emma Rowe, Toby Larke, Brad Marayan, Cathy Hurst, Steve Booth, Mark Panhuyzen, John Greer, Grant Griffin, Mackenzie Rowtcliff, Drew Wassam, Jamie van Jones, Sebastian van Jones, Natalie Goddard, Melissa Evans, Steve Goodlich, Vaughn Chapple, Miecha Bradshaw, Tessa Murray, Kim Norris and Pam Norris – for their valuable contributions that have supported this research. We are extremely grateful to local land and wildlife managers who strive to improve conservation outcomes for these vulnerable birds. In particular, we acknowledge Fremantle Ports, Southern Ports (Bunbury), Department of Defence, City of Mandurah, City of Melville, Parks and Wildlife Service (DBCA) staff from the Albany District, Frankland District, South West Region, Metropolitan Marine and Riverparks Unit, Rottnest Island Authority, Moora District and Exmouth Districts for assisting the Network in monitoring and protecting breeding colonies along the Western Australian coast. Thanks to Eric Woehler for the thoughtful discussion on coastal erosion and the identification of refuge sites. Sincere thanks to Emer. Prof. Neil Loneragan, Alanna Smith and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments that improved this manuscript.
References
Atwood JL (1986) Delayed nocturnal occupation of breeding colonies by Least Terns (Sterna antillarum). Auk 1, 242-244.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Baling M, Brunton DH (2022) Structured phylogeography and restricted gene flow among populations of Fairy Tern (Sternula nereis) across Australasia: implications for the endangered New Zealand population. Ibis 164(3), 800-808.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Baling M, Jeffries D, Barré N, Brunton DH (2009) A survey of Fairy Tern (Sterna nereis) breeding colonies in the Southern Lagoon, New Caledonia. Emu – Austral Ornithology 109, 57-61.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
BirdLife International (2018) Fairy Tern, Sternula nereis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-2.RLTS.T22694691A132568135.en [accessed 6 August 2019]
BirdLife International (2021) BirdLife International (2021) IUCN Red List for birds. Available at http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/search [accessed 18 May 2021]
Brunton D (1999) “Optimal” colony size for least terns: an inter-colony study of opposing selective pressures by predators. The Condor 101, 607-615.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Burger J (1989) Least Tern populations in coastal New Jersey: monitoring and management of a regionally-endangered species. Journal of Coastal Research 5, 801-811.
| Google Scholar |
Burger J, Gochfeld M (1991) Reproductive vulnerability: parental attendance around hatching in Roseate (Sterna dougallii) and Common (S. Hirundo) Terns. The Condor 93, 125-129.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Burger J, Leonard J (2000) Conflict resolution in coastal waters: the case of personal watercraft. Marine Policy 24, 61-67.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Commonwealth of Australia (2020) ‘National Recovery Plan for the Australian Fairy Tern (Sternula nereis nereis)’. (Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment: Canberra) Available at https://www.awe.gov.au/environment/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/fairy-tern-2022
Cove MV, Gardner B, Simons TR, Kays R, O’Connell AF (2018) Free-ranging domestic cats (Felis catus) on public lands: estimating density, activity, and diet in the Florida Keys. Biological Invasions 20, 333-344.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Department of Environment and Conservation New Zealand (2019) New Zealand Defence Force help protect rare native bird. Available at www.doc.govt.nz/news/media-releases/2019/new-zealand-defence-force-help-protect-rare-native-bird/ [accessed 22 March 2021]
Dunlop JN (2016) ‘Local Fairy Tern conservation strategy for the south west coastal region.’ (Conservation Council of Western Australia: Perth, WA, Australia). Available at http://www.ccwa.org.au/fairyterns
Dunlop JN, Greenwell CN (2021) Seasonal movements and metapopulation structure of the Australian Fairy Tern in Western Australia. Pacific Conservation Biology 27, 47-60.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Ferreira SM, Hansen KM, Parrish GR, Pierce RJ, Pulham GA, Taylor S (2005) Conservation of the endangered New Zealand Fairy Tern. Biological Conservation 125, 345-354.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Gochfeld M (1980) Mechanisms and adaptive value of reproductive synchrony in colonial seabirds. In ‘Behavior of marine animals’. (Eds J Burger, BL Olla, HE Winn) pp. 207–270. (Springer US: Boston, MA) doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-2988-6_7
Greenwell CN (2021) Inferred predation of Fairy Tern eggs by Ruddy Turnstones at Rottnest Island, Western Australia, an internationally significant shorebird site. Australian Field Ornithology 38, 115-117.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Greenwell CN, Calver MC, Loneragan NR (2019a) Cat gets its tern: a case study of predation on a threatened coastal seabird. Animals 9, 445.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Greenwell CN, Dunlop JN, Loneragan NR (2019b) Nest desertion: an anti-predator strategy of the Australian Fairy Tern Sternula nereis nereis. Marine Ornithology 47, 193-197.
| Google Scholar |
Greenwell CN, Born KS, Admiraal R, Hodgson A, Dunlop JN, Loneragan NR (2021a) Social facilitation for conservation planning: understanding Fairy Tern behavior and site selection in response to conspecific audio-visual cues. Endangered Species Research 45, 147-157.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Greenwell CN, Dunlop JN, Admiraal R, Loneragan NR (2021b) The secret life of Fairy Terns: breeding chronology and life history observations of Sternula nereis nereis in south-western Australia. Pacific Conservation Biology 27, 143-154.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Greenwell CN, Sullivan D, Goddard N, Bedford F, Douglas TK (2021c) Application of a novel banding technique and photographic recapture to describe plumage development and behaviour of juvenile Fairy Terns. Australian Field Ornithology 38, 49-55.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Greenwell CN, Tweedley JR, Moore GI, Lenanton RCJ, Dunlop JN, Loneragan NR (2021d) Feeding ecology of a threatened coastal seabird across an inner shelf seascape. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 263, 107627.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Jenniges JJ, Plettner RG (2008) Least Tern nesting at human created habitats in central Nebraska. Waterbirds 31, 274-282.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Jovani R, Grimm V (2008) Breeding synchrony in colonial birds: from local stress to global harmony. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London: Biological Sciences 275, 1557-1563.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Krogh MG, Schweitzer SH (1999) Least Terns nesting on natural and artificial habitats in Georgia, USA. Waterbirds: The International Journal of Waterbird Biology 22, 290-296.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Lacey G, O’Brien M (2015) Fairy Tern breeding on French Island, Western Port, Victoria. Australian Field Ornithology 32, 1-14.
| Google Scholar |
Lafferty KD, Goodman D, Sandoval CP (2006) Restoration of breeding by snowy plovers following protection from disturbance. Biodiversity & Conservation 15, 2217-2230.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Maguire GS (2018) A review of dog impacts to beach-nesting birds and management solutions. Melbourne, Vic. Available at https://direct.birdlife.org.au/documents/Dogs_and_Beach-nesting_Birds_Management_Solutions_Nov2018.pdf
Martin TG, Nally S, Burbidge AA, Arnall S, Garnett ST, Hayward MW, Lumsden LF, Menkhorst P, McDonald-Madden E, Possingham HP (2012) Acting fast helps avoid extinction. Conservation Letters 5, 274-280.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Medeiros R, Ramos JA, Paiva VH, Almeida A, Pedro P, Antunes S (2007) Signage reduces the impact of human disturbance on little tern nesting success in Portugal. Biological Conservation 135, 99-106.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Nisbet ICT (1981) Behavior of common and roseate terns after trapping. Colonial Waterbirds 4, 44.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Nisbet ICT (2000) Disturbance, habituation, and management of waterbird colonies. Waterbirds 23, 312-332.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Pakanen V-M, Hongell H, Aikio S, Koivula K (2014) Little Tern breeding success in artificial and natural habitats: modelling population growth under uncertain vital rates. Population Ecology 56, 581-591.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Paton DC, Rogers DJ, Hill BM, Bailey CP, Ziembicki M (2009) Temporal changes to spatially stratified waterbird communities of the Coorong, South Australia: implications for the management of heterogenous wetlands. Animal Conservation 12, 408-417.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Piper WH, Grear J, Hoover B, Lomery E, Grenzer LM (2020) Plunging floater survival causes cryptic population decline in the Common Loon. The Condor 122, duaa044.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Ratcliffe N, Schmitt S, Mayo A, Tratalos J, Drewitt A (2008) Colony habitat selection by Little Terns Sternula albifrons in East Anglia: implications for coastal managemen. Seabirds 21, 55-63.
| Google Scholar |
Safina C, Burger J (1983) Effects of human disturbance on reproductive success in the black skimmer. The Condor 85, 164-171.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Schlacher TA, Weston MA, Lynn D, Schoeman DS, Huijbers CM, Olds AD, Masters S, Connolly RM (2015) Conservation gone to the dogs: when canids rule the beach in small coastal reserves. Biodiversity & Conservation 24, 493-509.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Singor M (2021) Shorebird populations from 1995 to 2020 at Woodman Point, Western Australia. The Western Australian Naturalist 32, 14-31.
| Google Scholar |
Trees and Natural Resources (1997) Foxes take their tern [Victorian fox control program designed to protect breeding terns]. Natural Resources Conservation League of Victoria 39, 14-15.
| Google Scholar |
Tulloch AIT, Possingham HP, Joseph LN, Szabo J, Martin TG (2013) Realising the full potential of citizen science monitoring programs. Biological Conservation 165, 128-138.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Ward MP, Semel B, Jablonski C, Deutsch C, Giammaria V, Miller SB, McGuire BM (2011) Consequences of using conspecific attraction in avian conservation: a case study of endangered colonial waterbirds. Waterbirds 34, 476-480.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Williams KJH, Weston MA, Henry S, Maguire GS (2009) Birds and beaches, dogs and leashes: Dog owners’ sense of obligation to leash dogs on beaches in Victoria, Australia. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 14, 89-101.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Wilson LJ, Rendell-Read S, Lock L, Drewitt AL, Bolton M (2020) Effectiveness of a five-year project of intensive, regional-scale, coordinated management for little terns Sternula albifrons across the major UK colonies. Journal for Nature Conservation 53, 125779.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Zavalaga CB, Plenge MA, Bertolero A (2008) The Breeding Biology of the Peruvian Tern (Sternula lorata) in Peru. Waterbirds 31, 550-560.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |