Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An analysis of temporal and spatial patterns in global seabird abundance during the modern industrial.. Paleczny, Michelle 2012

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
ubc_2013_spring_paleczny_michelle.pdf [ 1.45MB ]
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0073392.json
JSON-LD: 1.0073392+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0073392.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0073392+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0073392+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0073392+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0073392 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0073392.txt
Citation
1.0073392.ris

Full Text

AN ANALYSIS OF TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL PATTERNS IN GLOBAL SEABIRD ABUNDANCE DURING THE MODERN INDUSTRIAL ERA, 1950-2010, AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GLOBAL SEABIRD DECLINE AND MARINE FISHERIES CATCH  by Michelle Paleczny  BSc, University of Victoria, 2008  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  MASTER OF SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Zoology) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Vancouver  November 2012 © Michelle Paleczny, 2012  Abstract Seabird populations worldwide are threatened by anthropogenic activities including hunting, introduced predators, habitat destruction, pollution, and fisheries, yet the cumulative effects of these threats on seabird populations is difficult to assess because seabird population studies are mainly limited to small temporal and spatial scales. The present study used global databases of seabird abundance, seabird distribution, and fisheries catch, to estimate global annual seabird population size, overall and by seabird family, 1950-2010; map observed global seabird population change within the same timeframe; and compare temporal and spatial patterns in seabird decline with fisheries, a major threat for which global temporally and spatially explicit data is available throughout the modern industrial era. The global seabird population was estimated to decline by 25% during the modern industrial era, from 1.023 billion individuals in 1950 to 0.768 billion individuals in 2010, and overall decline was observed in eleven of the fourteen seabird families. Maps of observed seabird population change indicated decline covering 90% of the world’s marine surface area, and most severe in the southern temperate and tropical oceans. There was a significant positive relationship between annual seabird decline and annual forage fish catch (a metric of forage fish depletion), as well as between observed seabird decline per spatial cell and year of maximum primary production to support fisheries per marine spatial cell (a metric of the timing of peak ecological footprint of fisheries), both indicating that fisheries presence may play a role in shaping spatial and temporal patterns in global seabird population change. The present study identifies the temporally, taxonomically and spatially pervasive nature of global seabird decline during the modern industrial era and a potentially globally important role of fisheries in this global seabird decline, thus indicating the need for a large-scale and precautionary approach to seabird and marine ecosystem management. ii  Preface Vasiliki Karpouzi constructed and compiled a substantial part of the data in the Sea Around Us Project seabird database. Edd Hammill and Daniel Pauly made important contributions to the design and execution of the analysis of temporal patterns in seabird abundance and the relationship between seabird decline and fisheries catch. Reg Watson provided data from the Sea Around Us database for the fisheries-related analyses.  iii  Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii Preface............................................................................................................................................ iii Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... viii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ ix Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... x Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Problem statement ................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Research questions ................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Background and literature review ......................................................................................... 2 1.3.1 Definition of the term “seabird” .................................................................................... 2 1.3.2 Seabird diet and foraging ............................................................................................... 4 1.3.3 Seabird colonies ............................................................................................................. 8 1.3.4 Seabird population dynamics ......................................................................................... 9 1.3.5 Seabird ecology............................................................................................................ 12 1.3.6 Anthropogenic activities threatening seabirds ............................................................. 15 1.3.7 Seabird conservation .................................................................................................... 25 1.3.8 Seabird population monitoring and status.................................................................... 27 Chapter 2 Temporal patterns in global seabird abundance, 1950-2010........................................ 30 iv  2.1 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 30 2.2 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 30 2.3 Methods............................................................................................................................... 32 2.3.1 Global database of seabird abundance records, 1950-2010 ......................................... 32 2.3.2 Estimating annual change in global seabird abundance .............................................. 34 2.3.3 Estimating annual global seabird abundance ............................................................... 37 2.3.4 Breaking the global annual seabird abundance down by seabird family ..................... 37 2.4 Results ................................................................................................................................. 38 2.4.1 Seabird abundance database ........................................................................................ 38 2.4.2 Global annual seabird population change .................................................................... 39 2.4.3 Global annual seabird population size ......................................................................... 39 2.4.4 Global annual seabird population size, by family........................................................ 39 2.5 Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 46 2.5.1 Global seabird population change ................................................................................ 46 2.5.2 Global seabird population change, by family .............................................................. 53 Chapter 3 Spatial patterns in observed global seabird abundance, 1950-2010............................. 57 3.1 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 57 3.2 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 57 3.3 Methods............................................................................................................................... 59 3.3.1 Global database of range extent maps per seabird species .......................................... 59 v  3.3.2 Estimating abundance and change in abundance per seabird species.......................... 61 3.3.3 Mapping global seabird density ................................................................................... 61 3.3.4 Mapping observed change in global seabird density ................................................... 62 3.4 Results ................................................................................................................................. 62 3.4.1 Estimated abundance and change in abundance, per seabird species .......................... 62 3.4.2 Maps of global seabird density .................................................................................... 63 3.4.3 Maps of observed change in global seabird density .................................................... 63 3.5 Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 68 3.5.1 Estimated abundance and change in abundance, per seabird species .......................... 68 3.5.2 Global maps of seabird density .................................................................................... 69 3.5.3 Global maps of observed change in seabird density .................................................... 70 Chapter 4 Investigating the potential role of industrial marine fisheries in temporal and spatial patterns in global seabird population change, 1950-2010 ............................................................ 74 4.1 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 74 4.2 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 74 4.3 Methods............................................................................................................................... 77 4.3.1 Testing for a relationship between annual global seabird decline and annual global forage fish catch .................................................................................................................... 77 4.3.2 Testing for a relationship between observed seabird decline and year of maxPPR per spatial cell ............................................................................................................................. 77  vi  4.4 Results ................................................................................................................................. 78 4.4.1 Relationship between annual global seabird decline and annual global forage fish catch ...................................................................................................................................... 78 4.4.2 Relationship between observed seabird decline and year of maxPPR in a region ...... 78 4.5 Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 81 4.5.1 Temporal relationship between seabird decline and fisheries catch ............................ 81 4.5.2 Spatial relationship between seabird decline and fisheries catch ................................ 84 Chapter 5 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 86 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................. 88 Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 105 Appendix I. List of all seabird species, their attributes and abundance estimates. ................ 105 Appendix II. Examples of data used to calculate abundance estimates for four species. ...... 115 Appendix III. Estimates of global abundance per seabird family in 1950 and 2010. ............ 119  vii  List of Tables Table 1.1 Seabird families and their defining ecological attributes................................................ 3  viii  List of Figures Figure 1.1 Examples of terrestrial breeding areas and marine foraging areas ................................ 7 Figure 2.1 Method for estimating annual change in the global seabird population ...................... 36 Figure 2.2 Number of seabird populations sampled in the global seabird database, 1950-2010. 41 Figure 2.3 Annual relative contribution of each family to the total number of records. .............. 42 Figure 2.4 Estimated global annual change in seabird abundance, 1950-2010. ........................... 43 Figure 2.5 Estimated global annual seabird abundance, 1950-2010. ........................................... 44 Figure 2.6 Mean annual global seabird population size, by family, 1950-2010. .......................... 45 Figure 3.1 Examples of range extent polygons. ............................................................................ 60 Figure 3.2 Map of historical global seabird density. ................................................................... 64 Figure 3.3 Map of modern global seabird density. ...................................................................... 65 Figure 3.4 Map of absolute change observed in global seabird density ...................................... 66 Figure 3.5 Map of relative change observed in global seabird density. ...................................... 67  ix  Acknowledgements  I would like to thank Daniel Pauly for being a great supervisor and teacher, and for providing many opportunities for interesting work and collaborations. I would also like to thank Daniel Pauly for funding my research through the Sea Around Us Project, a collaboration between the Pew Charitable Trusts and the University of British Columbia. I would like to thank Bob Furness and Andrew Trites for being my committee members and providing very helpful feedback along the way. I would like to thank Edd Hammill for the extremely helpful contributions that he made to the data analysis. I would like to thank Vasiliki Karpouzi for the extensive work that she put into founding the global seabird abundance database. I would like to thank my colleagues in the Sea Around Us Project, especially Reg Watson, Kristin Kleisner, and Wilf Swartz, for their support in managing and analyzing global databases. Finally, and very importantly, I would like to thank my family and friends, especially my mom and dad, for encouraging and inspiring me throughout this adventure.  x  Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Problem statement Seabirds are are threatened by anthropogenic activities, but the cumulative effects to seabird populations are unclear because seabird population change has not been properly assessed at the global scale.  1.2 Research questions The purpose of this research is to answer the following questions:  1) What is the global annual seabird population size throughout the modern industrial era, overall, as well as by seabird family? 2) What is the spatial distribution of observed change in the global seabird population over the modern industrial era? 3) Are temporal and spatial patterns in global seabird population change during the modern industrial era related to fisheries?  1  1.3 Background and literature review 1.3.1 Definition of the term “seabird”  Seabirds are birds that nest colonially on marine islands and coastal cliffs, and travel some distance from shore to feed predominantly on marine prey. Seabirds are notable for their wide ranges and transboundary movements, crossing many ecological and jurisdictional boundaries during their daily foraging trips and seasonal movements (Jodice and Suryan, 2010). For their marine existence, seabirds have a unique set of physical adaptations: salt glands for osmoregulation; black, grey and/or white colouration for attracting conspecifics and/or evading predators at sea; webbed feet for swimming; oily and densely packed feathers for waterproofing and insulation; and wing shapes that maximize efficiency for long distance travel by either flight or swimming.  There are currently 324 seabird species (Appendix I) belonging to 4 orders and 14 families (Table 1.1). The count of seabird species is ever-changing due to discovery of new species and taxonomic revisions as taxonomy transitioned from entirely morphology-based (i.e., nostrils, palate, tarsus, syrinx, and certain muscles and arteries) to including also genetic data after 1990 (Brooke, 2002). For example, morphological and genetic data led to the subdivision of the Wandering albatross (Diomedea exulans) into four species, D. amsterdamensis (Amsterdam Island), D. antipodensis (Campbell, Adams and Antipodes Islands), D. dabbenena (Tristan da Cunha Island), and D. exulans (Marion and Prince Edward, Crozet, South Georgia and Macquarie Islands) (Rains et al., 2011). As another example, Beck’s petrel (Pseudobulweria becki) was rediscovered after it was thought to be extinct in the 1920s (Gangloff et al., 2012).  2  Table 1.1 Seabird families and their defining ecological attributes. Number of species a  Foraging technique b  Diet items c  Marine habitat d  Clutch size (avg. # of eggs) e  SPHENISCIFORMES Spheniscidae (penguins)  17  PD  F/C, S  I  1-2  PROCELLARIIFORMES Diomedeidae (albatrosses) Procellariidae (petrels, shearwaters) Hydrobatidae (storm-petrels) Pelecanoididae (diving petrels)  22 80 20 4  SS, KL SS, PD, KL, SC SS PD  F/S, C C, F/S F/S/C C, F/S  O I/O I/O I  1 1 1 1  PELECANIFORMES Phaethontidae (tropicbirds) Pelecanidae (pelicans) Phalacrocoracidae (cormorants) Fregatidae (frigatebirds) Sulidae (boobies, gannets)  3 8 38 5 10  PL SS, PLD, KL PD KL, SS PD, PLD  F/S F F, C/S F, S F, S  O I I I/O I/O  1 4 2-4 1 1-3  Taxa  CHARADRIIFORMES Stercorariidae (skuas) 7 KL, SS, SC B/F/C/O I 2 Laridae (gulls, kittiwakes) 47 SS, KL, SC F/C/B/O I 1-3 Sternidae (terns) 40 PLD, SS, KL F, S, C I/O 1-2 Alcidae (auks) 23 PD F, C, S I 1-2 a after Peters (1979) b PD= pursuit diving, SS= surface seizing, PLD= plunge-diving, KL= kleptoparasitism, SC= scavenging (Shealer, 2002) c F= Fish, C= Crustaceans, S= Squid, B= Birds, O= Other, in order of importance (Shealer, 2002) d I= Inshore, O= Offshore (Shealer, 2002) e after Weimerskirch (2002)  3  In terms of the global avian community, seabirds are a very small group. Jointly, they cover two thirds of the world’s surface area, yet constitute only three percent of the world’s avian species diversity and less than one percent of the world’s avian abundance, as measured in number of individuals (Gaston and Blackburn, 1997, Brooke, 2004b).  1.3.2 Seabird diet and foraging  Seabirds feed almost exclusively on marine prey. Global annual prey consumption is estimated to consists of 42% marine fish, 38% krill and 20% cephalopods by mass (Karpouzi et al., 2007). The fish consumed by seabirds include “forage fish”, small lipid-rich schooling fish that inhabit coastal upwelling ecosystems including sandlance (Ammodytes spp.), herring (Clupea spp.), anchovies (Engraulidae), sardine or pilchard (Sardina spp. and Sardinops spp.), capelin (Mallotus villosus), sprat (Sprattus spp.), and menhaden (Brevoortia spp. and Ethmidium spp.). They also include the egg and juvenile stages of larger fish including perch-like fishes (Perciformes), cods (Gadiformes), needle fishes (Beloniformes), scorpionfishes and flatheads (Scorpaeniformes), flatfishes (Pleuronectiformes), silversides (Atherinidae), jacks and pompanos (Carangidae), crocodile icefishes (Channichthyidae), flyingfishes (Exocoetidae), grenadiers (Macrouridae), lanternfishes (Myctophidae), cod icefishes (Nototheniidae), lizardfishes (Synodontidae), goatfishes (Upeneus spp.), Pacific salmonids (Oncorhynchus spp.), and rockfishes (Sebastes spp.) (Karpouzi et al., 2007). Other prey items may also be seasonally and regionally important in the diets of some gulls, terns, cormorants, pelicans, and skuas, including benthic molluscs, intertidal invertebrates, small terrestrial animals, other seabirds and freshwater fish.  4  The composition of seabird diets varies between seabird species, age groups, regions, seasons, and years. Most seabird species have a few preferred prey items, although some species have specialized diets, for example the Olrog’s gull (Larus atlanticus) that eats only crabs and the Dovekie (Alle alle) that eats only copepods (Copepoda), and others have extremely generalist diets, for example most gulls will scavenge on any of the listed seabird prey items. Seabird diet varies based on prey availability as well as energetic gain. For example, the contribution of sandlance to the diet of Common murres varies regionally depending on sandlance availability, between the North Sea, British Columbia, California, and Newfoundland (Wanless et al., 2005, Ainley et al., 1996, Hipfner and Greenwood, 2008, Davoren et al., 2012). Also, the contribution of juvenile rockfish to the diet of several seabird species (i.e., Common murre, Uria aalge; Rhinoceros auklet, Cerorhinca monocerata; Pigeon guillemot, Cepphus columba) varies interannually depending on rockfish availability (Sydeman et al., 2001). Most inshore species appear to prefer lipid-rich forage fish when available (Furness, 2003). Forage fish may be especially important during the breeding season, when even some otherwise planktivorous species will provision forage fish to their chicks to increase productivity (e.g., Piatt et al., 2007c).  Seabirds travel some distance from shore to forage for their marine prey, and while different species specialize on feeding in different marine environments (i.e., inshore, coastal, offshore, pelagic, and far distant pelagic), their distribution at sea varies through time and space. Seabird density at sea is generally related to prey availability at large and meso scales (Weimerskirch, 2007). Globally, seabird density, diversity and endemism is highest in the highly productive temperate latitudes and upwelling areas (Karpouzi, 2005, Croxall et al., 2012). Tropical, frontal and pelagic foraging species cover larger areas (e.g., offshore, pelagic) because their prey are  5  less dense predictably distributed in time and space, while temperate and upwelling region foraging species cover smaller areas (e.g., coastal, inshore) because their prey are more dense and predictably distributed. Most seabirds have a seasonal shift in distribution at sea between the breeding and non-breeding season. During the breeding season (2-11 months long, depending on the species), seabirds forage within a radius around the colonies (i.e., central-place foragers), ranging from kilometres (e.g., most cormorants) to hundreds of kilometres (e.g., most albatrosses). During the non-breeding season, some species remain in the breeding grounds while most (i.e., 220 of the 324 species) disperse or migrate to expand their marine foraging area (e.g., Figure 1.1). Sixty-one species migrate to entirely different latitudinal zones; these include 16 species of Procellariidae, Hydrobatidae, and Stercorariidae that breed in the southern ocean and migrate to the northern hemisphere, and 10 species of Procellariidae, Hydrobatidae, Stercorariidae, Laridae and Sternidae that breed in the northern ocean and migrate to the southern hemisphere (Cox, 2010). The longest seabird migration, incidentally also the longest migration of any animal on earth, is that of the Arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea), which has recently been tracked on its migration from the Arctic (Greenland) breeding grounds to the Antarctic (Weddell Sea) foraging grounds (Egevang et al., 2010).  Seabirds employ a variety of foraging methods to obtain their prey including surface-feeding, kleptoparasitism, scavenging, plunge-diving, and pursuit-diving up to depths of 260 m in the Emperor penguin (Aptenodytes forsteri) (see Table 1.1) (Furness and Monaghan, 1987). Many seabirds forage in flocks, and/or alongside other predators such as mammals and large fish (see Section 1.3.5).  6  Figure 1.1 Examples of terrestrial breeding areas (red) and marine foraging areas (blue), for three species, (A) Arctic Tern (Sterna paradisaea), (B) Peruvian Booby (Sula variegata), and (C) Dovekie (Alle alle), (i) during the breeding season, and (ii) throughout the entire year (sources: Egevang et al., 2010, Harrison, 1987, Gaston et al., 1998, Poole, 2005). 7  1.3.3 Seabird colonies  Almost all seabirds (98%) breed in colonies; colonial and synchronized breeding is hypothesized to reduce predation risk and increases social interactions, thereby reducing the costs of breeding. Solitary nesting occurs only in the Kittzlitz’s murrelet, Marbled murrelet, all three species of tropicbird, and some large species of gull (Hamer et al., 2002). Colonies may contain tens to millions of breeding pairs, including a single species or multiple species.  Colonies occur on islands and coastal cliffs of continents that are naturally free of terrestrial predators and adjacent to a food supply. Most colonies is situated at the border of land and sea, although a few species commute up to hundreds of kilometres inland to their colonies, including the Marbled murrelet, Kittzlitz’s murrelet (Brachyramphus brevirostris), and Snow petrel (Pagodroma nivea).  Within the colonies, seabirds have a variety of different “nest” types. Small petrels, tropicbirds, 5 species of penguin, and 18 species of Alcidae lay their eggs in a burrow or crevice (Bried and Jouventin, 2001). Albatrosses, large petrels, three species of Alcidae, and most Sphenisciformes, Pelecaniformes, skuas, gulls, and terns lay their egg on the surface, making nests on the ground out of rocks, sticks, mud, guano, or using no nest at all (Bried and Jouventin, 2001). For example, the Emperor penguin holds its egg on its feet, and the Thick-billed murre (Uria lomvia) lays its egg on a bare rock cliff (Hamer et al., 2002). Frigatebirds and some boobies, cormorants, and gulls nest in trees (Bried and Jouventin, 2001).  8  Most seabirds return to their native colony to breed (philopatric), as well as the same site (site tenacious) and sometimes the same mate (monogamous) if successful in previous attempts. In fact some species such as the Cory’s shearwater (Calonectris diomedea) are so strongly philopatric and site tenacious that they will mate with their own parent (Swatschek et al., 2008).  1.3.4 Seabird population dynamics  Seabirds have the most extremely K-selected life-history strategy of all avian taxa; the Kselected life-history strategy is to maximize lifetime reproductive output by investing in high annual adult survival and low annual reproductive output (Weimerskirch, 2002). Adult annual survival rates can be as high as 98% (Russell, 1999). Adults breed throughout their mature life; the oldest known nesting seabird is a 60+ year old Laysan albatross (Phoebastria immutabilis) on Midway Atoll, Northwest Hawaiian Islands (Puckett et al., 2011). Annual reproductive output is low because of high age at maturity (2-9 years, depending on the species) (Hamer et al., 2002); few reproductive events (annual breeding. 30-60% of adults are nonbreeders) (ICES, 2000, Brooke, 2004b); small clutch size (average 1-4 eggs, depending on the species) (Table 1.1); low survival of young (i.e., approximately half of the clutch survives to fledge, and at most half of these will survive to breeding age) (e.g., Vermeer, 1963, Vermeer, 1981, Butler et al., 1980); and high parental care (2-3 months to rear most Charadriiformes to over 12 months to rear some albatrosses) (Hamer et al., 2002).  There is a continuum between extremely K-selected pelagic species (e.g., albatrosses, petrels) and relatively r-selected coastal species (e.g., cormorants, pelicans), which is hypothesized to occur because of the contrasting stability in food supply, from relatively stable through time and 9  widely dispersed in the pelagic environment to highly variable through time and more densely concentrated in the coastal environment. Food supply can be especially variable in upwelling regions such as the Benguela and Humboldt Current ecosystems, where seabirds experience years of low reproductive output and high mortality (e.g., 70% non-breeders in some petrel populations that are affected by ENSO (Weimerskirch, 2002, Chastel et al., 1995); and 90% adult mortality in some Peruvian Booby (Sula variegata) populations in El Niño years (Brooke, 2004a)) in contrast with years of rapid population growth.  Seabird populations are limited mainly by availability of food and anthropogenic threats (Section 1.3.6), as well as nesting habitat (Section 1.3.3) and predation (Section 1.3.5) (Weimerskirch, 2002). There is evidence that food is limiting during both the non-breeding season (Lack, 1954) as well as during the breeding season (Ashmole, 1963), and the relative strength of food limitations between seasons varying spatially, temporally, and between seabird species. Cairns (1987) hypothesized that there is an asymptotic relationship between food availability and seabird productivity and/or survival because seabirds can alter their foraging behaviour up to a certain degree to compensate for reduced food availability, and furthermore that the degree to which foraging behaviour can be altered varies between species which have different energetic constraints. Indeed, non-linear relationships have been observed between forage fish abundance and seabird population parameters, for example, the majority of breeding parameters (e.g., chick body condition, foraging trip duration) of Black-legged kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla) and Common murre (Uria aalge) responded to forage fish density in Cook Inlet, Alaska (Piatt et al., 2007b). Also, an asymptotic relationship between forage fish abundance and seabird productivity was recently observed in a global analysis by Cury et al. (2011) including 14 species from seven  10  ecosystems. Varying sensitivity of seabirds to forage fish depletion have also been observed, for example, kittiwake fledging success was more sensitive than murre fledging success to reduced forage fish density in Alaska, presumably because kittiwakes have less discretionary time in their energy budgets to reallocate to foraging (Piatt et al., 2007b). Furness and Tasker (2000) also demonstrates that the breeding performance of 25 seabird species varies in relation to sandlance densities in the North Sea according to a set of parameters that reflect sensitivity to forage fish depletion (i.e., body size, cost of foraging, foraging range, dive ability, spare time in daily energy budget, and ability to switch diet). However, the global analysis by Cury et al. (2011) finds that the asymptote below which seabird productivity declines is consistent across all species, at one third of the long-term maximum biomass or the long-term average biomass. Therefore, further studies are required to better understand if and how the sensitivity of different seabirds to reduced prey availability varies. Overall, food availability plays an important role in regulating seabird populations, and the relationship between prey availability and seabird population parameters is non-linear, with the location of the threshold perhaps varying between species.  Based on existing knowledge of seabird population dynamics, it is expected that undisturbed seabird populations should be relatively stable over long periods of time. The K-selected lifehistory strategy evolves when populations are regulated around carrying capacity by competition for relatively stable limiting resources. There is little evidence of seabird stability within monitored populations, although the cause of this is difficult to interpret because there are virtually no populations that have been monitored over long timeframes in the absence of anthropogenic threats (Section 1.3.6).  11  Seabird populations are especially vulnerable to extinction. Seabird populations are inherently poor at buffering against additional mortality, especially adult mortality; their late age at maturity, low annual fecundity, high percentage of non-breeding individuals, and high adult survival contribute to an inherently low maximum potential population growth rate of 1.03-1.12 for most species under ideal circumstances (Russell, 1999). Additional adult mortality as low as 1-2% can cause population decline in long-lived seabirds such as Procellariiformes (Russell, 1999). The biogeography of seabirds also lends to their relatively high vulnerability to extinction; like all island biota, many seabird species consists of small populations and endemics, and therefore lack other populations to rescue them if they collapse (Freedman et al., 2010). Furthermore, there is also a low probability of the rescue effect among seabirds because seabirds are highly philopatric, with low breeding attempts and/or success outside of their natal colonies (Jones and Kress, 2011). Finally, the wide-ranging and transboundary nature of most seabirds leads to increased probability of exposure to different threats during their lifetimes (Jodice and Suryan, 2010).  1.3.5 Seabird ecology  Most seabirds are top predators, consuming fish, krill and squid. Recent studies indicate that top-down control plays an important role in the structure of marine food webs, and that the removal of marine top predators, such as seabirds, results in major changes (e.g., mesopredator and invertebrate release, mesopredator and invertebrate declines, and trophic cascades) which alter the structure, function, and resilience of marine ecosystems (Baum and Worm, 2009). Some seabirds, mainly gulls, skuas, albatrosses, and giant petrels (Macronectes spp.), consume dead marine mammals, squid, other seabirds, and fish discarded by fisheries. These seabirds act 12  as decomposers in marine ecosystems, facilitating rapid decomposition of carrion, which reduces the rate of disease transfer and recycles nutrients in the marine food web (Sekercioglu et al., 2004).  Seabirds are eaten by a variety of mammal, fish, and bird predators including true seals (Phocidae), fur seals and sea lions (Otariidae), walrus (Odobeus rosmarus), Sea otters (Enhydra lutris), Killer whales (Orcinus orca), Polar bears (Ursus maratimus), White sharks (Carcharondon carcharias), hawks, falcons and eagles (O. Falconiformes), owls (Strigiformes), giant petrels, rails (Rallidae), Stercorariidae, and sheathbills (Chionis spp.) (see Hipfner et al., 2012), as well as a variety of introduced terrestrial predators (see Section 1.1.7).  Many seabirds have symbiotic foraging interactions with other marine predators. The interactions are perhaps most often commensalistic, with surface feeding seabirds benefitting when predators bring food to the surface (Evans et al., 1993). In fact, the majority of tropical seabirds are surface-feeders that may be obligate commensals of tunas (Thunnus spp.) and dolphins (Delphinidae) to bring prey fish to the surface (Ballance and Pitman, 1999). On the other hand, marine mammals have been observed to benefit from cooperative feeding from seabirds, perhaps in a commensalistic or mutualistic relationship. For example, in the North Pacific, piscivorous guillemots, razorbills and puffins dive to herd forage fish into bait balls, which increases foraging efficiency of Minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) (Anderwald et al., 2011).  13  Seabirds also play a keystone role in shaping the plant community in their terrestrial and coastal breeding habitat. Seabirds transport allochthonous nutrients (i.e., fixed nitrogen, phosphorus, and trace elements), mainly via their guano, to seabird colonies (i.e., cross-ecosystem subsidies). They also shape plant communities in their breeding habitat by creating physical disturbance, dispersing seeds, and bioturbating soil with their burrow (Ellis, 2005, Bancroft et al., 2005). These ecosystem services provided by seabirds increase productivity and diversity in terrestrial and coastal ecosystems surrounding seabird colonies (Powell et al., 1991, Bosman et al., 1986, Ellis, 2005, Brimble et al., 2009, Polis et al., 1997). A major demonstration of the importance of seabirds in shaping terrestrial plant communities was the transformation of Aleutian archipelago islands from grassland to tundra after the removal of seabirds by introduced predators (Croll et al., 2005). Although seabird guano accounts for only 2% of the world’s fixed nitrogen emissions, it is a globally important because it facilitates hotspots of productivity in remote and otherwise unproductive areas (Riddick et al., 2012).  Overall, seabirds have high intrinsic and utilitarian value in marine ecosystems; seabirds provide ecological services, ecotourism, top-down control of marine food webs, and bottom-up control of productivity in unique island ecosystems (Mulder et al., 2011, Baum and Worm, 2009). They are also an important part of marine biodiversity which supports ecosystem function including productivity, water quality, and ability to recover from perturbations (Worm et al., 2006).  14  1.3.6 Anthropogenic activities threatening seabirds  There is a long history of anthropogenic activities threatening seabirds, beginning in the age of exploration with the hunting of seabirds and introduction of predators to their colonies, followed by threats of the modern industrial era including habitat destruction, pollution, and fisheries.  Hunting of seabirds for food, fuel, fishing bait and feathers has occurred throughout the history of human existence on coasts. Seabird populations are easily wiped out by hunting because seabirds are not adapted to evade land-based predators, and furthermore they are easily accessible at their colonies. Great auk (Pinguinus impennis) colonies throughout the North Atlantic were wiped out over the course of three centuries of exploitation by cod fishermen and explorers hunting them for food, fuel, fishing bait and feathers (1400-1800). Millions of penguins were killed in the 1800s and 1900s for the production of lamp oil (Boersma et al., 2002). Tens to hundreds of millions of terns, gulls, kittiwakes, and albatrosses were killed annually for the ornamentation of hats during the millinery trade (1869-1922). Hunting played a major role in the extinction of many species, including the Pallas’s cormorant (Phalacrocorax perspicillatus) in the 1950s, the Great auk in 1844 (Bengston, 1984), both the Small St. Helena petrel (Bulweria bifax) the Large St. Helena petrel (Pterodroma rupinarum) species in 1502 (IUCN, 2011), and at least ten additional seabird species (Millberg and Tyrberg, 1993). Many species also declined dramatically due to hunting, including the Short-tailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus) which had no breeding population in 1949 (Hasegawa and DeGange, 1982). Northern temperate and tropical regions appear to have faced the longest history of seabird hunting, with travel to the Arctic for hunting and fishing beginning in the 1500s (Klein et al., 2010), and exploitation of Antarctic resources beginning only after its discovery in the 1770s 15  (Antarctic Ocean Alliance, 2012). The intensity of seabird hunting has since declined, although it still affects at least 23 seabird species (Croxall et al., 2012). For example, 13% of the annual New Zealand Sooty shearwater (Puffinus griseus) chick production is harvested (Newman et al., 2009), and approximately 2 million adults and countless eggs of several species of Alcidae are harvested per year in the Arctic (Circumpolar Seabird Working Group, 2001).  Introduced predators including rats (Rattus spp.), cats (Felis catus), foxes (Vulpes spp.), pigs (Suss scrofa), mice (Muss spp.), and weasels (Mustela spp.) have been introduced to seabird islands since early exploration, now affecting the majority of seabird islands worldwide (Mulder et al., 2011). Introduced predators are a threat because seabirds have not evolved defences against land-based predators (Igual et al., 2007). The decline in tropical seabirds from a historical population that was 100-1000 times greater than present, is mainly due to hunting and introduced predators (Steadman, 1997). All seabird taxa are affected by introduced predators; small-bodied burrow- and crevice-nesters are especially vulnerable to the most widespread of predators, rats (Jones et al., 2008), while surface nesters are more exposed to surface predators such as cats and foxes (e.g., Byrd et al., 2005). The removal of invasive predators from some seabird islands has benefitted some seabird populations over the past two decades (Croxall et al., 2012, Jones and Kress, 2011). For example, Ancient murrelet (Synthliboramphus antiquus) populations increased on Langara Island after rat eradication (Regehr et al., 2007), and numerous seabird species re-colonized the Aleutian Islands after fox eradication (Bailey, 1993, Byrd et al., 2005). However, recovery rates are often hindered by the presence of other introduced predators and/or threats. For example, five seabird species re-colonized Ascension Island after cats were eradicated, but with low breeding success compared to elsewhere because of remaining rat  16  predators (Ratcliffe et al., 2009, Madeiros, 2011). Introduced predators continue to be a major threat to seabirds, affecting 75% of IUCN Red Listed seabird species (Croxall et al., 2012).  Habitat degradation and destruction is also a substantial threat to seabirds. One of the first major examples of habitat destruction was the guano harvest. Since at least the Inca Empire (14381533), seabird guano was harvested from seabird colonies in the Humboldt Current region for use as fertilizer. This became a major threat to seabird habitat during the Guano Age (18401880), when the British harvested 13 million metric tonnes of guano from the Humboldt Current region and 2 million metric tonnes from the Benguela Current region, both important guano regions because they have large seabird colonies that do not receive enough rain to wash away guano. The extraction of guano caused the destruction of nesting habitat, which resulted in seabird population decline and the collapse of the guano industry. However, protection and artificial nesting habitat were implemented in 1909 to serve the Peruvian guano industry, which produced almost 8 million tonnes before its collapse in 1965 (Cushman, 2005). Although remaining guano deposits are relatively depleted (i.e., less than 30 cm, compared to about 50 m thick prior to the guano rush), an industry persists (producing 12-15,000 tonnes per year), because the guano is highly valued in France, Israel and the USA as an organic fertilizer (Romero, 2008). Another major cause of habitat degradation and destruction is coastal development including building resorts, cities, mines and ports of seabird nesting habitat, rerouting rivers and/or altering wetland water levels for hydroelectric power, and building marine oil platforms along seabird flyways. Coastal development may have the greatest effect on seabird populations in the world’s most altered shorelines, which are in Europe, South and East Asia, and South and East North America (Harrison and Pearce, 2001). Seabird collisions with  17  marine oil platforms are difficult to quantify, occurring episodically in low-visibility conditions and probably exacerbated by seabirds’ attraction to their bright lights and flares. However, up to tens of thousands of seabirds have been observed in a single collision event (Montevecchi, 2006). Tourism and research in seabird breeding habitat can also degrade the quality of the breeding site, causing stress to seabirds and consequent reproductive failure and population declines (Carney and Sydeman, 1999). Tourism now affects seabird colonies in even the most remote regions of the world, including Antarctica. Overall, increasing human population and coastal development throughout the modern industrial era have probably caused continuous increase and spatial expansion of seabird habitat destruction worldwide.  There are four key fisheries-related threats to seabirds. First, fisheries may compete with seabirds for their prey; seabirds require an estimated 12.1 million tonnes of forage fish annually (Kaschner et al., 2006), while fisheries extract approximately 31.5 million tonnes of forage fish annually in the early 2000’s (FAO, 2006); both concentrate their fishing effort in the same highly productive regions of the worlds oceans. These fisheries are not sustainable for many forage fish and the ecosystems in which they play an important role (Pikitch et al., 2012, Fréon et al., 2005). Although it is often difficult to differentiate between environmental and fisheries induced fluctuations in forage fish abundance, there are several clear examples of negative effects of forage fish overexploitation on seabirds around the world. These include the decline in abundance of Peruvian seabirds (Guanay cormorant, Phalacrocorax bougainvillii; Peruvian booby, Sula variegata; Peruvian pelican, Pelecanus thagusin) corresponding with overexploitation of Peruvian anchoveta (Engraulis ringens) (Jahncke et al., 2004); decline in abundance and egg size of Atlantic puffins (Fratercula arctica) corresponding with collapse of  18  Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) off Western Norway (Barrett et al., 1987, Barrett et al., 2012); decline in trophic level of Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) corresponding with the overexploitation of Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax) off California (Becker and Beissinger, 2006); decline in abundance of Black-legged kittiwakes (Rissa tridactyla) corresponding with overexploitation of sandlance (Ammodytes marinus) in the North Sea (Frederiksen et al., 2004); and decline in abundance of South African seabirds (African penguin, Spheniscus demersus; Cape gannet, Morus capensis; and Cape cormorant Phalacrocorax capensis) corresponding with overexploitation of sardine (Sardinops sagax) and anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus) (Crawford, 2007). As a general rule, seabird productivity has been found to decline if prey biomass is reduced below one third of the peak biomass, incidentally also the long-term average biomass (Cury et al., 2011). Forage fish fisheries have occurred for millennia, but grew rapidly since they were industrialized in 1950. Forage fish landings peaked in the 1970s although effort has not subsided since and is expected to grow with increased demand for fish meal and fish oil to fuel agriculture (Alder et al., 2008). Throughout the modern industrial era, regions with important forage fish fishing areas have been the west coast of South America, northern Europe, Alaska, and the east coast of the United States (Alder et al., 2008).  Second, some fisheries also target and reduce abundance of predators in marine ecosystems (i.e., fish, whales, marine mammals), which may affect seabirds in several ways. The reduction of tunas may reduce the productivity and population size of tropical seabirds that are obligate commensals; the effects on seabirds have not yet been quantified (Le Corre and Jaquemet, 2005). On the other hand, the removal of large fish may result in the release of seabird prey (e.g., mesopredator and invertebrates). For example, herring, capelin and sandlance increased after the  19  collapse of cod in several coastal regions of the North Atlantic, North Sea and Baltic Sea; small fish increased after the collapse of tunas, billfishes and sharks (Chondrichthyes) in the tropical Pacific; squid populations increased after the collapse of Sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) in the North Pacific (Baum and Worm, 2009). However, there is scarce to nonexistent evidence of resulting seabird population increase. Rather, predator release has been observed to cause increase in different species of small fish and/or increase in abundance of the same species but with lower individual energy density (Baum and Worm, 2009). For seabirds and other predators, these different prey species and/or lower energy density prey are “junkfood”, and have been linked with reduced seabird productivity in the North Pacific, North Sea, and Baltic Sea (Osterblom et al., 2008). The history of reduced predator populations in the oceans dates back hundreds to thousands of years (Lotze and Worm, 2009), and some fisheries began a few decades prior to the modern industrial era, for example, the Newfoundland cod (Gadus morhua) fishery, which started in the 1500s (Rose, 2004), and industrial whaling, from 1926 to 1975 (Clark and Lamberson, 1982). However, the most severe global predator depletion affecting seabirds probably occurred within the modern industrial era (i.e., 1950-present).  Third, discards from fisheries provide alternative food for seabirds, thereby altering their foraging ecology. This has mixed effects, benefiting some scavenging seabirds such as gannets, gulls, and skuas (Chapdelaine and Rail, 1997, Garthe et al., 1996, Bunce et al., 2002), but also threatening these scavengers if discards are of lower energetic value (Mullers et al., 2009) and threatening the smaller-bodied seabird species upon which augmented scavenger populations prey (Votier et al., 2004). Fisheries discards appear to have peaked in the 1990s, and are estimated to now be reduced to 25% of the peak tonnage (Zeller and Pauly, 2005). The amount  20  of discards is highest in the northern hemisphere, particularly the Northeast Atlantic and Northwest Pacific, which jointly account for 40% of global discards (Kelleher, 2005).  Fourth, where fisheries activities and seabird foraging overlap, fisheries gear may entangle and drown seabirds. The two most lethal types of fisheries gear are the baited hooks on pelagic and demersal longlines, which attract large pelagic surface-feeding albatrosses and petrels, as well as demersal diving birds (Brothers et al., 1999), and coastal gillnets and trawls, which entangle seabirds that dive to forage for their prey (Zydelis et al., 2009). Longline bycatch has grown during the modern industrial era, but declined since the 1990s in some key fisheries due to mitigation (Anderson et al., 2011). Gillnet bycatch has probably grown continuously throughout the modern industrial era, as global gillnet-caught fisheries catch has increased (Sea Around Us 2012, unpublished data) regardless of the United Nations ban on large-scale (i.e., >2.5 km long) pelagic drift net fishing in international waters in 1991 (FAO, 2001). The current annual seabird mortality is estimated as at least 160,000-320,000 individuals on longlines (Anderson et al., 2011), 100,000-200,000 individuals in gillnets (Zydelis et al., 2009), as well as an undetermined number in trawl gear (Moore and Zydelis, 2008). Overall, industrial scale fishing effort increased throughout the modern industrial era (i.e., 1950-present) (Anticamara et al., 2011), and spatially expanded from the north Atlantic and southwest Pacific epicentres (Swartz et al., 2010).  There are several pollutants threatening seabirds. First, persistent organic pollutants, including polychlorinated biphenyls and persistent pesticides, are hydrophobic and persistent, and therefore become bioconcentrated in marine organisms and biomagnified at higher trophic levels in marine food webs. In seabirds, they attack the endocrine and nervous systems, resulting in various  21  responses that ultimately cause reduced reproductive success and survival (e.g., Bustnes et al., 2003, Miljeteig et al., 2012). The production of persistent organic pollutants began in the 1940’s and have grown since; global pesticide use alone has grown to several million tonnes per year (World Health Organization, 1990). Some seabird-harming pesticides have been banned in recent decades (e.g., DDT), although they still persist at potentially harmful levels in the tissues of arctic seabirds (Braune et al., 2005).  Second, marine oil pollution may foul seabird feathers, causing hypothermia and loss of buoyancy, or become ingested during seabird feeding or preening, causing digestive and osmoregulatory disorders, reproductive failure, reduced immunity, and mutations (Burger and Fry, 1993). Individual oil spills can cause major seabird mortality, for example, the Deepwater Horizon spill of 700,000 tonnes killed several thousand seabirds, and the Exxon Valdez spill of 75,000 tonnes killed 250,000 seabirds (Piatt and Ford, 1996, Safina, 2011). However, chronic oil spills from ships and offshore oil exploration release an additional 600,000 tonnes of oil per year (GESAMP, 2007). Given that oil spills as small as 10 ml can lethally reduce thermoregulation in seabirds (O'Hara and Morandin, 2010), chronic oil spills stand to cause substantial yet unquantified seabird mortality. It is estimated that chronic oil spills cause approximately 300,000 Common murre deaths per year off Newfoundland alone (Wiese and Robertson, 2004).  Third, plastic pollution causes seabird mortality in two ways; either seabirds ingest floating plastic particles that block their digestive tracts, or seabirds become entangled in larger plastic pollution such as “ghost” fishing nets discarded at sea or plastic fibres used as nesting material  22  (Votier et al., 2011). Plastic pollution is a widespread problem; at least 100 species of seabird have been documented to ingest and/or become entangled in marine plastic pollution (Laist, 1997).  Fourth, greenhouse gas pollution (i.e., CO2, CH4, CFCs, O3, N20) is the major driver of modern industrial era climate change (Oreskes, 2004), which has several indirect impacts on seabirds. Changes in ocean circulation can drive changes in abundance, phenology, distribution, and lipidcontent of seabird prey, which in turn affects seabird survival and productivity (Gremillet and Boulinier, 2009, Gaston and Woo, 2008). Quantifying the effects of climate change on seabirds is complex, as the strength and direction of effects may vary between seabird species, regions, and over time. For example, El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events, characterized by warm water and reduced upwelling in the Humboldt Current ecosystem, reduce Peruvian anchoveta available for guano bird populations, Guanay cormorant (Phalacrocorax bougainvillii), Peruvian pelican (Pelecanus thagus) and Peruvian booby (Sula variegata). Meanwhile, warm water regimes in the Okhotsk Sea bring an influx of forage fish, but a decline in the meso-zooplankton upon which planktivorous auklets feed (Kitaysky and Golubova, 2000). Reduced annual sea ice extent and altered sea ice dynamics in the Antarctic is probably a major driver of decline in ice-loving (pagophylic) species, such as the Emperor penguin (Aptenodytes forsteri) and Adelie penguin (Pygoscelis adeliae), and increase in ice-avoiding species, such as the Gentoo penguin (Pygoscelis papua) (Barbraud et al., 2012). However, recent studies indicate that change in krill abundance also plays a role in these penguin population changes (Trivelpiece et al., 2011). Increased strength and southward movement of the westerly winds in the Southern Ocean has been linked to increase in Wandering albatross (Diomedea exulans) foraging success,  23  breeding success and body mass (Weimerskirch et al., 2012). Sea level rise reduces availability of nesting habitat in low-lying areas such as atolls and estuaries, causing reduced productivity where nesting habitat is limiting (Baker et al., 2006, Scarton, 2010). Increased frequency and severity of storms and warm weather events cause additional adult and chick mortality (e.g., Mallory et al., 2009). Warmer temperatures permit spread and outbreak of parasites and diseases (Harvell et al., 2002), for example mosquito outbreaks affect Thick-billed murres (Uria lomvia) in Arctic Canada (Gaston et al., 2002) and the worldwide spread of avian cholera (Pasteurella multicida) is probably the major cause of decline in Indian yellow-nosed albatross (Diomedea carteri) on Amsterdam Island (Weimerskirch, 2004). These effects of climate change on seabird habitat and prey ultimately influence seabird abundance as well as at-sea and colony distribution. For example, the northernmost colonies of the pagophilic (ice-loving) Adelie penguin are declining, and although at-sea data are relatively scarce for Antarctic seabirds, the foraging ranges of several albatross, petrel and penguin species have been observed to change over years or decades in relation to changes in sea surface temperature, ocean currents and sea ice cover (Barbraud et al., 2012). The effects of climate change on seabirds are still not completely understood, thus quantifying and assessing the spatial distribution of the effects of climate change on the global seabird population is virtually impossible. However, there is evidence that range-restricted species, such as polar or endemic seabirds, are at high risk of range contraction and extinction caused by climate change (Parmesan, 2006).  To what extent each threat affects global seabird population change is poorly understood. In their analysis of the percentage of threatened species affected by threat categories, Croxall et al. (2012) found that introduced species affected 75%, entanglement in fisheries gear affected 41%,  24  climate change affected 40%, and each of the other threats (including habitat destruction, pollution, and fisheries-induced prey depletion) each affected less than 31%.  1.3.7 Seabird conservation  Seabird conservation began in the late 1800’s, when humans realized that hunting birds (including seabirds) for their feathers, which were used in the millinery trade, had severely negative impacts on seabird populations. This spurred the first national and international organizations, laws, and agreements to protect seabirds including the Audubon Society in the United States (1886), the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in the United Kingdom (1889), Britain’s Seabirds Preservation Act (1869), the United States’ Lacey Act (1900), and the USA-Britain Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds (1916). International agreements are important because almost all seabird species move between multiple countries in their daily movements and seasonal migrations (Nettleship, 1991, Jodice and Suryan, 2010), and most threats disperse from their source country to other countries and/or the internationally “owned” high seas. National law is important because it provides the primary protective regime for most wildlife, including seabirds (Boersma et al., 2002, Jodice and Suryan, 2010). Together, this first wave of national and international agreements was successful in reducing the harvest of birds for the millinery trade.  The second major wave of seabird conservation began after the 1970’s and 1980’s, when the impacts of modern industrial era threats became apparent. Several international agreements were made, aiming to protect nesting habitat, reduce pollutants, reduce fisheries-related threats, and protect migratory and threatened species. These include the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of 25  International Importance (1975), the Stockholm Convention (2004), the Convention for the Prohibition of Fishing with Long Driftnets in the South Pacific (1989), the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982), the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (1995), the United Nations International Plan for Action for Reducing Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries (1998), some Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs), the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (1979), the Convention of Biological Diversity (1993), and the Agreement for the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (2001). Some of these have been effective in mitigating seabird threats, for example, one RFMO, the Commission of the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) was effective in reducing albatross bycatch by over 99% in the fisheries surrounding South Georgia (Croxall and Nicol, 2004). This action most likely contributed to the recovery of some species threatened by entanglement in fishing gear in the southern ocean including the Amsterdam albatross (Diomedea amsterdamensis), Short-tailed albatross, and Bermuda petrel (Pterodroma cahow) (IUCN, 2011). Other successful conservation efforts of modern seabird conservation include eradication of introduced predators and habitat restoration projects, pioneered in the 1970s and more widely applied after the 1990s (Jones and Kress, 2011, Croxall et al., 2012); and protection of approximately one third of the world’s currently identified Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in recent decades (Croxall et al., 2012). However, existing legislation and agreements are not adequate; international agreements fail to address some of the major threats to seabirds such as oil pollution and fisheries-induced prey depletion. Furthermore, many international agreements remain to be signed and ratified by all countries. Habitat protection and conservation effort is mainly limited to nesting habitat, and occurs predominately in Australasian and European countries; increased habitat protection and conservation is  26  required in the marine habitat and in North America, the Caribbean, Taiwan and North Korea (Croxall et al., 2012). A recent review of global seabird status, threats, and priority actions indicates that seabird conservation is not currently adequate, with need for increased control of invasive species, habitat protection, legislation and enforcement, education, fisheries harvest management, and reintroduction of extirpated seabirds (Croxall et al., 2012).  1.3.8 Seabird population monitoring and status  Seabird populations are relatively easy to monitor compared to other marine organisms because of their terrestrial colonial breeding, and therefore have been monitored in some capacity for centuries. Early population estimates consisted of opportunistic counts of seabirds present at a given colony, often in references to the quantity available for harvest, and typically reported to the nearest order of magnitude. For example, the now extinct Great auk was reported to be so abundant in the early 1500s on Funk Island, Newfoundland, that “in one half and hour at least 45 tonnes were taken by two visiting vessels” (Grieve, 1885). The development of science and technology after the industrial revolution enabled more systematic seabird population monitoring including more frequent visits to seabird colonies, visits targeting the breeding season, surveys covering larger areas, and development of methods to account for undetected burrow-nesters as well as non-breeders. Overall, seabird population monitoring has increased through time, with quantitative data mainly confined to the modern industrial era.  Monitoring data is useful for assessing the status of seabirds, which is inherently important and also indicative of the status of marine ecosystems. Seabird population change and other demographic, behavioural and physiological parameters can be a good indicator of marine 27  ecosystem change because seabirds are relatively well-monitored and have qualities that enable their populations to track long-term and large-scale changes in marine food webs including long life spans, large ranges, and feeding at a range of trophic levels (Piatt et al., 2007a). For example, seabird breeding failures preceded the collapse of several globally important forage fish stocks including Peruvian anchoveta (Engraulis ringens), Norwegian herring (Clupea harengus), Barents Sea capelin (Mallotus villosus), and North Sea sandlance (Ammodytes spp.) (Piatt et al., 2007a), and a global relationship was found between seabird productivity and forage fish abundance (Cury et al., 2011). Seabirds are also useful indicators of pollutant levels including oil, mercury and organochlorides (Furness and Camphuysen, 1997).  The majority of seabird population monitoring is limited to relatively small temporal and spatial scales. Although long-term seabird population monitoring is underway at select seabird colonies, in some cases spanning back to the 1950s (Wooller et al., 1992), most existing seabird population monitoring was initiated after 1970. Some seabird populations and/or species lack population monitoring altogether, resulting in unknown population trends for 53 seabird species on the IUCN Red List (IUCN, 2011). Furthermore, seabird population monitoring typically occurs at small spatial scales such as colonies or islands. For example, a relatively large spatial scale study would be the assessment of population trends in all Canadian seabirds since 1970 (Gaston et al., 2009). There have been some attempts to summarize seabird population change at larger scales, including a compilation of accounts of the status of seabirds in all major seabirdsupporting regions of the world (Croxall et al., 1984) and assessment of the probability of extinction for all seabird species (IUCN, 2011). The former described qualitatively historical and modern declines in seabird abundance across many of the regions of the world due to  28  anthropogenic threats, while the latter designated one third of all seabird species as threatened with extinction, establishing seabirds as the most threatened of all similarly sized groups of birds in the world (Croxall et al., 2012).  There is currently no reliable quantitative assessment of the status of the global seabird population. The only assessment of global seabird population change over any period of time was made by Karpouzi (2005), estimating that the global seabird population declined by 14%, from 1.076 billion individuals in 1950 to 0.922 billion individuals in 2003. However, this estimate is only preliminary as Karpouzi calculated cumulative observed change in seabird abundance, the majority of which is sampled over only a subset of the time series and therefore does not capture the total population change. A reliable estimate of global seabird population change is needed to quantitatively demonstrate the status of seabirds. Global studies are essential in understanding and communicating the magnitude of anthropogenic threats to wildlife. For example, the Sea Around Us Project, led by Pauly (2007), summarized fisheries catch and its impact marine ecosystems, thus reframing various fisheries-related issues that had previously only been viewed from a small-scale myopic perspective. A global scale approach is particularly important in seabird conservation; seabirds and their threats are wide-ranging and cross many jurisdictional and ecological boundaries, so it is especially necessary for conservation initiatives to occur at large scales in order to be effective (Jodice and Suryan, 2010).  29  Chapter 2 Temporal patterns in global seabird abundance, 1950-2010  2.1 Summary Seabirds face a variety of modern industrial threats, and their populations appear to be declining as a result. One third of all seabird species are IUCN Red Listed (IUCN, 2011), and a preliminary analysis reveals that the global seabird population has declined within the modern industrial era (Karpouzi, 2005). A reliable estimate of global seabird population change is required however, to assess and communicate the status of the global seabird population. The present study estimates global annual seabird population size throughout the modern industrial era, by calculating global average annual change and anchoring it on a fixed year global population estimate (i.e., using a method established and widely used by climate scientists to estimate global average annual temperature change). The estimate was also subdivided by seabird family. The global seabird population was estimated to decline by 25% over the modern industrial era, from 1.023 billion individuals in 1950 to 0.768 billion individuals in 2010. Overall decline was observed in 11 of the 14 seabird families, and maximum decline per family was one order of magnitude greater than maximum increase per family. These results highlight the urgent need for global seabird conservation, addressing threats faced by all seabird families.  2.2 Introduction One third of the world’s seabird species are IUCN Red Listed (Croxall et al., 2012), mainly because of threatening anthropogenic activities including hunting, introduced predators, habitat destruction, pollution, and fisheries. There is no previous analysis of global seabird population  30  change by seabird family, and only one preliminary analysis of global seabird population change, which estimated that the global seabird population has declined throughout the modern industrial era by at least 14% (Karpouzi, 2005). However, this preliminary study does not capture all seabird population change occurring within the modern industrial era because it only accounts for cumulative observed change of all seabird populations, most of which are derived from monitoring populations over relatively short timeframes within the modern industrial era. The present study seeks to provide a more reliable estimate of global annual seabird population size throughout the modern industrial era, overall, as well as by seabird family.  The present study estimates global annual seabird abundance using a method established by climate scientists to calculate global annual temperature change based on a similarly opportunistic dataset. The challenge in estimating both global annual temperature change and global annual seabird population change is that the data consist of time-series collected over different spans of time at each station or colony respectively. Climate scientists overcame this problem by calculating global annual temperature as the average annual observed temperature change anchored on global average temperature in a reliably estimated year (Hansen et al., 2006). Likewise, the present study will estimate global annual seabird abundance as the average annual observed change in seabird abundance anchored on the global seabird population size in a reliably estimated year. Family-specific annual abundance estimates are also made by calculating family-specific average annual seabird population change, anchoring them on an absolute estimate of abundance, then scaling all annual family-specific abundance estimates to fit under the previously calculated global annual seabird abundance curve.  31  It is expected that the estimate of global seabird population change may reveal greater global seabird decline than the preliminary estimate, given that the present method will account for seabird population change over the entire modern industrial era instead of only counting the change observed within monitored years for all populations. One might also expect families to decline at different rates, although the relative decline of families is difficult to predict because families vary in their exposure and sensitivity to various threats.  2.3 Methods 2.3.1 Global database of seabird abundance records, 1950-2010  A global database of seabird abundance records, 1950-2003, was initially constructed by Vasiliki Karpouzi for her M.Sc. research (Karpouzi, 2005); The abundance records therein were augmented and updated to 2010. Examples of abundance data in the database are provided for four numerically important but otherwise randomly selected seabird species (Appendix II).  The database included breeding population estimates for all 324 seabird species in the world (Appendix I), at 358 coastal stretches, 1950-present. Coastal stretches, are here defined by subdividing the world’s coastline into units in which seabird abundance data were most commonly and/or likely to be aggregated for reporting. Coastal stretches were typically countries, unless the coastline of a country was large and/or discrete (e.g., USA), in which case it was divided into multiple stretches (e.g., Oregon, Washington, Aleutian Islands, Gulf of Alaska, etc.). The seabirds of a single species breeding within a coastal stretch represents a population.  32  Seabird abundance records were collected for the breeding populations (i.e., rather than wintering population) for two reasons. First, seabird abundance estimates are most commonly made by counting breeding populations (e.g., nests, apparently occupied nests, breeding pairs, or occupied burrows). Second, seabirds are philopatric and reproduce annually, so the global abundance can be estimated as the sum of all breeding populations in a given year, plus nonbreeders. For the few species that breed also at inland colonies, for example, the Herring gull (Larus argentatus), only coastal breeding locations were included in the database. If abundance was reported as a range, the geometric mean of the minimum and maximum population was used as the population size; here, the geometric mean is the square root of the product of a pair of values, used to approximate the central tendency (Freedman et al., 2010). Although less common, some estimates were reported as the entire population size (i.e., including breeders and non-breeders). In order to be able to use population estimates reported in both breeding pairs and population size, the present study assumed that non-breeders accounted for 30% of the total population, a value that is commonly used as the global average (e.g., Riddick et al., 2012, Brooke, 2004b, Karpouzi, 2005).  Data were collected from a variety of sources, including books, journal articles, and online databases (e.g., that of Birdlife International). Regional seabird population biologists were consulted to verify database contents in six selected ecosystems supporting large seabird populations (i.e., North Sea, Norwegian Sea, New Zealand, Benguela Current, Gulf of Alaska, and California Current).  33  2.3.2 Estimating annual change in global seabird abundance  Annual change in global seabird abundance was estimated following three steps (Figure 2.1, panels 1- 3):  Step 1: For all populations with more than one record, calculate annual abundance using linear interpolation between the first and last data points. No abundance data was included in years before the first and after the last abundance record for a given population, and therefore no assumptions were made regarding change in abundance of a population in years outside of available abundance records.  Step 2: For all populations, calculate annual percent change in abundance.  Step 3: Calculate the annual average of percent change in abundance across all populations (from Step 2), weighted by population size so that the influence of a population on global annual change in abundance is proportional to its size.  34  35  Figure 2.1 Method for estimating annual change in abundance then absolute abundance of the global seabird population, based on two hypothetical populations (i and ii) monitored over six years. There are five steps: (1) calculate annual abundance (grey dots) based on linear interpolation between data points (black dots) for all populations, (2) convert annual abundance to annual percent change in abundance for all populations, (3) calculate the annual average percent change in abundance across all populations (white dots), weighted by population size, which is assumed equal for this example, (4) convert this to cumulative annual population change, and (5) estimate annual population size, by anchoring the cumulative annual population change on an estimate of abundance in 1950.  36  2.3.3 Estimating annual global seabird abundance  Global annual seabird abundance was estimated following two additional steps after those described above in Section 2.3.2 (Figure 2.1, panels 4-5):  Step 4: Express the global annual average percent change in cumulative terms. In other words, 100% abundance was assumed in 1950, and the percent of seabirds remaining in each subsequent year was calculated as the product of the percent remaining in that particular year and the cumulative percent remaining in the preceding year.  Step 5: Anchor this global cumulative annual percent change curve on an absolute global abundance estimate. The absolute global abundance estimate was calculated as the sum of abundance estimates for all populations, taken from records closest to the year 2010, which allowed the use of all of the most recent seabird abundance estimates available. The global cumulative annual percent change curve was then anchored on this estimate of abundance in 2010, by first using the ratio of cumulative percent abundance remaining in 1950 to 2010 to estimate the abundance in 1950 (i.e., the product of this ratio multiplied by the estimate of abundance in 2010), then second multiplying this estimate of abundance in 1950 by the cumulative annual percent change in each given year.  2.3.4 Breaking the global annual seabird abundance down by seabird family  Global annual seabird abundance was subdivided by family using two steps. First, annual population size of each of the 14 seabird families was calculated following the methods 37  described in Section 2.2.2-2.2.3. If the global annual abundance had been calculated as the sum of these family-specific estimates, it would expectedly vary slightly from the global estimate, with the global estimate being more accurate because of the large sample size. Thus as the second step, the sum of these family-specific annual population sizes were fitted under the more accurate global curve; this was done by dividing the annual global population size by the relative abundance of each family in the respective year.  2.4 Results 2.4.1 Seabird abundance database  The global seabird abundance database contains 9920 records for 3231 populations between the years 1950 and 2010 (Figure 2.2). Seabird abundance data are most abundant in the later decades; the decade of most abundant records was the 1990s, and the decade of least abundant records was the 1950s. It appears that most or all seabird populations have been sampled at least once by the end of the timeframe, as indicated by the levelling of the accumulation curve in the final decade (Figure 2.2). The number of records per population ranged from one to fifty-one, averaging three. Two thirds of the populations were sampled more than once, and this fraction of the population accounted for 86% of the global seabird population size. Populations sampled more than once were monitored over an average duration of 20 years. The relative number of records per family was consistent through time (Figure 2.3).  38  2.4.2 Global annual seabird population change  The estimated annual change in global seabird abundance ranged from -3.1% to +2.7% , and averaged -0.5% of abundance in the previous year. Decline was observed in 80% of all years (Figure 2.4).  2.4.3 Global annual seabird population size  The cumulative annual change in global seabird abundance during the modern industrial era was estimated to be -25% (Figure 2.5). Cumulative decline occurred over five of the six decades, with most dramatic decline in the 1970’s (i.e., -13% in the 1970s, compared to -1% in the 1960s, -4% in the 1980s, -4% in the 1990s, and -3% in the 2000s), and no population change in the remaining decade (i.e., 0% in the 1950s). There was no statistically significant decline until after 1970, after which the standard deviation no longer overlapped consistently with the baseline global seabird population size. The anchor point of global seabird abundance was estimated to be 0.768 billion seabirds for the year 2010. The global seabird population was estimated to have declined from 1.023 billion individuals in 1950 to 0.768 billion individuals (Figure 2.5).  2.4.4 Global annual seabird population size, by family  Annual abundance of all seabird families was estimated (Figure 2.6) using calculated anchor points of family-specific abundance in 2010 (Appendix III). Eleven of the fourteen seabird families declined in abundance while three increased in abundance (Figure 2.6). In absolute terms, extreme decline (i.e., decline of more than 100 million individuals) occurred in two  39  families (Procellariidae, 116 million; Sternidae, 115 million), moderate decline (i.e., decline of 10-100 million individuals) occurred in three families, and smaller decline (i.e., decline of less than 10 million individuals) occurred in six families. Small increase (i.e., increase of less than 10 million individuals) occurred in one family, and moderate increase (i.e., increase by 10-100 million individuals) occurred in two families (Alcidae, 22 million; Hydrobatidae 18 million). In relation to their baseline abundance in 1950, three families declined dramatically to 29-36% (Phalacrocoracidae, Sternidae, and Fregatidae), while eight declined to 71-94%, two increased to 104-112%, and one increased to 164% (Hydrobatidae).  40  3500  Number of populations sampled  3000  2500  Annual  2000  Cumulative 1500  1000  500  0 1950  1960  1970  1980  1990  2000  2010  Year  Figure 2.2 Number of seabird populations sampled in the global seabird database, 1950-2010.  41  Figure 2.3 Annual relative contribution of each family to the total number of records (5-year running average), 1950-2010; families are ordered by overall contribution.  42  Figure 2.4 Estimated global annual change in seabird abundance, expressed as percent of abundance in the previous year (solid line), and standard deviation (dotted line), 1950-2010.  43  Figure 2.5 Estimated global annual seabird abundance (solid line) and standard deviation (dotted line), 1950-2010.  44  Figure 2.6 Mean annual global seabird population size, by family, 1950-2010. Families are ordered by absolute change in abundance (see legend). 45  2.5 Discussion  2.5.1 Global seabird population change  The present study estimated global seabird abundance to be 0.768 billion individuals in 2010; this estimate is comparable with previous estimates of seabird abundance at a stationary point in time, including 0.7 billion individuals (Brooke, 2004b) and 1.18 billion individuals (Riddick et al., 2012). The variation between estimates is attributable to the fact that Riddick et al. included inland populations of seabirds and therefore had a higher estimate. Also, each estimate was derived from data collected at different spatial resolutions; data for the present study were collected at the population scale, data for the study of Brooke were collected at the species scale, and data for the study of Riddick et al. were collected at the colony scale. Assumptions about the percentage of non-breeders in the population did not contribute to the difference between estimates, as all three studies assumed 30-33% non-breeders. While the present estimate of global seabird abundance in 2010 is in line with previous estimates, and is therefore a reliable anchor point for the global seabird population change curve, no global annual estimate of seabird abundance can be perfectly accurate because there is no single year in which all seabird populations are counted. However, recent decades have considerably more seabird population monitoring and therefore an estimate of abundance made by summing all abundance estimates closest to 2010 is more reliable than an estimate of abundance made by summing all abundance estimates in an earlier year such as 1950 when fewer records were available.  The present study also provides a first reliable analysis of global annual seabird abundance, and estimates that the global seabird population declined by 25% over the modern industrial era, 46  from 1.023 billion individuals in 1950 to 0.768 billion individuals in 2010; net decline occurred in all decades and the greatest decline occurred in the 1970s. The overall decline was expected, given that seabird populations around the world are threatened by anthropogenic activities and one third of all seabird species are designated threatened with extinction by the IUCN Red List (IUCN, 2011, Croxall et al., 2012). It was also greater than the preliminary estimate of 14% decline in the global seabird population change during the modern industrial era (Karpouzi, 2005). This more severe decline than the preliminary estimate was also expected because the preliminary estimate accounts for only the observed population change within the modern industrial era whereas the present estimate accounts for unobserved population change that occurred in years when populations were not monitored.  The present estimate of global annual seabird abundance assumes that the unmonitored segment of the population is changing at the same rate as the monitored segment of the population, i.e., that there is no sampling error. Sampling error is inevitable in scientific research, but is reduced by using a randomly selected and large sub-sample of the population. Because the sample size and randomness of the samples varies inter-annually throughout the timeframe of the present study, so too will sampling error. The sample size is greatest in the recent decades (especially the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s), resulting in potentially more reliable estimates in these years. There is evidence that most of the global seabird population is monitored over at least some timeframe, as indicated by the fact that the accumulation of new populations levels off in the final decade (Figure 2.2). Although the annual samples are not random, there is no evidence that increasing or declining populations were monitored more than others, overall or over part of the timeframe. For example, declining populations may be sampled more than others if funding for  47  monitoring threatened populations is easier to obtain and/or if accessibility for monitoring is correlated with population decline. However, a bias towards intentionally sampling threatened populations is unlikely to affect assessment of population trends over the modern industrial era because this would require that seabird biologists establishing early population monitoring had advanced knowledge of which populations would increase or decline later in the modern industrial era. On the other hand, there is reason to believe that unthreatened populations may be more heavily sampled, since larger populations are often sampled because of their numerical importance, but also less prone to decline/extinction than small populations. For example, Mallory (2006) points out that only the most numerically important seabird in the Canadian Arctic, the Thick-billed murre (Uria lomvia), has been monitored over significant temporal and spatial scales. As a general rule, large populations are less prone to decline/extinction than smaller populations (Pimm et al., 1988). Thus, it is possible that disproportionately high sampling of larger populations exists, and that this may result in some underestimation of global seabird decline if larger populations indeed decline less than smaller populations as predicted by Pimm et al.. Evidence of randomly distributed sampling exists in the fact that seabird families are adequately and consistently represented in the sample through time (Figure 2.3). Overall, there is no evidence of sampling error being a major concern, nor changing through time, and therefore there is no reason to believe that it would have a major effect on the estimate of global seabird population change, nor in the inter-annual variation in rates of change.  The present estimate of global annual seabird abundance also assumes that the data accurately depict the change in the monitored segment of the population, i.e., that there is no observational error. Observational error is introduced at the data collection level if inaccurate population  48  estimates are made. Accurate population estimates can be difficult to achieve for burrow and crevice nesting species because these can be difficult to detect and furthermore are not all occupied (e.g., Lawton et al., 2006). Accuracy of population estimates may also be influenced by variation in the percentage of non-breeders in the population; approximately 30% of the population remains at sea and does not breed in a given year, although this percentage may vary inter-annually for a given population. For example, some populations may consist of 70% nonbreeders in El Niño affected areas (Weimerskirch, 2002, Chastel et al., 1995). This may lead to short-term exaggeration of population increases or declines in response to oceanographic conditions. Accuracy of population estimates may also be influenced by varying sampling effort through time. For example, the most recent observer of the northern Greenland coastal stretch used higher sampling effort than previous observers and found previously undocumented Ivory gull (Pagophila eburnean) colonies (Gilg et al., 2009). This detection of new colonies within the study period creates erroneously increasing population trends; Although the prevalence of this source of observational error is unknown, it may be common in large and remote stretches (e.g., Aleutian Islands, Antarctic Peninsula), creating a bias towards population increase in the global trend. Observational error was also introduced in the methods; by assuming linear change between first and last available record, the study does not account for the relatively small but common inter-annual variation that exists in seabird populations. This may result in erroneous population trends, but with no directional bias, thus adding non-directional variation in average annual change. Although observational error inevitably contributes to erroneous estimates of population change for a subset of the populations included in this global study, there is general consensus among seabird biologists that the methods used to collect seabird abundance data have not changed directionally within the modern industrial era. Thus, there is no reason to suspect  49  that observational error drives the observed change in global seabird abundance, but rather it probably contributes to noise which is observed as increased standard deviation around the mean annual population change.  Anthropogenic threats are probably a major driver of estimated global annual seabird population change, which includes no change over the 1950s, decline over all other decades, rapid decline in the 1970s, and greatest variation in change during the 1980s. Low rates of seabird population change in early decades may occur because modern industrial threats were still relatively low. The main modern threats (i.e., fisheries, pollution and habitat destruction) have grown monotonically over the modern industrial era. In addition to this, some seabird populations are rebounding from historical depletion; laws protecting seabirds were instigated in the late 1800s after hunting for seabirds during the age of exploration (1400s-1600s) and the millinery trade (1850-1950) had depleted seabird populations. For example, the Short-tailed albatross was heavily hunted during the millinery trade, depleting the species to near extinction in 1949. Since hunting ceased in 1949, the population has grown to approximately 2,300 individuals (incidentally, this is only 2% of the historical baseline of the population, probably in part because Short-tailed albatross continue to be threatened by entanglement in longline fishing gear) (IUCN, 2011, Hasegawa and DeGange, 1982, Piatt et al., 2006). Such population increases due to cessation of hunting and/or removal of historically introduced predators have occurred during the modern industrial era, and would contribute to apparent stability in the global seabird population. The severe decline of seabirds worldwide in the 1970s coincided with an unprecedented rates and accumulation of modern industrial threats; pollution, fisheries and habitat destruction were virtually unrestrained. The decades of most severe decline in the global seabird population  50  (1960s-1980s) did coincide with the time of unprecedented rates of anthropogenic threats to seabirds. Following this (1990s-2000s), seabird populations continued to decline but at a reduced rate, perhaps in part due to the reduction of fisheries bycatch in some regions (Moore and Zydelis, 2008) and some persistent organic pollutants (e.g., Stemmler and Lammel, 2009), but also due to restoration and predator eradication (Howald et al., 2007, Jones and Kress, 2011). Relatively high standard deviation in seabird population change in the 1980s may be related to the relatively high data availability in these years, or perhaps at this time there was a large variation between seabirds threatened by anthropogenic threats and seabirds benefitting from fisheries discards and modern conservation. Although many threats continue to have severe negative effects on seabirds (Croxall et al., 2012), some seabirds have benefitted from improved fisheries management, while others have benefitted from breeding habitat restoration, pioneered in the 1970s and currently underway at 143 sites worldwide, potentially affecting 47 seabird species (Jones and Kress, 2011). Low rates of population change in recent decades may be in part attributable to conservation initiatives and/or the possibility that remaining seabirds have higher resilience to anthropogenic threats. For example, Furness and Tasker (2000) demonstrate that there is a range of sensitivity of seabirds to reduced prey availability, and it has been widely observed that some large scavenging seabirds such as gulls and skuas are increasing in abundance due to increased availability of fisheries discards (e.g., Votier et al., 2004, e.g., Lisnizer et al., 2011).  Natural climate cycles may drive seabird population changes because they alter quantity, quality and availability of seabird prey in marine ecosystems, which limits seabird carrying capacity. There is evidence of long-term declines in predators caused by natural climate cycles, such as the  51  Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) population in the Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska (Trites et al., 2007), and this may also be the case for seabirds in the region. Indeed, in the present study, the decade of most rapid global seabird decline (1970s) did coincide with a lowproductivity regime in the Pacific, causing reduced anchovy abundance in Japan, California, Peru, and Chile, as well as reduced seabird abundance in California and Peru (Chavez et al., 2003). However, the regime switched back to high productivity in the late 1990s and there was no corresponding increase in seabird abundance in California, Peru, or worldwide. This indicates that either another factor was driving the global seabird decline in the 1970s, or seabird populations declined at least in part because of the regime shift in the 1970s, but were not able to recover when the regime shifted back in the late 1990s because other threats reduced survival and/or reproduction. There is circumstantial evidence of the latter, fisheries-induced prey depletion reducing the growth rate of the seabird population, and therefore its ability to recover, in both Peru and California (Goya and Garica-Godos, 2002, Ainley and Hyrenbach, 2010). Given the inherently stable nature of seabird populations due to their K-selected life-history strategy, natural climate cycles may play a role in global seabird population change, although it is highly improbable that they are the sole driver of global seabird decline.  Although the present study provides the most robust possible method of estimating global seabird population change within the modern industrial era, anecdotal evidence suggests severe historical seabird depletion due to hunting and introduced species. Thus, the present analysis of global seabird population change to the modern industrial era may be victim to Pauly’s “shifting baselines syndrome” (1995), whereby the observer is unaware that the baseline of abundance is shifted downwards between generations, or in this case between the historical era and the  52  modern industrial era. Quantifying historical depletion would be a useful addition to the present study because it would further increase our understanding of anthropogenic activities on the global seabird population, but was not undertaken because it would require inclusion of historical data which are generally more qualitative or anecdotal in nature. Recent work by AlAbdulrazzak et al. (2012) establishes the reliability of encoding anecdotal data to acquire quantitative historical abundance data, but this technique has only seen limited application to assessing historical seabird population changes to date (e.g., Palomares et al., 2006). Future research may involve the development of a method for encoding historical seabird abundance anecdotes to acquire quantitative data in order to extend the present analysis of global annual seabird abundance further back in time.  2.5.2 Global seabird population change, by family  The present study provides a summary of abundance estimates per seabird family. Only one previous study had analyzed seabird abundance by seabird family; Karpouzi (2005) presented relative abundance of seabird families in 1950s compared to 1990s. The estimates in the present study rank seabird families by population change during the modern industrial era in generally the same order, but use updated data to estimate absolute seabird abundance per family in 2010, and a new method to estimate annual seabird abundance per family dating back to 1950. Besides this, there are no previous estimates of annual seabird abundance per family. The only measure with which one could potentially compare estimates of population change per family is the percentage of IUCN Red Listed species per family, which Croxall et al. (2012) summarize for the seven most numerically important seabird families. However, the IUCN Red List status is not necessarily indicative of the overall decline of a family because it is based on other criteria in 53  addition to population change (e.g., number of individuals remaining, amount and quality of habitat remaining, threats, range size, and/or calculated probability of extinction in the wild (IUCN, 2011). Nonetheless, there is general agreement between ranking of families by absolute decline and the ranking of families IUCN Red List status. One exception existed; it was estimated that the family Diomedeidae declined by 10%, yet it is the seabird family with the highest percentage of species on the IUCN Red List (i.e., 17 of 22 species) (Croxall et al., 2012). This could be because albatross decline was most severe prior to the modern industrial era due to hunting and introduced predators, although albatross decline caused by entanglement in longline fishing gear during the modern industrial era may not have been adequately quantified due to sampling error (e.g., the average span of monitoring for an albatross population is 30 years). On the other hand, albatross populations may be relatively highly Red Listed in comparison to other declining species at least in part because of their inherently small population sizes, which trigger the IUCN Red List criteria (IUCN, 2011).  As expected, the seabird families did face varying degrees of population change over the modern industrial era. Interpreting the causes of relative population change among seabird families is challenging to impossible because each family may face different exposure and sensitivity to threats, as well as different sources of error. There may be a pattern of greater decline among families with high exposure and/or sensitivity to fisheries-related threats; Procellariidae are highly threatened by entanglement in longline fishing gear, Phalacrocoracidae and Sternidae are threatened by forage fish depletion, and Fregatidae are threatened by depletion of tuna which facilitate their foraging opportunities. Furthermore, the two increasing seabird families, Hydrobatidae and Alcidae, contain many planktivorous species, which probably have reduced  54  exposure and sensitivity to fisheries-related threats. However, this is not to say that fisheries interactions are the main driver of population change across seabird families. Sulidae did not decline despite the known threat of fisheries-induced prey depletion, perhaps in part because some benefit from increased availability of fisheries discards, and also because their physical and ecological attributes such as large body size and ability to switch between prey lend them to reduce their sensitivity to reduced prey abundance (Furness and Tasker, 2000). Families affected by climate change also appear to decline substantially. Spheniscidae are among the most severely impacted by climate change driven changes in sea ice and krill (Barbraud et al., 2012, Trivelpiece et al., 2011), while Procellariidae and Sternidae, containing most of the world’s inter-regional migrants, are negatively affected by climate change driven mismatch between seabird phenology and prey availability (Cox, 2010, Walther et al., 2002). Conservation initiatives may be related to the increase in Alcidae, given that Alcidae are among the most targeted and most successful families in global seabird restoration projects (Jones and Kress, 2011). Procellariidae and Sternidae are also relatively highly targeted and successful in restoration projects, and although they did not increase overall during the modern industrial era, their rate of decline was reduced in recent decades coinciding with restoration. Historical depletion may also influence the relative population change observed in seabird families. For example, albatrosses and gulls were heavily persecuted during the millinery trade, and therefore their observed decline may be relatively small despite exposure to modern industrial threats because some populations are rebounding from historical decline. Meanwhile, storm-petrels are perhaps most severely threatened by introduced rats (Jones et al., 2008), so although their population appears stable or increasing based on the assessment of population change during the modern industrial era, their populations probably declined prior to the modern industrial era.  55  The difference in change between families may also be influenced by sampling and observational error. Sampling error may be greatest in families with relatively small fractions of the population are monitored due to lower interest and/or accessibility (e.g., Laridae and Procellariiformes, respectively). However, data were available throughout the entire timeframe for all families, except there were no data for Pelecanoididae in the first 3 years. Observational error may be greatest in families that are more difficult to quantify such as sub-surface and noncolonial nesters (e.g., most small petrels and Marbled murrelet, respectively). Assessing population change in crevice and burrow nesting seabirds is notably challenging (e.g., Harding et al., 2005). Overall, assessing why some seabird families changed more than others is challenging because all families are influenced by different historical threats, modern threats, conservation, sampling error and observational error. Thus, to improve our understanding of population change in each seabird family, further research should seek to extend the temporal scale of abundance estimates per seabird families further back in time. Further studies may also seek to investigate the causes of observed change by dividing families into functional groups. For example, given that fisheries-affected families may decline more than other families, one might test the hypothesis that piscivorous species decline more than planktivorous species. This may be informative to answering the cause of decline in some cases, because families often encompass a variety of functional groups. For example, the family Alcidae contains both piscivorous and planktivorous species.  56  Chapter 3 Spatial patterns in observed global seabird abundance, 1950-2010  3.1 Summary The global seabird population has declined substantially during the modern industrial era (Chapter 2), but the spatial distribution of global seabird decline is poorly understood. The present study mapped observed change in global seabird abundance over the modern industrial era (1950-present), based on available seabird abundance data and species-specific range extent maps. The global seabird population was observed to decline across 90% of the global marine surface area during the modern industrial era, with increase restricted to the northern hemisphere and severe decline observed in the Humboldt Current and tropical and southern temperate regions, where major threats to seabirds include, respectively, the forage fish fishery and the combination of entanglement in longline fisheries and climate change. The present study highlights hotspots of seabird threat within the span of seabird population monitoring, and moreover the need for spatially extensive seabird conservation.  3.2 Introduction The previous chapter in this thesis highlights the global seabird population decline, and consequent urgent need for large-scale seabird conservation. Understanding global patterns in seabird density and population change may facilitate the large-scale approach to seabird conservation by (i) demonstrating the spatial scale at which seabird population decline is occurring, and (ii) highlighting areas of greatest seabird density and decline where conservation is most urgently required.  57  The spatial distribution of global seabird density and change in density are hitherto poorly understood. The only existing map of global seabird density was the preliminary estimate made by Karpouzi et al. (2007) which was based on estimated breeding season ranges for an average year in the 1990s, and there is no existing map of change in global seabird density. The present study aims to provide an improved and more robust map of global seabird density, as well as a global map of observed change in seabird density. These maps of seabird density and change in seabird density will be made using species-specific range maps and abundance estimates. Incidentally, the present study also provides abundance estimates for all seabird species, which are in some cases more reliable than previously available estimates.  It is expected that the spatial distribution of seabird density will be more spread than that of Karpouzi (2007) because entire range extent is considered here rather than only breeding season ranges. It is also expected that the spatial distribution of the global seabird population change will include widespread decline, since decline was observed across the majority of seabird families (Chapter 2). Given that only observed population change is mapped, which extends over 20 years on average, and are biased towards the latter half of the modern industrial era (see Chapter 2), it is also expected that decline will be greatest in regions where threats were severe during the latter half of the modern industrial era. Thus, we might expect to observe greatest decline in the southern ocean, where many seabird populations faced peak threats (e.g., pollution, fisheries, climate change) in the latter half of the modern industrial era.  58  3.3 Methods 3.3.1 Global database of range extent maps per seabird species  A spatial database containing each species’ marine range extent was constructed. Range extents were derived from the most up-to-date global range extent map for a given species; namely the Bird Families of the World series, which covered Procellariiformes (Brooke, 2004a), Sphenisciformes (Williams, 1997), Pelecaniformes (Nelson, 2005), and most Charadriiformes (Gaston et al., 1998, Olsen and Larsson, 1997), as well as the only global field guide, Seabirds of the World (Harrison, 1987). Global maps were augmented with finer scale updates when relevant and available (e.g., the global range extent of the Herring Gull was extracted from Harrison (1987) and refined in the North American region using a regional map from the Birds of North America online database). Maps were digitized in ArcGIS by importing and georeferencing to a standard global map then tracing the outline of the range extent using the polygon tool. Resulting species range extent polygons (e.g., Figure 3.1) were linked to estimates of abundance and observed change in abundance per species, described in Section 3.3.2.  59  Figure 3.1 Examples of range extent polygons (blue), for six seabird species: (A) Red-billed gull (Larus scopulinus) (Source: del Hoyo et al., 1996); (B) Mediterranean Gull (Larus melanocephalus) (Source: Harrison, 1987); (C) Peruvian Booby (Sula variegate) (Source: Nelson, 2005); (D) Dovekie (Alle alle) (Source: Gaston et al., 1998); (E) Sooty Tern (Sterna fuscata) (Source: Harrison, 1987); and (F) Arctic Tern (Sterna vittata) (Source: Harrison, 1987). 60  3.3.2 Estimating abundance and change in abundance per seabird species Given that the spatial database of range extent maps was constructed at the species-scale, it was necessary to calculate seabird abundance and change in abundance per species in order to link maps to abundance data. However, it is not possible to estimate species-specific annual abundance using the methods applied to the global and family-specific population in Chapter 2 because not all species were represented in the data throughout the entire timeframe, and therefore the calculation of average annual change would not be possible in the early years for many species. Instead, an estimated species-specific abundance was made by summing abundance estimates for all populations within a species, where historical abundance was the sum of all records closest to the year 1950 and modern abundance was the sum of all records closest to the year 2010. The difference between the historical and modern abundance estimates for a given species is the observed change. Examples of data used to calculate historical and modern abundance are provided for four numerically important but otherwise randomly selected seabird species (Appendix II).  3.3.3 Mapping global seabird density  A global map of modern global seabird density was constructed by distributing each species’ modern abundance evenly across its range extent, then summing the seabird density per square kilometre across all species’ layers. Likewise, a global map of historical global seabird density was constructed by distributing each species’ historical abundance evenly across its range extent, then summing the seabird density per square kilometre of all species’ layers.  61  3.3.4 Mapping observed change in global seabird density  A map of observed change in global seabird density was constructed by distributing the difference between historical and modern abundance evenly across each species’ range extent, then summing all species layers. This change in density per square kilometre was then expressed in absolute terms as well as relative terms.  3.4 Results 3.4.1 Estimated abundance and change in abundance, per seabird species  Historical and modern abundance were estimated per seabird species (Appendix I). Speciesspecific modern abundance estimates ranged from less than 100 individuals per species (i.e., Chinese crested tern (Sterna bernsteini), Beck’s petrel (Pseudobulweria becki), Fiji petrel (Pseudobulweria macgillivrayi), Jamaica petrel (Pterodroma caribbaea), Indian yellow-nosed albatross (Thalassarche carteri)) to over 100 million individuals for one species (i.e., Dovekie (Alle alle)). Observed population change ranged from decline of more than 100 million individuals in the Sooty tern (Sterna fuscata) to increase of over 10 million individuals in the Dovekie (Alle alle), and the average observed population change was a decline by 0.9 million individuals. Net decline was observed in 50% of species, no change in 10% of species, and increase in 40% of species.  62  3.4.2 Maps of global seabird density Historical seabird density ranges from 0-30,000 seabirds/km2, while modern seabird density ranged from 0-15,000 seabirds/km2. Seabird density is highest in tropical upwelling and temperate regions and lowest in the tropical and polar regions (Figures 3.2 & 3.3).  3.4.3 Maps of observed change in global seabird density  Population decline was more ubiquitous than population increase, covering 90% of the world’s marine area, and occurring in both pelagic and coastal habitats (Figures 3.4 & 3.5). Greatest absolute decline occurred off the west coast of Peru, and greatest relative decline occurred in the southern tropics. Population increase was limited to the Northern temperate region, where it occurred in both pelagic and coastal regions. Maximum absolute decline was more than six times larger than maximum absolute increase.  63  Figure 3.2 Historical global seabird density, mapped as the accumulation of all species’ most historical abundance estimates (mostly <1980) distributed within their range extent.  64  Figure 3.3 Modern global seabird density, mapped as the accumulation of all species’ most modern abundances estimates (mostly >1990) distributed within their range extent.  65  Figure 3.4 Absolute observed change in global seabird density, 1950-2010, mapped as the cumulative observed population change of all species distributed evenly within their range extents. Red represents regions of net decline in seabird density while green represent regions of stable or net increase in seabird density.  66  Figure 3.5 Relative observed change in global seabird density, 1950-2010, mapped as the relative observed population change of all species distributed evenly within their range extents. Red represents regions of net decline in seabird density while green represent regions of stable or net increase in seabird density.  67  3.5 Discussion 3.5.1 Estimated abundance and change in abundance, per seabird species  The present study yields estimates of abundance (modern and historical) and observed change in abundance for all seabird species. Depending on the species, the present estimates may be more or less accurate than pre-existing estimates. They will be less accurate than well-studied species, especially endemics where the global annual abundance is easy to enumerate in any given year. For example, it is relatively easy to estimate the annual abundance of the Juan Fernandez Petrel (Pterodroma externa) which nests only on one island in the Juan Fernandez Island archipelago, Chile. On the other hand, the present species-specific abundance estimates may be more accurate than previously available estimates for some poorly studied and/or wide-ranging species. For example, there is no single year in which the entire nesting habitat of the Dovekie (Alle alle) is surveyed, as it nests on numerous islands throughout the high arctic (i.e., Greenland, Iceland, Novaya Zemlya, Spitsbergen, and Franz Josef Land). In the latter case, the present estimates of change in abundance may serve as the most accurate and up to date global abundance estimates for several species. This is demonstrated by four examples of numerically important seabird species for which precise global abundance estimates were previously unavailable, the Blue petrel (Halobaena caerulea), Antarctic prion Pachyptila desolata), Sooty tern, and Dovekie (see Appendix II).  68  3.5.2 Global maps of seabird density  The present maps of global seabird density depict seabird density to be highest in temperate and upwelling regions of the world, and more widely dispersed from their breeding season foraging ranges than predicted in the preliminary maps by Karpouzi et al. (2007). This is because the present maps assume that individuals of a species were distributed evenly within their expertderived year-round species range extent maps. This assumption is perhaps a simplified view of seabird distribution in the marine environment, which is known to vary spatially and temporally in relation to prey availability, which itself is influenced by oceanographic and ecological processes. In general, seabird prey and foraging areas are predictable at large spatial scales, but not at small and meso scales (Weimerskirch, 2007) and furthermore may vary through time, as has been increasingly observed with climate change (Barbraud et al., 2012). This is why the present study uses range extent maps to define the boundaries of the large scale foraging area, then assume that seabirds are distributed evenly through time and space within these ranges. Seabirds may spend more time overall in certain areas of their at-sea range extents, such as areas surrounding colonies or important feeding areas (e.g., Le Corre et al., 2012, Egevang et al., 2010). Consequently, the maps presented in this study may underestimate seabird density in some areas, such as those near seabird colonies. However, given that widespread seabird tracking is relatively new because of recent miniaturization and increased memory of tracking devices (Burger and Shaffer, 2008), data-derived density maps do not presently exist for seabird species but may in the future. Thus, the present method will provide reasonably accurate maps, which are accurate for identifying the large-scale patterns and therefore adequate for meeting the immediate needs of global seabird conservation. Future studies may be able to refine global seabird density maps by using new knowledge of seabird distribution at sea, derived from recent 69  tracking studies. For example, BirdLife International has currently compiled almost 7000 at-sea tracking datasets for 41 Procellariiformes species to date, which can potentially be used to generate species density distribution maps (BirdLife International, 2004, BirdLife International, 2012). Using tracking data to map seabird density may also enable mapping of colonies or populations rather than entire species, which would further refine the maps.  Ground-truthing the maps against available data on seabird density is challenging because average annual (or change in average annual) seabird density data are only very rarely reported. Existing data do agree with the maps produced herein, for example, the average annual density is estimated at 3-22 seabirds/km2 near Vancouver Island, Canada (Robertson, 1977) and 8 seabirds/km2 across the Peru Current (Spear and Ainley, 2007). As expected, there are regions surrounding seabird colonies that experience much higher seabird densities than predicted in the maps herein, at least during the breeding season, for example, Northern gannets (Morus bassanus) alone reach densities of over 2500 individuals/km2 surrounding their colony on Bass Rock, Scotland, during the breeding season (Camphuysen et al., In press). This may demonstrate the error associated with assuming equal distribution within range extents, but the lack of annual average data makes it difficult to interpret the extent of this error, especially in terms of assessing global patterns.  3.5.3 Global maps of observed change in seabird density  The present study provides the first maps of observed change in the global seabird population. Greatest seabird decline was observed in the southern ocean and Humboldt Current ecosystem. In the southern ocean, two major threats have peaked in intensity within the recent 20-30 years 70  that are best covered by seabird monitoring effort: entanglement of seabirds in pelagic longline fishing gear and climate change (Barbraud et al., 2012). In the Humboldt Current ecosystem, seabirds face severe and ongoing competition for prey with the world’s largest forage fish fishery, Peruvian anchoveta (Jahncke et al., 2004). Decline was also observed throughout the tropical oceans, where the major threat is perhaps the pelagic longline fishing for tuna and swordfish (Lewison et al., 2004), which threatens seabirds by removing the tuna and dolphins with which they forage cooperatively (Ballance and Pitman, 1999). Seabird increase was restricted to the northern hemisphere, perhaps because of large amounts of fisheries discards (i.e., 40% of the world’s discards occur in the North Atlantic (Kelleher, 2005), and some scavenging seabirds are increasing as a result (Furness, 2003); higher numbers of restoration projects (Jones and Kress, 2011); and an earlier peak in intensity of seabird threats in the northern hemisphere, for example, forage fish collapsed off California in the 1940s (Becker and Beissinger, 2006) but not off Peru until the 1970s (Jahncke et al., 2004).  While these maps of observed change in seabird density are an important step in understanding the global scope and spatial distribution of global seabird population change, bias and limitations influence the patterns observed. First, the assumption of equal distribution of seabird species’ change in abundance across its’ range extent may result in regional population change being spread across large spatial scales for cosmopolitan species. For example, increase in the Falkland Island Black-browed albatross (Thalassarche melanophris) population would be pooled with all of the observed population change and spread evenly across its Antarctic circumpolar range. Future research may overcome this bias by mapping population change per population rather than species, as suggested in Section 3.5.1. Second, the present study is limited to  71  mapping only observed population change which occurred over different timeframes, because total change throughout the entire modern industrial era could not be estimated at the species level, and range maps were not available at the population level. As a result, the present maps do not demonstrate all of the seabird population change that occurred during the modern industrial era. Presumably seabird decline spread southward and seaward from the northern hemisphere during the modern industrial era, following the spatial expansion of fisheries and other anthropogenic threats. Seabird monitoring effort is biased towards the most recent decades, so seabird population decline in the northern hemisphere probably went largely undocumented, much like the historical decline caused by hunting and introduced predators. How could we map total seabird population change over the modern industrial era? Mapping modern industrial era change in abundance by seabird family (as estimated in Chapter 2), linked to family range extent maps, may provide a general picture of the spatial distribution of the total seabird population change over the modern industrial era. This would require the assumption that individuals are distributed across their family range extent, most of which are extremely large and/or global in nature, resulting in a rather non-informative map. Thus, although the present maps of observed seabird population change are useful because they depict the available data with minimal assumptions, further maps that may be helpful in assessing the spatial distribution of seabird population change would be (i) a map of the average annual change in seabird density, or (ii) a map of the number of threatened or declining species per spatial cell, as per the marine mammal map of Pompa et al. (2011).  It is impossible to ground-truth these maps because other data summarizing total or observed change in average annual seabird density do not exist. However, seabird biologists from six  72  ecosystems supporting large seabird populations (i.e., North Sea, Norwegian Sea, New Zealand, Benguela Current, Gulf of Alaska, and California Current) were consulted to verify that overall trends in seabird abundance in their ecosystem were indeed in line with observed patterns in seabird population data within their ecosystem.  73  Chapter 4 Investigating the potential role of industrial marine fisheries in temporal and spatial patterns in global seabird population change, 1950-2010  4.1 Summary Fisheries-related threats are known to affect seabird populations worldwide and they are the only threat for which data are available at temporal and spatial scales appropriate for comparison with temporal and spatial patterns observed in global seabird population change (Chapters 2 & 3). Thus, the present study seeks to determine if there are significant temporal and spatial relationships between seabird population change and marine fisheries. A significant positive relationship was observed between global annual seabird decline and global annual forage fish catch, as well as between observed seabird decline and total ecological footprint of fisheries per marine spatial cell. These results indicate that fisheries may indeed play a role in shaping temporal and spatial patterns in global seabird abundance.  4.2 Introduction Fisheries are among the most serious threats to seabirds of the modern industrial era, depleting abundance and availability of seabird prey, driving changes in quality of seabird prey, and entangling seabirds in fishing gear. These fisheries-related threats have been observed to have a population-level effect on seabirds at regional and species scales (Wagner and Boersma, 2011, Furness, 2003, Tasker et al., 2000). However, the cumulative impacts of fisheries-related threats on seabird populations are often difficult to assess given the many factors that may be affecting seabird populations and corresponding seabird-fisheries data. Global fisheries data are available  74  from the Sea Around Us Project at the appropriate temporal and spatial scales for comparison with global temporal and spatial patterns in seabird population change. Therefore, the present study seeks to determine if there is a global relationship between temporal and spatial patterns in seabird decline during the modern industrial era (Chapters 2 & 3) and fisheries.  Temporal patterns in global seabird decline suggest that there may be a relationship between seabird decline and overexploitation of forage fish. Monotonic seabird decline throughout the modern industrial era (Chapter 2) may be related to an increase in forage fish fishing effort throughout the modern industrial era (Anticamara et al., 2011), including rapid seabird decline corresponding with peak forage fish catch in the 1970s (Alder et al., 2008). There is evidence that the abundance and availability of forage fish may play a key role in regulating global seabird abundance. Forage fish biomass has been linked to seabird productivity and/or abundance in multiple regional scale studies including Peru, Norwegian Sea, Barents Sea, western Norway, North Sea, South Africa (Tasker et al., 2000, Furness, 2003), and a globally consistent long-term relationship between forage fish biomass and seabird productivity has recently been observed (Cury et al., 2011). However, the role of forage fish fisheries in these relationships can be unclear due to the natural variation in forage fish biomass caused by climate oscillations (e.g., Frederiksen et al., 2004). Thus, the present study seeks to determine if there was a significant relationship between global seabird decline and overexploitation of forage fish. A rank correlation was performed between global annual seabird decline and global annual forage fish catch. Forage fish catch is a good measure for inverse forage fish biomass because trends in fisheries catch data are found to be consistent with trends in biomass data (Froese et al., 2012). Although the relationship may be more noisy for forage fish because their biomass fluctuates  75  naturally in relation to climactic cycles in the upwelling ecosystems in which they occur, their biomass too is nonetheless influenced by fisheries catches (Cury et al., 2000).  Spatial patterns in observed global seabird population change suggest that there may be a relationship between seabird decline per spatial cell and intensity and duration of fisheries presence. Greatest observed seabird decline appears to occur in regions where fisheries have reached their maximum ecological footprint within the timeframe of seabird population monitoring (i.e., in the tropical and southern oceans, and in the pelagic realm). Thus, the present study seeks to determine if there is a significant relationship between observed seabird decline and year of maximum ecological footprint of fisheries per spatial cell. A regression was performed between observed seabird decline per marine spatial cell and year of maximum primary production required to support fisheries (hereafter year of maxPPR) per spatial cell. Year of maxPPR is a good metric for year of maximum ecological footprint of fisheries, and it is indicative of the duration of fisheries presence as it occurs consistently after fisheries expand to a given spatial cell but before stocks are overexploited. Thus, if year of maxPPR is more recent then fisheries have been present for a shorter period of time and one would be more likely to observe the total effects of fisheries on the seabird population in that region.  76  4.3 Methods 4.3.1 Testing for a relationship between annual global seabird decline and annual global forage fish catch  To test the hypothesis that global annual seabird decline is related to global annual fisheries catch of forage fish, a rank correlation was performed between global annual fisheries catch and global annual seabird decline (cumulative percent remaining, as calculated in Chapter 2, Figure 2.5). Global annual forage fish catch data were extracted from the Sea Around Us Project database (www.seaaroundus.org). Forage fish include Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus), Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), chub mackerel (Scomber japonicas), European sprat, capelin, blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou), Pacific menhaden (Ethmidium maculatum), anchovies, Inca scad (Trachurus murphyi), South American pilchard (Sardinops sagax), European pilchard (Sardinops pilchardus), Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus), and sandlances. Rank correlation was chosen because the data were not normally distributed.  4.3.2 Testing for a relationship between observed seabird decline and year of maxPPR per spatial cell  To test the hypothesis that seabird decline in a given region was related to the year of maxPPR (a proxy for the duration of fisheries presence), a regression was performed between percent seabirds remaining per 0.5° by 0.5° marine spatial cell (there are ~180,000 such cells in the world) and year of maxPPR in that cell. Year of maxPPR data were extracted from the Sea  77  Around Us Project database (www.seaaroundus.org), and percent seabirds remaining per spatial cell were calculated in Chapter 3 (Figure 3.5).  4.4 Results  4.4.1 Relationship between annual global seabird decline and annual global forage fish catch  Annual global seabird population decline was correlated to annual global catch of forage fish (Figure 4.1).  4.4.2 Relationship between observed seabird decline and year of maxPPR in a region  There was a significant relationship between seabird decline per spatial cell (percent of the seabird population remaining) and year of maxPPR (Figure 4.2).  78  Figure 4.1 Spearman's rank correlation of annual global seabird population decline as a function of annual global fisheries catch of forage fish (S = 11696 , p <0.001). 79  160  Seabirds remaining (% of historical population)  140  120  100  80  60  40  20  0 1950  1960  1970  1980  1990  2000  2010  Year of maxPPR Figure 4.2 Regression (solid line) and standard deviation (dotted line) of percent seabirds remaining per spatial cell as a function of year of maxPPR (R2 = 0.10, p < .001; pseudoreplicates are depicted as binned for this figure, but not for statistics). Data for percent seabirds remaining originated from the map of global seabird population change observed within the modern industrial era (Figure 3.5) and data for year of maxPPR were derived from the Sea Around Us Project global fisheries catch database.  80  4.5 Discussion 4.5.1 Temporal relationship between seabird decline and fisheries catch  Global annual seabird decline was correlated with global annual forage fish catch. This relationship was expected given the established effect of forage fish catch on forage fish biomass (Cury et al., 2000, Froese et al., 2012) and also of forage fish biomass on seabird productivity and/or population size (Cury et al., 2011, Furness, 2003, Tasker et al., 2000). This finding is important because it identifies that a relationship observed repeatedly at smaller scales is also seen at the global scale, indicating the potentially important role of forage fish fisheries in global seabird decline.  The observed correlation between seabird decline and forage fish catch does not infer causation; other factors correlated with forage fish catch may be driving the observed decline. These may include bycatch in fishing gear, habitat destruction, climate change, and a variety of other pollutants (e.g., oil, plastic, persistent organic pollutants). Further studies may attempt to isolate the impacts of fisheries on global seabird population change by assessing the population trajectory of piscivorous versus non-piscivorous seabirds in relation to fisheries catch data, perhaps subdividing piscivorous seabirds into groups based on predicted sensitivity to reduced prey. If piscivores (especially the most sensitive groups) decline more than non-piscivores, this would indicate that the relationship observed in the present study is causative. The previously mentioned factors (i.e., bycatch in fishing gear, habitat destruction, climate change, and a variety of other pollutants), in addition to natural climate oscillation, rebounding from historical threats, and positive effects of conservation initiatives, have all been identified as factors affecting  81  seabird population change to some extent. Therefore, they probably contribute to some of the observed variation in the relationship. While it is important to further investigate the causativeness of the observed relationship, it is highly probable based on the repeated observation of a causative relationship at smaller scales (i.e., fisheries reduce biomass and seabirds decline) that the significant relationship observed at the global scale is at least in part causative.  Variation may occur in the relationship because the relationship between global forage fish catch and global forage fish biomass is not entirely consistent through time. In the beginning of the modern industrial era there is an inverse relationship between forage fish catch and forage fish biomass, but in later years as forage fish stocks collapse, years of simultaneously low forage fish catch and biomass will occur. An alternative assessment of forage fish biomass might have been forage fish stock status. Stock status is a recently developed measure of fish abundance that accounts for the difference between pre- and post-overexploitation low-catch years (Kleisner and Pauly, 2011). Further studies may seek to refine the assessment of this relationship by comparing global annual seabird decline with global annual stock status of forage fish.  Variation may also occur in the relationship if forage fish biomass does not have a linear effect on seabird abundance. The occurrence of a non-linear relationship is quite probable, as seabird productivity and/or abundance has been observed to respond asymptotically to prey depletion in nature (Piatt et al., 2007b, Cury et al., 2011). This is because seabirds can generally buffer their survival and reproduction against prey depletion by increasing foraging effort, up to a certain point. At the global scale, rapid seabird decline in the 1970s may coincide with the  82  overexploitation of forage fish stocks. On the other hand, the variation in the relationship between seabird decline and fisheries catch may be related to the sequential overexploitation of forage fish stocks and expansion of fisheries to include new stocks; Herring, sardine, menhaden were among the first stocks targeted, followed by an increasing range of species (Alder et al., 2008).  Variation may also occur in the relationship due to unaccounted for lag between fisheries catch and the effect on change in seabird abundance. In the present analysis, fisheries catch was compared to seabird decline in the same year, which would capture any immediate impacts on the breeding population in that year (e.g., number of seabirds attempting to breed is related to prey abundance). However, it may take 2-9 years for the effects of fisheries catch to be measured in seabird population size, because this is the average amount of time that it takes seabirds to recruit to the population, depending on the family (Weimerskirch, 2002). This lag was not considered in the present study because it varies between families. Unfortunately, it probably introduces variation into the global relationship between forage fish and seabird abundance.  Finally, noise may occur in the relationship because the global nature of the analysis does not allow for fine resolution of the seabird population change and forage fish catch data. Catch of all forage fish species are included when perhaps the catch of some species is more influential to seabird populations than others. For example, both anchovy and sardine are fished off Peru, but change in anchovy biomass has a far greater influence on seabird productivity and abundance than sardine biomass (Jahncke et al., 2004). Furthermore, catch of all size classes of forage fish  83  are considered although not all size classes are eaten by seabirds. This is because intuitively the overexploitation of any given stock reduces the abundance of all size classes. Finally, the analysis is not spatially restricted because there is complete overlap between cumulative seabird range extent maps and regions where forage fish are caught. Although the present study investigates seabird fishery relationships at a coarse scale that will include noise, this is necessary when assessing global relationships.  4.5.2 Spatial relationship between seabird decline and fisheries catch  There was a significant relationship between percent of seabirds remaining and year of maxPPR per spatial cell. In other words, the extent of observed seabird decline in a spatial cell is related to the amount of time since peak ecological footprint of fisheries. Thus, if fisheries occurred more recently, then more seabird population change was observed. This is probably because the majority of seabird population change observations were made over recent decades, so regions that were historically affected by fisheries and other threats and currently experiencing seabird population rebounds. However, this relationship may also be at least in part driven by another factor that co-varies with year of maxPPR per spatial cell, such as strong effects of climate change in the southern oceans (Barbraud et al., 2012). Thus, although the pattern of observed seabird decline bears striking resemblance to the spatial pattern of fisheries expansion during the modern industrial era (Swartz et al., 2010), the present analysis does infer causation.  The variation in duration over which seabird population change was observed for the maps makes this analysis difficult to interpret. The average duration of seabird population monitoring per spatial cell is 20 years, but some some cells have data for up 60 years. If data were available 84  for the entire timeframe in all cells (i.e., all actually occurring seabird population change was observed, rather than a subset), the expected result would be drastically different: seabird decline may be more closely related to the intensity of the ecological footprint than the year of maximum ecological footprint. In fact, seabird population decline would be expectedly less in regions where year of maximum ecological footprint was more recent if population change was observed over the entire modern industrial era.  Variation may also be introduced into the relationship because seabirds in all cells are not equally related to the “ecological footprint” of fisheries. For example, ecological footprint fisheries in a pelagic cell with moderate tuna fisheries may be higher than the ecological footprint of fisheries in a coastal cell with high forage fish fisheries, but the impacts on seabirds may be greater in the coastal cell.  The observed relationship between seabird decline and duration of fisheries presence per spatial cell is important because it identifies the potential role of fisheries in shaping global patterns in seabird population change. It may also suggest the extent to which undocumented fisheriesrelated global seabird decline occurred in the northern hemisphere before seabird population monitoring began. Furthermore, the increase in seabird abundance in regions where peak ecological footprint of fisheries occurred long ago may indicate the ability of seabird populations to bounce back from historical fisheries-related threats if fishing intensity is reduced.  85  Chapter 5 Conclusion This study provides (i) a robust estimate of global annual seabird population throughout the modern industrial era, demonstrating a 25% decline in the global seabird population across 11 or the 14 seabird families during the modern industrial era; (ii) a reliable map of observed change in global seabird density during the modern industrial era, demonstrating decline across 90% of the worlds marine surface area; and (iii) an analysis of the temporal and spatial patterns in observed global seabird decline in relation to global marine fisheries, demonstrating significant relationships between global annual seabird decline and global annual forage fish catch, as well as between seabird decline per spatial cell and year of maxPPR per spatial cell.  These results are important because they depict the temporally, taxonomically and spatially pervasive nature of the global seabird population decline and highlight the potentially important role of marine fisheries in global seabird decline, a threat that is repeatedly noted at regional scales but difficult to quantify. As such, they have important implications for the management and preservation of seabirds and marine ecosystems. The temporal, taxonomic, and spatial pervasiveness of seabird decline lends support to the call for a large-scale approach to seabird conservation (Jodice and Suryan, 2010, Croxall et al., 2012). The observed global seabird decline also demonstrates the cumulative impacts that fisheries and other threats have, but are often overlooked or unmanaged at small spatial scales, thus identifying the need for increased use of the precautionary approach to marine ecosystem management. The precautionary approach is an essential and useful method of managing wildlife such as seabirds with uncertain population trends and uncertain and/or uncontrollable threats (Lauck et al., 1998). Part of the precautionary approach may involve designation of marine no-take zones in important seabird 86  foraging areas to minimize threats and maintain sufficient prey for seabird population growth. Large-scale commitment to seabird conservation and use of the precautionary approach is increasingly important as most threats could increase with the growing human population (e.g., forage fish fisheries, pollution, climate change, habitat destruction).  Estimates of seabird population change are inevitably limited by data availability; the present study overcame limitations as much as possible by relying on the rate of change in the sampled population to estimate the change observed in the global seabird population, and mapping observed population change rather than actual population change during the modern industrial era. However, future research may seek to assess total anthropogenic impacts on the global seabird population by incorporating these historical abundance estimates, or to create maps that better depict the spatial distribution of seabird population change throughout the entire modern industrial era. However, the present studies have perhaps sufficiently demonstrated global patterns in seabird population change that indicate a need for large-scale and precautionary seabird conservation. Thus, future research may be most effective in conserving seabirds by aiming to develop methods for implementing large-scale and precautionary seabird conservation initiatives.  87  Literature Cited Ainley, D.G., Hyrenbach, K.D. (2010) Top-down and bottom-up factors affecting seabird population trends in the California current system (1985-2006). Progress in Oceanography 84, 242-254. Ainley, D.G., Spear, L.B., Allen, S.G., Ribic, C.A. (1996) Temporal and spatial patterns in the diet of the common murre in California waters. The Condor 98, 691-705. Al-Abdulrazzak, D., Naidoo, R., Palomares, M.L.D., Pauly, D. (2012) Gaining perspective on what we've lost: the reliability of encoded anecdotes in historical ecology. PLoS ONE. Alder, J., Campbell, B., Karpouzi, V., Kaschner, K., Pauly, D. (2008) Forage fish: from ecosystems to markets. Annual Review of Environmental Resources 33, 153-166. Anderson, O.R.J., Small, C.J., Croxall, J.P., et al. (2011) Global seabird bycatch in longline fisheries. Endangered Species Research 14, 91-106. Anderwald, P., Evans, P.G.H., Gygax, L., Hoelzel, A.R. (2011) Role of feeding strategies in seabird-minke whale associations. Marine Ecology Progress Series 424, 219-227. Antarctic Ocean Alliance (2012) Antarctic Ocean Legacy: A vision for circumpolar protection. Anticamara, J.A., Watson, R., Gelchu, A., Pauly, D. (2011) Global fishing effort (1950-2010): Trends, gaps, and implications. Fisheries Research 107, 131-136. Ashmole, N.P. (1963) The regulation of numbers of tropical oceanic birds. Ibis 103, 458-473. Bailey, E.P. (1993) Introduction of foxes to Alaskan islands - history, effects on avifauna, and eradication. . Baker, J.D., Littnan, C.L., Johnston, D.W. (2006) Potential effects of sea level rise on the terrestrial habitats of endangered and endemic megafauna in the Northwest Hawaiian Islands. Endangered Species Research 4, 1-10.  88  Ballance, L.T., Pitman, R.L. (1999) Foraging ecology of tropical seabirds. In: Proceedings from the 22nd International Ornithology Congress. (Eds. N.J. Adams, R.H. Slotow), Johannesburg, pp. 2057-2071. Bancroft, W.J., Garkaklis, M.J., Roberts, D.J. (2005) Burrow building in seabird colonies: a soilforming process in island ecosystems. Pedobiologia 49, 149-165. Barbraud, C., Rolland, V., Jenouvrier, S., Nevoux, M., Delord, K., Weimerskirch, H. (2012) Effects of climate change and fisheries bycatch on Southern Ocean seabirds: a review. Marine Ecology Progress Series 454, 285-307. Barrett, R., Anker-Nilssen, T., Rikardsen, F., Valde, K., Røv, N., Vader, W. (1987) The food, growth and fledging success of Norwegian Puffin chicks Fratercula arctica in 1980-1983. Ornis Scandinavica, 73-83. Barrett, R.T., Nilsen, E., B., Anker-Nilssen, T. (2012) Long-term decline in egg size of Atlantic puffins Fratercula arctica is related to changes in forage fish stocks and climate conditions. Marine Ecology Progress Series 457, 1-10. Baum, J., Worm, B. (2009) Cascading top-down effects of changing oceanic predator abundances. Journal of Animal Ecology 78, 699-714. Becker, B.H., Beissinger, S.R. (2006) Centennial decline in the trophic level of an endangered seabird after fisheries decline. Conservation Biology 20, 470-479. Bengston, S.-A. (1984) Breeding ecology and extinction of the Great Auk (Pinguinus impennis): Anecdotal evidence and conjectures. The Auk 101, 1-12. BirdLife International (2004) Tracking ocean wanderers: the global distribution of albatrosses and petrels. Results from the Global Procellariiform Tracking Workshop, 1-5 September, 2003, Gordon's Bay, South Africa. BirdLife International (2012) The global procellariiform tracking database. Boersma, P.D., Clark, J.A., Hillgarth, N. (2002) Seabird Conservation. In: Biology of Marine Birds. (Eds. E.A. Schreiber, J. Burger), CRC Press, pp. 559-579.  89  Bosman, A.L., Du Toit, M., Hockey, P.A.R., Branch, G.M. (1986) A field experiment demonstrating the influence of seabird guano on intertidal primary production. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 23, 283-294. Braune, B.M., Outridge, P.M., Fisk, A.T., et al. (2005) Persistent organic pollutants and mercury in marine biota of the Canadian Arctic: An overview of spatial and temporal trends. Science of the Total Environment 351. Bried, J., Jouventin, P. (2001) Chapter 9: Site and mate choice in seabirds: An evolutionary approach. In: Biolog of marine birds. (Eds. E.A. Schrieber, J. Burger), CRC Press, pp. 263-306. Brimble, S.K., Blais, J.M., Kimpe, L.E., et al. (2009) Bioenrichment of trace elements in a series of ponds near a northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis) colony at Cape Vera, Devon Island. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 66. Brooke, M. (2002) Seabird systematics and distribution: a review of current knowledge. In: Biology of Marine Birds. (Eds. E.A. Schreiber, J. Burger), CRC Press. Brooke, M. (2004a) Albatrosses and Petrels across the World, Vol., Oxford University Press, Oxford. Brooke, M. (2004b) The food consumption of the world's seabirds. The Royal Society Biology Letters 271, S246-S248. Brothers, N.P., Cooper, J., Lokkeborg, S. (1999) The incidental catch of seabirds by longline fisheries: worldwide review and technical guidelines for mitigation. 100. Bunce, A., Norman, F., Brothers, N., Gales, R. (2002) Long-term trends in the Australasian gannet (Morus serrator) population in Australasia: the effect of climate change and commercial fisheries. Marine Biology 141, 263-269. Burger, A.E., Fry, D.M. (1993) Effects of oil pollution on seabirds in the northeast Pacific. Pacific Seabird Group Publication. Burger, A.E., Shaffer, S.A. (2008) Perspectives in Ornithology Application of Tracking and Data-Logging Technology in Research and Conservation of Seabirds. The Auk 125, 253264.  90  Bustnes, J.O., Erikstad, K.E., Skaare, J.U., Bakken, V., Mehlum, F. (2003) Ecological effects of organochlorine pollutants in the Arctic: A study of the Glaucous Gull. Ecological Applications 13, 504-515. Butler, R.W., Foottit, R.G., Verbeek, N.A.M. (1980) Mortality and dispersal of the Glaucouswinged Gulls of southern British Columbia. Canadian Field Naturalist 94, 315-320. Byrd, G.V., Renner, H.M., Renner, M. (2005) Distribution patterns and population trends of breeding seabirds in the Aleutian Islands. Fisheries Oceanography 14, 139-159. Cairns, D.K. (1987) Seabirds as indicators of marine food supplies. Biological Oceanography 5. Camphuysen, K., Shamoun-Baranes, J., Bouten, W., Garthe, S. (In press) Identifying ecologically important marine areas for seabirds using behavioural information in combination with distribution patterns. Biological Conservation. Carney, K.M., Sydeman, W.J. (1999) A review of human disturbance effects on nesting colonial waterbirds. Waterbirds 22, 68-79. Chapdelaine, G., Rail, J.-F. (1997) Relationship between cod fishery activities and the population of herring gulls on the North Shore of the Gulf of St Lawrence, Quebec, Canada. ICES Journal of Marine Science 54, 708-713. Chastel, O., Weimerskirch, H., Jouvetin, P. (1995) Body condition and seabird reproductive performance: a study of three petrel species. Ecology 76, 2240-2246. Chavez, F.P., Ryan, J., Lluch-Cota, S.E., Niquen C., M. (2003) From anchovies to sardines and back: Multidecadal change in the Pacific Ocean. Science 299, 217-221. Circumpolar Seabird Working Group (2001) CAFF Technical Report No. 9: Seabird harvest regimes in the circumpolar nations. Clark, C.W., Lamberson, R. (1982) An economic history and analysis of pelagic whaling. Marine Policy, 103-120. Cox, G.W. (2010) Bird Migration and Global Change, Vol., Island Press.  91  Crawford, R. (2007) Food, fishing and seabirds in the Benguela upwelling system. Journal of Ornithology 148, 253-260. Croll, D.A., Maron, J.L., Estes, J.A., Danner, E.M., Byrd, G.V. (2005) Introduced predators transform subarctic islands from grassland to tundra. Science 307, 1959-1961. Croxall, J.P., Butchart, S.H.M., Lascelles, B., et al. (2012) Seabird conservation status, threats and priority actions: a global assessment. Bird Conservation International 22, 1-34. Croxall, J.P., Evans, P.G.H., Schreiber, E.A. (1984) Status and conservation of the world's seabirds. Paston Press. Croxall, J.P., Nicol, S. (2004) Management of Southern Ocean fisheries: global forces and future sustainability. Antarctic Science 16, 569-584. Cury, P., Bakun, A., Crawford, R.J.M., et al. (2000) Small pelagics in upwelling systems: patterns of interaction and structural changes in "wasp-waist" ecosystems. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57, 603-618. Cury, P.M., Boyd, I.L., Bonhommeau, S., et al. (2011) Global seabird response to forage fish depletion-- One-third for the birds. Science 334, 1703-1706. Cushman, G.T. (2005) The most valuable birds in the world: International conservation science and the revival of peru's guano industry, 1909-1965. Environmental History 10, 477-509. Davoren, G., Penton, P., Burke, C., Montevecchi, W.A. (2012) Water temperature and timing of capelin spawning determine seabird diets. ICES Journal of Marine Science. del Hoyo, J., Elliot, A., Sargatal, J. (1996) Handbook of the Birds of the World, Volume 3: Hoatzin to Auks. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. Delany, S., Scott, D. (2006) Waterbird population estimates, Fourth edition. Egevang, C., Stenhouse, I.J., Phillips, R.A., Petersen, A., Fox, J.W., Silk, J.R.D. (2010) Tracking of Arctic terns Sterna paradisaea reveals longest animal migration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107, 2078-2081.  92  Ellis, J.C. (2005) Marine birds on land: a review of plant biomass, species richness, and community composition in seabird colonies. Plant Ecology 181, 227-241. Evans, M.I., Symens, P., Pilcher, C.W.T. (1993) Short-term Damage to Coastal Bird Populations in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait Following the 1991 Gulf War Marine Pollution. Marine Pollution Bulletin 27, 157-161. FAO (2001) Fishing gear types: Driftnets. . FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department Rome. FAO (2006) State of the world fisheries and aquaculture. Frederiksen, M., Wanless, S., Harris, M.P., Rothery, P., Wilson, L.J. (2004) The role of industrial fisheries and oceanographic change in the decline of North Sea black-legged kittiwakes. Journal of Applied Ecology 41, 1129-1139. Freedman, B., Hutchings, J., Gwynne, D., et al. (2010) Ecology: A Canadian Context, Vol., Nelson College Indigenous. Fréon, P., Cury, P., Shannon, L., Roy, C. (2005) Sustainable exploitation of small pelagic fish stocks challenged by environmental and ecosystem changes: a review. Bulletin of Marine Science 76, 385-462. Froese, R., Zeller, D., Kleisner, K., Pauly, D. (2012) What catch data can tell us about the status of global fisheries. Marine Biology 159, 1283-1292. Furness, R.W. (2003) Impacts of fisheries on seabird communities. Scientia Marina 67, 33-45. Furness, R.W., Camphuysen, C.J. (1997) Seabirds as monitors of the marine environment. ICES Journal of Marine Science 54, 726-737. Furness, R.W., Monaghan, P. (1987) Seabird Ecology (Tertiary Level Biology, Vol., Chapman & Hall, New York. Furness, R.W., Tasker, M. (2000) Seabird-fishery interactions: quantifying the sensitivity of seabirds to reductions in sandeel abundance, and identification of key areas for sensitive seabirds in the North Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 202, 253-264.  93  Gangloff, B., Shirihai, H., Watling, D., et al. (2012) The complete phyolgeny of Pseudobulweria, the most endangered seabird genus: systematics, species status and conservation implications. Conservation Genetics 13, 39-52. Garthe, S., Camphuysen, C.J., Furness, R.W. (1996) Amounts of discards by commercial fisheries and their significance as food for seabrids in the North Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 136, 1-11. Gaston, A.J., Bertram, D.F., Boyne, A.W., et al. (2009) Changes in Canadian seabird populations and ecology since 1970 in relation to changes in oceanography and food webs. Environmental Reviews 17, 267-286. Gaston, A.J., Hipfner, J.M., Campbell, D. (2002) Heat and mosquitoes cause breeding failures and adult mortality in an Arctic-nesting seabird. Ibis 144, 185-191. Gaston, A.J., Jones, I.L., Lewington, I. (1998) The Auks: Alcidae, Vol., Oxford University Press. Gaston, A.J., Woo, K. (2008) Razorbills (Alca torda) follow subarctic prey into the Canadian arctic: colonization results from climate change? The Auk 125, 939-942. Gaston, K.J., Blackburn, T.M. (1997) How many birds are there? Biodiversity and Conservation 6, 615-625. GESAMP (2007) Estimates of oil entering the marine environment from sea-based activities. Gilg, O., Boertmann, D., Merkel, F., Aebischer, A., Sabard, B. (2009) Status of the endangered ivory gull, Pagophila eburnea, in Greenland. Polar Biology 32, 1275-1286. Goya, E., Garica-Godos, A. (2002) Effects of El Nino 1997-98 on the Diet Composition and Numbers of Peruvian Guano-Producing Seabirds. Investigaciones Marinas 30. Gremillet, D., Boulinier, T. (2009) Spatial ecology and conservation of seabirds facing global climate change: a review. Marine Ecology Progress Series 391, 121-137. Grieve, S. (1885) The Great Auk, or Garefowl (Alca impennis Linn.). Its history, archaeology, and remains., Vol., Edinburgh.  94  Hamer, K.C., Schreiber, E.A., Burger, J. (2002) Breeding Biology, Life Histories, and Life History-Environment Interactions in Seabirds. In: Biology of Marine Birds. (Eds. E.A. Schreiber, J. Burger), CRC Press, Boca Raton. Hansen, J., Sato, M., Ruedy, R., Lo, K., Lea, D.W., Medina-Elizade, M. (2006) Global temperature change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103, 14288-14293. Harding, A.M.A., Piatt, J.F., Byrd, G.V., et al. (2005) Variability in colony attendance of crevice-nesting horned puffins: Implications for population monitoring. The Journal of Wildlife Management 69, 1279-1296. Harrison, P. (1987) Seabirds of the World: A Photographic Guide, Vol., Princeton University Press, Princeton. Harrison, P., Pearce, F. (2001) AAAS atlas of populations and environment, Vol., University of California Press, Berkeley. Harvell, C.D., Mitchell, C.E., Ward, J.R., et al. (2002) Climate Warming and Disease Risks for Terrestrial and Marine Biota. Science 296, 2158-2162. Hasegawa, H., DeGange, A.R. (1982) The Short-tailed Albatross, Diomedea albatrus, its status, distribution and natural history. American Birds 36, 806-814. Hipfner, M.J., Blight, L.K., Lowe, R.W., et al. (2012) Unintended consequences: how the recovery of sea eagle Haliaeetus spp. populations in the northern hemisphere is affecting seabirds. Marine Ornithology 40, 39-52. Hipfner, M.J., Greenwood, J.L. (2008) Breeding biology of the Common Murre at Triangle Island, British Columbia, Canada, 2002-2007. Northwestern Naturalist 89, 76-84. Howald, G.R., Donlan, C.J., Galvan, J.P., et al. (2007) Invasive Rodent Eradications on Islands. Conservation Biology 21, 1258-1268. ICES (2000) Report of the Working Group on Seabird Ecology. 72. Igual, J.M., Forero, M.G., Gomez, T., Oro, D. (2007) Can an introduced predator trigger an evolutionary trap in a colonial seabird? Biological Conservation 137, 189-196. 95  IUCN (2011) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Version 2011.2. Jahncke, J., Checkley, D.M., Hunt, G.L. (2004) Trends in carbon flux to seabirds in the Peruvian upwelling system: effects of wind and fisheries on population regulation. Fisheries Oceanography 13, 208-223. Jodice, P.G.R., Suryan, R.M. (2010) The Transboundary Nature of Seabird Ecology Landscape-scale Conservation Planning. (Eds. S.C. Trombulak, R.F. Baldwin), Springer Netherlands, pp. 139-165. Jones, H.P., Kress, S.W. (2011) A review of the world's active seabird restoration projects. The Journal of Wildlife Management 76, 2-9. Jones, H.P., Tershy, B.R., Zavaleta, E.S., et al. (2008) Severity of the Effects of Invasive Rats on Seabirds: A Global Review. Conservation Biology 22, 16-26. Karpouzi, V. (2005) Modelling and mapping trophic overlap between fisheries and the world's seabirds. Master of Science, University of British Columbia, 159 pages. Karpouzi, V., Watson, R., Pauly, D. (2007) Modelling and mapping resource overlap between seabirds and fisheries on a global scale: a preliminary assessment. Marine Ecology Progress Series 3434, 87-99. Kaschner, K., Karpouzi, V., Watson, R., Pauly, D. (2006) Forage fish consumption by marine mammals and seabirds. In: On the multiple uses of forage fish: from ecosystems to markets. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(3). (Eds. J. Alder, D. Pauly). Kelleher, K. (2005) Discards in the world's marine fisheries. An update. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 470, 131. Kitaysky, A.S., Golubova, E.G. (2000) Climate change causes contrasting trends in reproductive performance of planktivorous and piscivorous alcids. Journal of Animal Ecology 69, 248262. Klein, D.R., Baskin, L.M., Bogoslovskaya, L.S., et al. (2010) Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (full report) Section 11.4: Management and conservation of marine mammals and seabirds in the Arctic.  96  Kleisner, K., Pauly, D. (2011) Stock-catch status plots of fisheries for Regional Seas. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 19. Lack, D. (1954) The natural regulation of animal numbers, Vol., Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Laist, D.W. (1997) Impacts of marine debris: entanglement of marine life in marine debris including a comprehensive list of species with entanglement and ingestion records. In: Marine debris: sources, impacts, solutions. (Eds. J.M. Coe, D.B. Rogers), SpringerVerlag, New York, pp. 99-140. Lauck, T., Clark, C.W., Mangel, M., Munro, G.R. (1998) Implementing the precautionary principle in fisheries management through marine reserves. Ecological Applications 8, S72-S78. Lawton, K., Robertson, G., Kirkwood, R., Valencia, J., Schlatter, R., Smith, D. (2006) An estimate of population sizes of burrowing seabirds at the Diego Ramirez archipelago, Chile, using distance sampling and burrow-scoping. Polar Biology 29, 229-238. Le Corre, M., Jaeger, A., Pinet, P., et al. (2012) Tracking seabirds to identify potential Marine Protected Areas in the tropical western Indian Ocean. Biological Conservation. Le Corre, M., Jaquemet, S. (2005) Assessment of the seabird community of the Mozambique Channel and its potential use as an indicator of tuna abundance. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 63, 421-428. Lewison, R.L., Freeman, S.A., Crowder, L.B. (2004) Quantifying the effects of fisheries on threatened species: the impact of pelagic longlines on loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles. Ecology Letters 7, 221-231. Lisnizer, N., Garcia-Borboroglu, P., Yorio, P. (2011) Spatial and temporal variation in population trends of Kelp Gulls in northern Patagonia, Argentina. Emu 111, 259-267. Lotze, H., Worm, B. (2009) Historical baseline for large marine animals. Ecology & Evolution 24, 254-262. Madeiros, J. (2011) Cahow recovery program 2010-2011 Breeding Season Report.  97  Mallory, M.L. (2006) The Northern Fulman (Fulmarus glacialis) in Arctic Canada: ecology, threats, and what it tells us about marine environmental conditions. Environmental Reviews 14, 187-216. Mallory, M.L., Gaston, A.J., Gilchrist, H.G. (2009) Sources of Breeding Season Mortality in Canadian Arctic Seabirds. Arctic 62, 333-341. Miljeteig, C., Gabrielsen, G.W., Strom, H., Gavrilo, M.V., Lie, E., Jenssen, B.M. (2012) Eggshell thinning and decreased concentrations of vitamin E are associated with contaminants in eggs of ivory gulls. Science of the Total Environment 431, 92-99. Millberg, P., Tyrberg, T. (1993) Naive birds and noble savages- a review of man-caused prehistoric extinctions of island birds. Ecography 16, 229-250. Montevecchi, W.A. (2006) Chapter 5: Influences of artificial light on marine birds. . In: Ecological Consequences of Arficial Light on Marine Birds. (Eds. C. Rich, T. Longcore), Island Press, p. 112. Moore, J.E., Zydelis, R. (2008) Quantifying seabird bycatch: where do we go from here? Animal Conservation 11, 257-259. Mulder, C.P.H., Anderson, W.B., Towns, D.R., Bellingham, P.J. (2011) Seabird Islands: Ecology, Invasion, and Restoration. Oxford University Press, USA, p. 492. Mullers, R.H.E., Navarro, R.A., Crawford, R.J.M., Underhill, L.G. (2009) The importance of lipid-rich fish prey for Cape gannet chick growth: are fishery discards an alternative? ICES Journal of Marine Science 66, 2244-2252. Nelson, J.B. (2005) Pelicans, Cormorants and their relatives, Vol., Oxford University Press, Oxford. Nettleship, D.N. (1991) Seabird management and future research. Colonian Waterbirds 14, 7784. Newman, J., Scott, D., Bragg, C., McKechnie, S., Moller, H., Fletcher, D. (2009) Estimating regional population size and annual harvest intensity of the sooty shearwater in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 36, 307-323.  98  O'Hara, P., Morandin, L.A. (2010) Effects of sheens associated with offshore oil and gas development on the feather microstructure of pelagic seabirds. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60, 672-678. Olsen, K.M., Larsson, H. (1997) Skuas and Jaegers: A guide to the Skuas and Jaegers of the World, Vol., Yale University Press. Oreskes, N. (2004) Beyond the ivory tower: the scientific consensus on climate change. Science 306, 1686. Osterblom, H., Olsson, O., Blenckner, T., Furness, R.W. (2008) Junk-food in marine ecosystems. Oikos 117, 967-977. Palomares, M.L.D., Mohammed, E., Pauly, D. (2006) on European expeditions as a source of historic abundance data on marine organisms: A case study on the Falkland Islands. Environmental History 11, 835-847. Parmesan, C. (2006) Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 37, 637-669. Pauly, D. (1995) Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10, 430. Pauly, D. (2007) The Sea Around Us Project: Documenting and Communicating Global Fisheries Impacts on Marine Ecosystems. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 36, 290-295. Peters, J.L. (1979) Checklist of the Birds of the World 2edn Vol., Cambridge, Harvard University Press. Piatt, J., Sydeman, W., Browman, H. (2007a) Seabirds as indicators of marine ecosystems. Marine Ecology Progress Series 352, 199. Piatt, J.F., Ford, R.G. (1996) How many seabirds were killed by the Exxon Valdez oil spill? American Fisheries Soceity Symposium 18, 712-719. Piatt, J.F., Harding, A.M.A., Shultz, M., et al. (2007b) Seabirds as indicators of marine food supplies: Cairns revisited. Marine Ecology Progress Series 352, 221-234. 99  Piatt, J.F., Kuletz, K.J., Burger, A.E., et al. (2007c) Status review of the Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Alaska and British Columbia. 258. Piatt, J.F., Wetzel, J., Bell, K., et al. (2006) Predictable hotspots and foraging habitat of the endangered short-tailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus) in the North Pacific: Implications for conservation. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topcial Studies in Oceanography 53, 387-398. Pikitch, E., Boersma, P.D., Boyd, I.L., et al. (2012) Little fish, big impact: Managing a crucial link in ocean food webs. 108. Pimm, S.L., Jones, H.L., Diamond, J. (1988) On the risk of extinction. The American Naturalist 132, 757-785. Polis, G.A., Anderson, W.B., Holt, R.D. (1997) Towards an integration of landscape and food web ecology: the dynamics of spatially subsidized food webs. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28, 289-316. Pompa, S., Ehrlich, P.R., Ceballos, G. (2011) Global distribution and conservation of marine mammals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, 13600-13605. Poole, A. (2005) The Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, N.Y. Powell, G., V.N., Fourqurean, J.W., Kenworthy, W.J., Zieman, J.C. (1991) Bird colonies cause seagrass enrichment in a subtropical estuary: Observational and experimental evidence. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 32, 567-579. Puckett, C., Peterjohn, B., Klavitter, J. (2011) Oldest known wild bird in U.S. returns to Midway to raise chick. (Ed. U.S.G.S. U.S. Department of the Interior), Reston, VA. Rains, D., Weimerskirch, H., Burg, T.M. (2011) Piecing together the global population puzzle of the wandering albatrosses: genetic analysis of the Amsterdam albatross Diomedea amsterdamensis. Avian Biology 42, 69-79. Ratcliffe, N., Bell, M., Pelembe, T., et al. (2009) The eradication of feral cats from Ascension Island and its subsequent recolonization by seabirds. Oryx 44, 20-29.  100  Regehr, H.M., Rodway, M.S., Lemon, M.J.F., Hipfner, M.J. (2007) Recovery of the Ancient Murrelet Synthliboramphus antiquus colony on Langara Island, British Columbia, following eradication of invasive rats. Marine Ornithology 35, 137-144. Riddick, S.N., Dragosits, U., Blackall, T.D., Daunt, F., Wanless, S., Sutton, M.A. (2012) The global distribution of ammonia emissions from seabird colonies. Atmospheric Environment 55, 319-327. Robertson, I. (1977) Low seabird densities in the pelagic environment of the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia. Pacific Science 31, 279-283. Romero, S. (2008) Peru guards its guano as demand soars again. In: New York Times. Rose, G.A. (2004) Reconciling overfishing and climate change with stock dynamics of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) over 500 years. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61, 1553-1557. Russell, R.W. (1999) Comparative demography and life history tactics of seabirds: implications for conservation and marine monitoring. American Fisheries Society Symposium 23, 5176. Safina, C. (2011) The 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil well blowout: A little hindsight. PLoS Biology 9. Scarton, F. (2010) Long term decline of a Common Tern (Sterna hirundo) Population Nesting in Salt Marshes in Venice Lagoon, Italy. Wetlands 30, 1153-1159. Sekercioglu, C.H., Daily, G.C., Ehrlich, P.R. (2004) Ecosystem consequences of bird declines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101, 18042-18047. Shealer, D. (2002) Foraging behavior and food of seabirds. In: Biology of Marine Birds. (Eds. E.A. Schreiber, J. Burger), CRC Press, pp. 137-177. Spear, L.B., Ainley, D.G. (2007) The seabird community of the Peru Current, 1980-1995, with comparison to other eastern boundary currents. Marine Ornithology 36, 125-144.  101  Steadman, D.W. (1997) Extinctions of Polynesian birds: reciprocal impacts of birds and people. In: Historical ecology in the Pacific islands. (Eds. P.V. Kirch, T.L. Hunt), Yale University Press, New Haven, pp. 51-79. Stemmler, I., Lammel, G. (2009) Cycling of DDT in the global environment 1950-2002: World ocean returns the pollutant. Geophysical Research Letters 36. Swartz, W., Sala, E., Tracey, S., Watson, R., Pauly, D. (2010) The Spatial Expansion and Ecological Footprint of Fisheries (1950 to present). PLoS ONE 5. Swatschek, I., Ristow, D., Wink, M. (2008) Mate fidelity and parentage in Cory's shearwater Calonectris diomediedae - field studies and DNA fingerprinting. Molecular Ecology 3, 259-262. Sydeman, W.J., Hester, M.M., Thayer, J.A., Gress, F., Martin, P., Buffa, J. (2001) Climat change, reproductive performance and diet composition of marine birds in the southern California Current system, 1969-1997. Progress in Oceanography 49, 309-329. Tasker, M., Camphuysen, C.J., Cooper, J., Garthe, S., Montevecchi, W.A., Blaber, S.J.M. (2000) The impacts of fishing on marine birds. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57, 531-547. Trites, A.W., Miller, A.J., Maschner, H.D.G., et al. (2007) Bottom-up forcing and the decline of Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) in Alaska: assessing the ocean climate hypothesis. Fisheries Oceanography 16, 46-67. Trivelpiece, W.Z., Hinke, J.T., Miller, A.K., Reiss, C.S., Trivelpiece, S.G., Watters, G.M. (2011) Variability in krill biomass links harvesting and climate warming to penguin population changes in Antarctica. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, 7625-7628. Vermeer, K. (1963) The breeding ecology of the Glaucous-winged Gull (Larus glaucescens) on Mandarte Island, B.C. Occasional Papers of the British Columbia Provincial Museum 13, 1-104. Vermeer, K. (1981) The importance of plankton to breeding Cassin's Auklets. Journal of Plankton Research 3, 315-329. Votier, S.C., Archibald, K., Morgan, L. (2011) The use of plastic debris as nesting material by a colonial seabird and associated entanglement mortality. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62, 168-172. 102  Votier, S.C., Furness, R.W., Bearhop, S., et al. (2004) Changes in fisheries discard rates and seabird communities. Nature 427, 727-730. Wagner, E.L., Boersma, P.D. (2011) Effects of Fisheries on Seabird Community Ecology. Reviews in Fisheries Science 19, 157-167. [In English]. Walther, G.-R., Post, E., Coney, P., et al. (2002) Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature 416. Wanless, S., Harris, M.P., Redman, P., Speakman, J.R. (2005) Low energy values of fish as a probable cause of a major seabird breeding failure in the North Sea. Marine EcologyProgress Series 294, 1-8. [In English]. Weimerskirch, H. (2002) Seabird demography and its relationship with the marine environment. In: Biology of marine birds. (Eds. E.A. Schreiber, J. Burger), CRC Press, pp. 115-133. Weimerskirch, H. (2004) Diseases threaten Southern Ocean albatrosses. Polar Biology 27, 374379. Weimerskirch, H. (2007) Are seabirds foraging for unpredictable resources? Deep Sea Research Part II: Topcial Studies in Oceanography 54, 211-223. Weimerskirch, H., Louzao, M., de Grissac, S., Delord, K. (2012) Changes in wind pattern alter ablatross distribution and life-history traits. Science 335, 211-214. Wiese, F.K., Robertson, G.J. (2004) Assessing seabird mortality from chronic oil discharges at sea. Journal of Wildlife Management 68, 627-638. Williams, T.D. (1997) The Penguins. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Wooller, R.D., Bradley, J.S., Croxall, J.P. (1992) Long-term population studies of seabirds. Trends in Ecology &amp; Evolution 7, 111-114. World Health Organization (1990) Public health impacts of pesticides used in agriculture. Worm, B., Barbier, E.B., Beaumont, N., et al. (2006) Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services. Science 314, 787-790. 103  Zeller, D., Pauly, D. (2005) Good news, bad news: global fisheries discards are declining, but so are total catches. Fish and Fisheries 6, 156-159. Zydelis, R., Bellebaum, J., Osterblom, H., et al. (2009) Bycatch in gillnet fisheries- An overlooked threat to waterbird populations. Biological Conservation 142, 1269-1281.  104  Appendices  Appendix I. List of all seabird species considered in the present study, along with attributes from the Sea Around Us Project global seabird database. References are available upon request. Taxaa  Common name  Mass (g)b  Culmen; tarsus; wing (cm)b  Clutch (# of eggs)  Incub.; fledging; breeding (days)  Marine habitatc  Main forage method  Dive abilitye  Discards in dietf  Fish in dietg  Historical pop.; modern pop. (103 individuals)h  d  Avg. pop. data timeseries (years between records)i  SPHENISCIFORMES Spheniscidae Aptenodytes forsteri  Emperor penguin  33360  One  64; 190; 274  P  PD  0  0  2  741; 706  30  Aptenodytes patagonicus  King penguin  12654  One  53; 335; 408  P  PD  0  0  2  1831; 5197  31  Eudyptes chrysocome  Rockhopper penguin  2812  43; 19;  Multi  35; 68; 123  O  PD  0  0  1  26317; 5140  22  Eudyptes chrysolophus  Macaroni penguin  4601  58; 26;  Multi  39; 60; 119  O  PD  0  0  1  26828; 30911  22  Eudyptes pachyrhynchus  Fiordland penguin  3400  48; 24;  Multi  36; 75; 131  I  PD  0  0  1  26; 10  8  Eudyptes robustus  Snares penguin  2800  55; 26;  Multi  37; 75; 132  I  PD  0  0  1  80; 119  8  Eudyptes schlegeli  Royal penguin  5700  62; 31;  Multi  37; 40; 97  O  PD  0  0  2  3600; 1697  27  Eudyptes sclateri  Erect-crested penguin  5400  56; 24;  Multi  35; 75; 130  O  PD  0  0  1  829; 292  18  Eudyptula minor  Blue penguin  2100  Multi  50; 63; 133  I  PD  0  0  2  599; 550  15  Megadyptes antipodes  Yellow-eyed penguin  5500  One  44; 35; 99  I  PD  0  0  2  9; 9  6  Pygoscelis adeliae  Adelie penguin  4470  Multi  34; 54; 108  O  PD  0  0  1  9848; 8135  14  Pygoscelis antarctica  Chinstrap penguin  4354  Multi  35; 53; 108  O  PD  0  0  0  23921; 8454  21  Pygoscelis papua  Gentoo penguin  6121  Multi  36; 29; 85  I  PD  0  0  1  1115; 1102  26  Spheniscus demersus  Jackass penguin  3100  Multi  38; 80; 138  I  PD  0  0  2  1528; 91  56  Spheniscus humboldti  Humboldt penguin  4500  Multi  41; 60; 121  I  PD  0  0  2  31; 37  20  Spheniscus magellanicus  Magellanic penguin  4100  Multi  40; 60; 120  O  PD  0  1  2  5091; 2832  15  Spheniscus mendiculus  Galapagos penguin  2500  Multi  39; 63; 122  C  PD  0  0  2  3; 1  40  Diomedea amsterdamensis  Amsterdam albatross  8000  144; 113; 640  One  79; 235; 334  F  SS  4  0  1  <0.1; <0.1  26  Diomedea antipodensis  Antipodean albatross  7350  ; ; 640  One  79; 271; 370  F  SS  4  0  1  40; 26  29  Diomedea dabbenena  Tristan albatross  6900  One  79; 271; 370  F  SS  4  0  1  7; 6  52  Diomedea epomophora  Southern Royal albatross  8900  One  79; 241; 340  F  SS  4  1  1  8; 26  29  PROCELLARIIFORMES Diomedeidae  ; 126; 682  105  Diomedea exulans  Wandering albatross  8810  166; 151; 683  One  79; 271; 370  F  SS  4  1  1  38; 21  41  Diomedea gibsoni  Gibson's albatross  6800  148; 116; 647  One  79; 271; 370  F  SS  4  0  1  25; 19  45  Diomedea sanfordi  Northern Royal albatross  6670  ; ; 640  One  79; 240; 339  F  SS  4  1  1  17; 23  1  Phoebastria albatrus  Short-tailed albatross  4000  ; ; 213  One  49; 180; 249  F  SS  4  1  1  300; 3  36 29  Phoebastria immutabilis  Laysan albatross  2850  ; ; 203  One  65; 165; 250  F  SS  4  1  1  297; 1380  Phoebastria irrorata  Waved albatross  2300  146; ; 219  One  60; 150; 230  F  SS  4  1  1  10; 35  28  Phoebastria nigripes  Black-footed albatross  3000  127; 97; 213  One  65; 146; 231  F  SS  4  1  2  27; 196  32  Phoebetria fusca  Sooty albatross  2600  111; 81; 518  One  67; 152; 239  F  SS  4  0  1  44; 58  25  Phoebetria palpebrata  Light-mantled albatross  3016  106; 84; 551  One  67; 152; 239  F  SS  3  0  1  71; 78  28  Thalassarche bulleri  Buller's albatross  2700  ; ; 515  One  72; 167; 259  F  SS  4  1  2  51; 105  17  Thalassarche carteri  Indian yellow-nosed albatross  2520  ; ; 475  One  71; 115; 206  F  SS  4  0  2  87; 97  20  Thalassarche cauta  Shy albatross  4000  128; 93; 563  One  75; 120; 215  F  SS  3  1  2  245; 189  21  Thalassarche chlororhynchos  Yellow-nosed albatross  2060  116; 77; 476  One  71; 115; 206  F  SS  4  0  2  44; 121  43  Thalassarche chrysostoma  Grey-headed albatross  3553  112; 87; 520  One  73; 141; 234  F  SS  3  0  1  213; 284  27  Thalassarche eremita  Chatham albatross  3770  ; ; 565  One  68; 165; 253  F  SS  4  0  2  12; 13  28  Thalassarche impavida  Campbell albatross  3100  ; ; 515  One  68; 125; 213  F  SS  4  1  2  103; 74  37  Thalassarche melanophris  Black-browed albatross  3755  119; 88; 522  One  68; 125; 213  F  SS  3  1  2  3604; 2298  28  Thalassarche salvini  Salvin's albatross  4000  ; ; 575  One  72; 120; 212  F  SS  4  1  2  254; 117  17  990  22; 28; 204  16  Procellariidae Bulweria bulwerii  Bulwer's petrel  Bulweria fallax  Jouanin's petrel  Calonectris diomedea  Cory's shearwater  Calonectris edwardsii  Cape Verde shearwater  Calonectris leucomelas  Streaked shearwater  600  54; 53; 351 43; 48; 313  550  One  44; 62; 126  F  SS  3  0  2  714; 406  One  44; 62; 126  F  SS  4  0  0  5; 5  0  One  51; 91; 162  F  SS  3  1  1  2094; 1191  15  One  42; 80; 142  F  SS  4  0  2  33; 33  3  One  64; 80; 164  F  SS  4  1  2  9142; 9109  13  Daption capense  Cape petrel  441  16; 18; 260  One  45; 47; 112  F  SS  4  1  1  1021; 703  13  Fulmarus glacialis  Northern fulmar  580  55; 51; 330  One  48; 53; 121  F  SS  4  1  2  25859; 20008  28  Fulmarus glacialoides  Southern fulmar  784  41; 52; 328  One  45; 52; 117  F  SS  4  1  2  5402; 1117  16  Halobaena caerulea  Blue petrel  197  27; 33; 194  One  46; 43; 109  F  SS  3  0  1  3056; 6159  12  Lugensa brevirostris  Kerguelen petrel  324  27; 40; 260  One  49; 61; 130  F  PLD  3  1  1  33347; 692  17  Macronectes giganteus  Southern Giant petrel  4735  33; 27; 535  One  61; 122; 203  F  SC  4  1  1  158; 160  24  Macronectes halli  Northern Giant petrel  4541  ; ; 514  One  59; 122; 201  F  SC  4  1  1  41; 35  23  Pachyptila belcheri  Thin-billed prion  137  25; 34; 181  One  47; 50; 117  F  SS  3  0  1  9361; 9361  20  Pachyptila crassirostris  Fulmar prion  126  ; ; 173  One  47; 50; 117  P  SS  4  0  1  301; 147  11  Pachyptila desolata  Antarctic prion  156  27; 34; 187  One  45; 51; 116  F  SS  4  0  1  86876; 83512  9  Pachyptila salvini  Salvin's prion  166  32; 34; 190  One  49; 61; 131  F  SS  4  0  1  17852; 17522  13  Pachyptila turtur  Fairy prion  140  22; 33; 181  One  47; 48; 115  P  SS  4  0  1  3687; 3966  10  Pachyptila vittata  Broad-billed prion  240  ; ; 203  One  56; 53; 129  P  SS  4  0  1  36300; 9075  21  Pagodroma nivea  Snow petrel  294  21; 35; 276  One  43; 48; 111  P  PLD  3  0  2  2204; 265  13  Procellaria aequinoctialis  White-chinned petrel  1254  ; ; 385  One  59; 96; 175  F  PLD  2  1  2  9326; 3494  27  Procellaria cinerea  Grey petrel  1090  47; 61; 344  One  61; 147; 228  F  PLD  3  1  1  1883; 228  28  106  Procellaria consipicillata  Spectacled petrel  Procellaria parkinsoni  Parkinson's petrel  ; ; 383  One  57; 110; 187  F  PLD  3  1  1  <0.1; 31  680  ; ; 343  One  56; 122; 198  F  PLD  3  0  0  3; 8  Procellaria westlandica  Westland petrel  Pseudobulweria aterrima Pseudobulweria becki  54 16  1200  ; ; 381  One  68; 130; 218  F  PLD  2  1  2  6; 7  41  Mascarene petrel  216  28; 39; 244  Beck's petrel  143  Pseudobulweria macgillivrayi  Fiji petrel  143  Pseudobulweria rostrata  Tahiti petrel  442  One  55; 95; 170  P  SS  4  0  1  1; <0.1  9  One  55; 95; 170  P  SS  4  0  1  <0.1; <0.1  0  One  55; 95; 170  P  SS  4  0  1  <0.1; <0.1  0  37; 50; 302  One  55; 95; 170  P  SS  4  0  1  37; 37  0  One  53; 93; 166  F  PLD  3  0  1  106; 31  27  ; ; 268  One  50; 90; 160  F  SS  4  0  1  4; 4  0  One  50; 90; 160  P  SS  4  0  1  53; 70  12  Pterodroma alba  Phoenix petrel  270  Pterodroma arminjoniana  Trindade petrel  460  Pterodroma atrata  Henderson petrel  Pterodroma axillaris  Chatham Island petrel  200  24; 31; 219  One  47; 85; 152  P  SS  4  0  1  3; <0.1  27  Pterodroma baraui  Barau's petrel  434  34; 39; 295  One  55; 110; 185  F  SS  4  1  2  5; 17  26  Pterodroma brevipes  Collared petrel  136  One  50; 95; 165  P  SS  4  0  1  30; 30  0  Pterodroma cahow  Bermuda petrel  246  One  52; 92; 164  P  SS  4  0  1  <0.1; <0.1  57  One  50; 95; 165  P  SS  4  0  1  <0.1; <0.1  0  One  50; 115; 185  F  PLD  3  0  1  33; 165  18 27  Pterodroma caribbaea  Jamaica petrel  Pterodroma cervicalis  White-necked petrel  540  Pterodroma cookii  Cook's petrel  200  ; ; 234  One  47; 87; 154  F  SS  4  0  1  74; 1300  Pterodroma defilippiana  De Filippi's petrel  159  ; ; 235  One  50; 95; 165  F  SS  4  0  1  11; 11  15  Pterodroma externa  Juan Fernandez petrel  430  38; 41; 318  One  50; 95; 165  F  PD  2  0  1  3283; 3000  18  Pterodroma feae  Cape Verde petrel  311  One  50; 95; 165  F  SS  4  0  1  1; 3  37  Pterodroma hasitata  Black-capped petrel  278  One  54; 100; 174  F  SS  4  1  1  23; 4  29  Pterodroma heraldica  Herald petrel  320  One  50; 90; 160  P  SS  4  0  1  104; 27  24  Pterodroma hypoleuca  Bonin petrel  240  One  49; 82; 151  F  SS  4  0  2  1093; 1093  10  Pterodroma incerta  Atlantic petrel  520  ; ; 324  One  50; 90; 160  F  SS  4  0  1  3301; 5940  30  Pterodroma inexpectata  Mottled petrel  323  ; ; 257  One  50; 105; 175  F  SS  4  0  1  132; 1188  23  Pterodroma lessonii  White-headed petrel  732  39; 47; 313  One  61; 107; 188  F  SS  4  0  1  791; 792  21  Pterodroma leucoptera  Gould's petrel  220  ; ; 226  One  49; 84; 153  F  SS  4  0  0  12; 14  35  Pterodroma longirostris  Stejneger's petrel  170  25; 29; 220  One  53; 90; 163  F  SS  4  0  1  430; 430  0  Pterodroma macroptera  Great-winged petrel  576  37; 43; 318  One  56; 118; 194  P  SS  4  0  1  6506; 2026  17  Pterodroma madeira  Madeira petrel  312  One  52; 92; 164  P  SS  4  0  1  <0.1; <0.1  23  Pterodroma magentae  Magenta petrel  510  33; 41; 305  One  52; 90; 162  F  SS  4  0  1  3; <0.1  27  Pterodroma mollis  Soft-plumaged petrel  291  29; 36; 254  One  50; 91; 161  F  SS  4  1  0  33129; 1501  13  Pterodroma neglecta  Kermadec petrel  590  One  52; 130; 202  F  SS  4  1  1  635; 36  23  Pterodroma nigripennis  Black-winged petrel  200  Pterodroma phaeopygia  Galapagos petrel  410  Pterodroma pycrofti  Pycroft's petrel  200  Pterodroma sandwichensis  Hawaiian Dark-rumped petrel  450  24; 29; 227 ; ; 218  One  45; 85; 150  F  SS  4  0  0  1050; 8741  15  One  52; 90; 162  F  PD  2  0  2  33; 15  33  One  45; 80; 145  F  SS  4  0  1  7; 14  16  One  55; 119; 194  F  SS  4  0  1  2; 24  36 18  Pterodroma solandri  Providence petrel  430  One  56; 100; 176  F  SS  4  1  2  3630; 100  Pterodroma ultima  Murphy's petrel  360  31; 40; 278  One  50; 90; 160  F  SS  4  0  1  877; 877  11  Puffinus assimilis  Little shearwater  238  27; 43; 196  One  58; 75; 153  F  PLD  3  0  1  3930; 1693  14  Puffinus auricularis  Townsend's shearwater  400  One  51; 100; 171  P  PLD  3  0  2  3; <0.1  27  107  Puffinus bulleri  Buller's shearwater  410  41; 50; 287  One  51; 100; 171  F  SS  4  0  2  2500; 2500  0  Puffinus carneipes  Flesh-footed shearwater  750  ; 56; 325  One  60; 92; 172  F  PLD  3  1  2  2712; 522  27  Puffinus creatopus  Pink-footed shearwater  720  One  52; 90; 162  F  PLD  3  0  2  76; 74  11  Puffinus gavia  Fluttering shearwater  420  ; ; 201  One  52; 90; 162  P  PLD  3  0  2  2333; 330  27  Puffinus gravis  Greater shearwater  950  70; 57; 336  One  57; 105; 182  F  PLD  3  1  2  16830; 3234  22  Puffinus griseus  Sooty shearwater  869  41; 57; 300  One  53; 97; 170  F  PLD  1  1  2  12674; 20452  20  Puffinus heinrothi  Heinroth's shearwater  One  52; 90; 162  P  PLD  3  0  2  1; 1  0  Puffinus huttoni  Hutton's shearwater  370  ; ; 218  One  50; 84; 154  F  PLD  3  0  2  74; 325  24  Puffinus lherminieri  Audubon's shearwater  230  29; 42; 208  One  51; 75; 146  P  SS  2  1  1  313; 285  15  Puffinus mauretanicus  Balearic shearwater  502  38; 50; 251  One  50; 72; 142  F  PLD  2  1  2  17; 6  20  Puffinus nativitatis  Christmas shearwater  340  32; 49; 262  Puffinus newelli  Newell's shearwater  390  One  52; 96; 168  F  PLD  3  0  2  139; 27  24  One  66; 110; 196  F  PLD  3  0  2  20; 36  32  Puffinus opisthomelas  Black-vented shearwater  410  One  50; 69; 139  P  PLD  2  0  2  26; 250  24  Puffinus pacificus  Wedge-tailed shearwater  570  40; 51; 310  One  53; 115; 188  F  PLD  2  0  2  9334; 10839  21  Puffinus puffinus  Manx shearwater  580  35; 46; 244  One  51; 69; 140  P  PLD  2  0  2  834; 1227  22  Puffinus tenuirostris  Short-tailed shearwater  543  47; 50; 278  One  55; 94; 169  F  PLD  1  0  2  27572; 44639  6  Puffinus yelkouan  Levantine shearwater  420  One  52; 72; 144  F  PLD  3  0  2  91; 47  17  Thalassoica antarctica  Antarctic petrel  695  ; ; 312  One  46; 45; 111  P  PLD  3  0  1  6812; 6668  14  17  Hydrobatidae Fregetta grallaria  White-bellied storm petrel  60  ; ; 167  One  40; 68; 128  P  SS  4  0  0  48; 140  Fregetta tropica  Black-bellied storm petrel  52  16; 43; 171  One  38; 69; 127  P  SS  4  0  2  435; 442  8  Garrodia nereis  Grey-backed storm petrel  33  13; 32; 127  One  45; 75; 140  P  SS  4  0  0  161; 175  11  One  41; 66; 127  P  SS  4  0  0  334; 300  22  12; 22; 124  One  41; 66; 127  P  SS  3  1  2  1687; 2252  20  One  45; 70; 135  P  SS  4  0  2  12; 2  21 22  Halocyptena microsoma  Least storm petrel  20  Hydrobates pelagicus  European storm petrel  30  Nesofregetta fuliginosa  White-throated storm petrel  115  Oceanites gracilis  White-vented storm petrel  30  One  45; 70; 135  P  SS  4  1  1  3; 3  Oceanites oceanicus  Wilson's storm petrel  38  12; 35; 143  One  50; 127; 197  P  SS  4  1  2  11139; 10457  8  Oceanodroma castro  Madeiran storm petrel  40  15; 24; 158  One  42; 65; 127  P  SS  4  0  1  154; 98  16  Oceanodroma furcata  Forked-tailed storm petrel  60  One  40; 58; 118  P  SS  4  0  2  4136; 3894  12  Oceanodroma homochroa  Ashy storm petrel  39  One  45; 84; 149  P  SS  4  0  2  10; 24  32  Oceanodroma hornbyi  Hornby's storm petrel  50  One  43; 55; 118  P  SS  4  0  1  14; 14  0  Oceanodroma leucorhoa  Leach's storm petrel  50  One  43; 79; 142  P  SS  3  0  2  10572; 24019  16  16; 25; 154  Oceanodroma markhami  Markham's storm petrel  60  One  45; 75; 140  P  SS  4  0  2  <0.1; 11  2  Oceanodroma matsudairae  Matsudaira's storm petrel  62  One  45; 75; 140  P  SS  4  1  1  20; 20  0  Oceanodroma melania  Black storm petrel  59  ; ; 172  One  50; 80; 150  P  SS  4  1  1  14; 14  18  Oceanodroma monorhis  Swinhoe's storm petrel  40  15; 24; 152  One  45; 75; 140  P  SS  4  0  1  66; 57  22  Oceanodroma tethys  Wedge-rumped storm petrel  20  One  42; 70; 132  P  SS  4  1  1  201; 661  16  Oceanodroma tristrami  Tristram's storm petrel  84  19; 30; 110  One  45; 75; 140  P  SS  4  0  1  25; 25  10  Pelagodroma marina  White-faced storm petrel  70  17; 44; 161  One  59; 67; 146  P  SS  4  0  1  3670; 3460  19  108  Pelecanoididae Pelecanoides garnotii  Peruvian diving petrel  202  One  55; 50; 125  O  PD  1  0  2  1322; 49  18  Pelecanoides georgicus  South Georgia diving petrel  124  ; ; 117  One  47; 49; 116  O  PD  1  0  1  24931; 18086  8  Pelecanoides magellani  Magellanic diving petrel  160  ; ; 126.5  One  55; 50; 125  O  PD  1  0  1  32; 32  0  Pelecanoides urinatrix  Common diving petrel  147  ; ; 124.5  One  54; 54; 127  O  PD  1  0  0  34669; 29767  10  19  PELECANIFORMES Phaethontidae Phaethon aethereus  Red-billed tropicbird  700  62; 30; 310  One  44; 90; 154  P  PLD  3  0  2  22; 18  Phaethon lepturus  White-tailed tropicbird  320  64; 47; 286  One  42; 85; 147  P  SS  3  0  2  68; 61  19  Phaethon rubricauda  Red-tailed tropicbird  850  62; 28; 219  One  43; 85; 148  P  PLD  3  0  2  138; 135  17  11  Pelecanidae Pelecanus conspicillatus  Australian pelican  6800  Multi  35; 90; 145  C  SS  4  0  2  3; 3  Pelecanus crispus  Dalmatian pelican  10000  437; 131; 716  Multi  34; 85; 139  C  SS  4  0  2  8; 5  9  Pelecanus erythrorhynchos  American White pelican  5900  381; 119; 622  Multi  30; 60; 110  I  SS  4  0  2  1; 54  21  289; 80; 514  Pelecanus occidentalis  Brown pelican  3200  Pelecanus thagus  Peruvian pelican  3200  Pelecanus onocrotalus  Great White pelican  9000  Pelecanus philippensis  Spot-billed pelican  4650  Pelecanus rufescens  Pink-backed pelican  6200  330; 102; 610 330; 93; 595  Multi  30; 80; 130  I  PLD  3  1  2  264; 173  18  Multi  30; 80; 130  I  SS  3  0  2  356; 165  34  Multi  31; 70; 121  C  SS  4  0  2  87; 94  19  Multi  31; 120; 171  C  SS  4  0  2  4; 6  24  Multi  35; 75; 130  C  SS  4  0  2  7; 8  19  36  Phalacrocoracidae Compsohalieus harrisi  Flightless cormorant  3390  Multi  35; 55; 110  C  PD  2  0  2  9; 9  Compsohalieus neglectus  Bank cormorant  1800  Multi  30; 50; 100  C  PD  2  0  2  2; 2  29  Compsohalieus penicillatus  Brandt's cormorant  2300  Multi  29; 49; 98  C  PD  2  0  2  32; 9  14  Euleucocarbo carunculatus  New Zealand King shag  2500  Euleucocarbo chalconotus  Stewart Island shag  3880  Euleucocarbo colensoi  Auckland Island shag  Euleucocarbo onslowi  Chatham Island shag  66; 75; 301  Multi  30; 50; 100  C  PD  2  0  2  202; 285  18  Multi  30; 50; 100  C  PD  2  0  2  4; <0.1  23  ; ; 267  Multi  32; 52; 104  C  PD  2  0  2  8; 6  20  1790  ; ; 277  Multi  30; 50; 100  C  PD  2  0  2  4; 2  26  ; ; 286  Euleucocarbo ranfurlyi  Bounty Island shag  2900  Hypoleucos auritus  Double-crested cormorant  2600  Multi  30; 50; 100  C  PD  2  0  2  4; 1  27  Multi  28; 56; 104  C  PLD  2  0  2  2; 1  21  Hypoleucos brasiliensis  Neotropic cormorant  1070  Multi  25; 63; 108  C  PLD  2  Hypoleucos fuscicollis  Indian cormorant  790  Multi  30; 50; 100  C  PLD  2  0  2  343; 588  2  0  2  187; 172  Hypoleucos sulcirostris  Little Black cormorant  1200  Multi  30; 50; 100  C  PD  2  0  4  2  9; 10  10  Hypoleucos varius  Pied cormorant  1900  Multi  53; 60; 133  C  PD  2  Leucocarbo bougainvillii  Guanay cormorant  1800  Multi  30; 50; 100  I  PD  2  1  2  32; 27  22  0  2  30; 45  30  109  Leucocarbo capensis  Cape cormorant  Leucocarbo nigrogularis  Socotra cormorant  1310 71; 74; 292  Microcarbo africanus  Long-tailed cormorant  600  Microcarbo coronatus  Crowned cormorant  780  Microcarbo melanoleucos  Little Pied cormorant  900  Microcarbo niger  Little cormorant  530  31; 36; 210 ; ; 233  Multi  28; 49; 97  I  PD  2  0  2  13821; 801  44  Multi  28; 48; 96  I  PLD  2  0  2  117; 292  10  Multi  25; 35; 80  C  PD  2  0  2  1008; 706  40  Multi  23; 35; 78  C  PD  2  0  2  7; 5  28  Multi  30; 50; 100  C  PD  2  0  2  12; 6  2  Multi  30; 50; 100  C  PD  2  0  2  77; 77  4  Microcarbo pygmaeus  Pygmy cormorant  640  30; 38; 204  Multi  30; 70; 120  C  PD  2  0  2  4; 42  16  Nesocarbo campbelli  Campbell shag  2000  ; ; 270  Multi  31; 49; 100  C  PD  2  0  2  46; 68  25  Notocarbo atriceps  Imperial shag  2841  ; ; 273  Multi  31; 49; 100  C  PD  1  1  2  4; 8  4  Notocarbo bransfieldensis  Antarctic shag  3022  ; ; 325  Multi  31; 45; 96  C  PD  0  0  2  202; 202  24 23  Notocarbo georgianus  South Georgia shag  2883  ; ; 287  Multi  29; 65; 114  C  PD  0  0  2  39; 36  Notocarbo verrucosus  Kerguelen shag  2630  55; 67; 286  Multi  31; 49; 100  C  PD  0  0  2  28; 23  5  Phalacrocorax albiventer  King cormorant  2910  61; 67; 295  Multi  31; 49; 100  C  PD  2  0  2  23; 35  14  Phalacrocorax capillatus  Japanese cormorant  3100  Multi  34; 40; 94  C  PD  2  0  2  7; 302  11  Phalacrocorax carbo  Great cormorant  2500  70; 74; 357  Multi  30; 53; 103  C  PD  0  0  2  13; 24  22  Phalacrocorax purpurascens  Macquarie shag  2910  57; 65; 302  Multi  33; 49; 102  C  PD  2  0  2  485; 1038  20  Strictocarbo aristotelis  European shag  1600  57; 63; 265  Multi  34; 53; 107  C  PD  0  0  2  3; 2  19  Strictocarbo featherstoni  Pitt Island shag  1330  ; ; 315  Strictocarbo gaimardi  Red-legged cormorant  1300  Strictocarbo magellanicus  Rock cormorant  Strictocarbo pelagicus  Pelagic cormorant  Strictocarbo punctatus Strictocarbo urile  Multi  30; 50; 100  C  PD  1  0  2  275; 306  21  Multi  36; 56; 112  C  PD  1  0  2  4; 1  12  Multi  30; 50; 100  C  PD  2  0  2  19; 22  9  1868  Multi  30; 45; 95  C  PD  1  0  2  33; 244  13  Spotted shag  1600  Multi  32; 62; 114  I  PD  1  0  2  343; 352  19  Red-faced cormorant  2050  Multi  33; 59; 112  C  PD  1  0  2  342; 216  23  Fregata andrewsi  Christmas Island frigatebird  1550  One  54; 177; 251  O  SS  4  0  2  2; 2  23  Fregata aquila  Ascension frigatebird  1250  One  51; 180; 251  O  SS  4  0  2  12; 19  57  Fregata ariel  Lesser frigatebird  1110  One  50; 179; 249  O  SS  4  1  2  435; 146  24  Fregata magnificens  Magnificent frigatebird  1670  142; 76; 635  One  59; 165; 244  O  SS  4  1  2  259; 251  17  Fregata minor  Great frigatebird  1890  104; 85; 555  One  55; 169; 244  O  SS  4  1  1  329; 116  14  53; 55; 253  Fregatidae  Sulidae Morus serrator  Australasian gannet  2300  89; ; 463  One  44; 102; 166  O  PLD  2  0  2  78; 279  39  Morus bassanus  Northern gannet  3070  100; 55; 435  One  44; 91; 155  O  PLD  2  1  2  324; 1335  32  Morus capensis  Cape gannet  2700  93; ; 479  One  44; 97; 161  O  PLD  2  1  2  634; 455  52  Sula abbotti  Abbott's booby  1460  113; 41; 455  One  57; 168; 245  O  PLD  2  0  2  2; 6  29  108; 62; 444  Sula dactylatra  Masked booby  2100  Sula granti  Nazca booby  1750  Sula leucogaster  Brown booby  1800  127; 42; 419  Sula nebouxii  Blue-footed booby  1800  110; ; 445  Multi  43; 130; 193  O  PLD  2  0  2  443; 493  20  Multi  43; 120; 183  O  PLD  2  0  2  125; 125  12  Multi  43; 95; 158  O  PLD  2  1  2  817; 806  17  Multi  41; 102; 163  O  PLD  2  0  2  812; 846  20  110  Sula sula  Red-footed booby  1500  85; 35; 407  Sula variegata  Peruvian booby  1300  97; ; 408  One  46; 102; 168  O  PLD  2  0  2  1272; 1299  17  Multi  42; 78; 140  O  PLD  2  0  2  2058; 1306  25  14  CHARADRIIFORMES Stercorariidae Catharacta antarctica  Brown skua  1854  57; 79; 424  Multi  30; 60; 110  C  SS  4  1  0  76; 63  Catharacta chilensis  Chilean skua  1350  ; ; 393  Multi  30; 60; 110  C  PLD  4  0  1  6; 6  0  Catharacta maccormicki  South Polar skua  1260  ; ; 396  Multi  28; 53; 101  I  SS  4  0  2  27; 42  17  Catharacta pomarinus  Pomarine jaeger  694  64; 53; 356  Multi  25; 31; 76  C  KL  4  1  0  866; 866  0  Catharacta skua  Great skua  Multi  29; 46; 95  I  SC  4  1  2  37; 51  24  Stercorarius longicaudus  Long-tailed jaeger  297  28; 43; 294  Multi  25; 25; 70  I  KL  4  0  1  126; 114  17  Stercorarius parasiticus  Parasitic jaeger  465  32; 46; 320  Multi  26; 31; 77  I  KL  4  0  2  144; 83  20  One  32; 70; 122  I  SC  4  0  2  50; 50  15  51; 57; 412  Multi  28; 40; 88  C  SC  4  1  1  4456; 4200  23  1418  Laridae Creagrus furcatus  Swallow-tailed gull  Larus argentatus  Herring gull  1135  740  Larus armenicus  Armenian gull  1050  Multi  25; 40; 85  C  SC  4  1  1  10; 10  0  Larus atlanticus  Olrog's gull  960  Multi  25; 40; 85  C  SC  4  0  0  13; 13  8  Larus atricilla  Laughing gull  289  40; 51; 321  Multi  25; 43; 87  C  SC  3  1  1  1167; 1205  17  Larus audouini  Audouin's gull  770  47; ; 400  Multi  33; 40; 93  I  SC  4  1  2  20; 69  21  Larus belcheri  Band-tailed gull  600  Multi  25; 40; 85  C  SC  4  1  1  7; 7  0  Larus bulleri  Black-billed gull  270  ; ; 292  Multi  25; 40; 85  C  SC  4  1  1  1138; 96  21  Larus cachinnans  Yellow-legged gull  1500  54; 65; 438  Multi  29; 49; 98  I  SC  3  1  1  879; 962  14  Larus californicus  California gull  607  50; ; 399  Multi  26; 35; 81  I  SC  4  0  0  0; 21  23  Larus canus  Common gull  404  35; ; 351  Multi  23; 35; 78  I  SC  4  1  1  2985; 2168  26  Larus cirrocephalus  Grey-headed gull  330  Multi  25; 40; 85  C  SC  3  1  2  31; 37  28  Larus crassirostris  Black-tailed gull  640  Multi  25; 40; 85  C  SC  4  1  2  46; 205  8  Larus delawarensis  Ring-billed gull  471  42; 51; 377  Multi  26; 40; 86  I  SC  4  1  1  2; <0.1  16  Larus dominicanus  Kelp gull  1051  ; ; 397  Multi  28; 61; 109  C  SC  4  1  1  403; 570  16  Larus fuliginosus  Lava gull  Multi  32; 45; 97  C  SC  4  1  1  1; 1  33  Larus fuscus  Lesser Black-backed gull  830  51; ; 427  Multi  28; 40; 88  I  SC  4  1  1  774; 1279  24  Larus genei  Slender-Billed gull  350  46; ; 320  Multi  22; 37; 79  C  SC  4  0  2  184; 255  17  Larus glaucescens  Glaucous-winged gull  1010  58; ; 423  Multi  28; 53; 101  C  SC  4  1  1  608; 387  18  Larus glaucoides  Iceland gull  863  43; 64; 412  Multi  25; 40; 85  C  SC  4  1  2  45; 124  20  Larus thayeri  Thayer's gull  996  52; ; 418  Multi  28; 45; 93  C  SC  4  1  1  15; 15  0  Larus hartlaubii  Hartlaub's gull  340  Multi  25; 40; 85  C  SC  4  1  1  13; 18  27  Multi  28; 45; 93  C  SC  3  0  2  1008; 2970  25  Multi  25; 40; 85  C  SC  4  1  1  34; 44  11  Multi  30; 49; 99  I  SC  4  1  1  234; 244  21  Multi  25; 40; 85  I  SC  4  1  1  8; 3  8  Larus heermanni  Heermann's gull  640  Larus hemprichi  Sooty gull  510  Larus hyperboreus  Glaucous gull  1413  Larus ichthyaetus  Great Black-headed gull  2000  44; ; 347 63; 74; 459  111  Larus leucophthalmus  White-eyed gull  Larus livens  Yellow-footed gull  Larus maculipennis  Brown-hooded gull  Larus marinus  Great Black-backed gull  410  Multi  25; 40; 85  I  SC  3  1  1  31; 40  11  1320  Multi  28; 37; 85  C  SC  4  1  1  72; 60  21  360  ; ; 291  Multi  25; 40; 85  C  SC  4  0  1  9; 9  0  1488  65; 80; 481  Multi  32; 55; 107  I  SC  4  1  1  938; 726  25 17  Larus melanocephalus  Mediterranean gull  390  37; ; 318  Multi  26; 40; 86  C  SC  3  1  1  1513; 699  Larus minutus  Little gull  118  23; ; 221  Multi  22; 28; 70  C  SC  4  0  1  126; 88  7  Larus modestus  Gray gull  400  Multi  31; 40; 91  C  SC  4  1  1  36; 36  0  Larus novaehollandiae  Silver gull  350  ; ; 294  Multi  27; 28; 75  C  SC  4  1  1  241; 227  13  Larus occidentalis  Western gull  1010  56; 72; 412  Multi  32; 48; 100  I  SC  4  0  1  276; 213  19  Larus pacificus  Pacific gull  1180  Multi  26; 42; 88  C  SC  4  1  1  2; 11  19  Larus philadelphia  Bonaparte's gull  212  30; 32; 263  Multi  25; 40; 85  I  SC  4  0  1  30; 30  0  Larus ridibundus  Common Black-headed gull  320  37; 47; 315  Multi  26; 35; 81  I  SC  4  1  1  5295; 5035  24  Larus saundersi  Saunder's gull  Multi  25; 40; 85  C  SC  4  0  1  30; 30  0  Larus schistisagus  Slaty-backed gull  1327  56; 68; 431  Multi  30; 45; 95  C  SC  4  1  1  401; 370  13  Larus scopulinus  Red-billed gull  280  ; ; 276  Multi  24; 42; 86  I  SC  4  0  0  145; 101  29  Larus scoresbii  Dolphin gull  520  ; ; 323  Multi  27; 45; 92  C  SC  4  1  1  7; 25  9  Pagophila eburnea  Ivory gull  616  36; 40; 338  Multi  26; 35; 81  I  SC  4  0  1  27; 25  20  Rhodostethia rosea  Ross's gull  187  19; 28; 255  Multi  21; 21; 62  I  SC  4  0  1  50; 50  0  Rissa brevirostris  Red-legged kittiwake  382  29; ; 305  Multi  30; 50; 100  O  SS  4  1  1  466; 161  16  Rissa tridactyla  Black-legged kittiwake  407  36; 40; 319  Multi  26; 42; 88  O  SS  4  1  1  16146; 11925  27  Xema sabini  Sabine's gull  998  26; 36; 267  Multi  25; 65; 110  I  SC  4  0  2  53; 29  18  37; 25; 235  Sternidae Anous minutus  Black noddy  144  Anous tenuirostris  Lesser noddy  120  Anous stolidus  Brown noddy  167  Chlidonias albostriata  Black-fronted tern  42; 57; 281  Multi  34; 60; 114  P  SS  4  0  2  694; 954  20  One  15; 55; 90  P  SS  4  0  2  1696; 1050  25  Multi  35; 45; 100  P  SS  4  1  2  3742; 2388  18  One  23; 25; 68  C  SS  3  0  2  8; 6  21 12  Chlidonias niger  Black tern  65  27; 17; 214  Multi  21; 22; 63  C  SS  3  0  2  398; 421  Gygis alba  White tern  160  32; 14; 252  Multi  36; 49; 105  P  SS  3  0  2  284; 278  21  Gygis microrhyncha  Lesser White tern  One  35; 48; 103  P  SS  3  0  2  24; 16  22  Larosterna inca  Inca tern  Procelsterna albivitta  Gray noddy  Procelsterna cerulea  Blue noddy  Sterna acuticauda  Black-bellied tern  Sterna albifrons  Little tern  Sterna aleutica  Aleutian tern  120  Sterna anaethetus  Bridled tern  131  43; 23; 271  Sterna antillarum  Least tern  57  36; 15; 176  Sterna balaenarum  Damara tern  Sterna bengalensis  Lesser Crested tern  240  528; 26; 286  Sterna bergii  Crested tern  400  62; ; 345  189 45 60  Multi  25; 28; 73  C  PLD  3  0  2  7; 180  19  29; 25; 208  One  25; 45; 90  P  SS  3  0  1  79; 99  21  25; ; 205  One  25; 40; 85  P  SS  3  0  1  47; 62  15  Multi  25; 25; 70  C  SS  3  0  2  <0.1; <0.1  3  Multi  24; 24; 68  C  PD  3  0  2  186; 181  14  Multi  23; 28; 71  C  SS  3  0  2  62; 55  17  One  29; 60; 109  C  SS  3  0  2  2510; 1563  18  Multi  22; 35; 77  C  PD  3  0  1  115; 117  14  One  22; 20; 62  C  SS  3  0  2  1; 2  22  One  26; 35; 81  C  PLD  3  1  2  248; 288  16  Multi  30; 41; 91  C  PLD  3  1  2  323; 374  17  32; ; 180  46  112  Sterna bernsteini  Chinese Crested tern  Sterna caspia  Caspian tern  662  69; ; 400 39; 20; 233  Sterna dougallii  Roseate tern  110  Sterna elegans  Elegant tern  260  Sterna forsteri  Forster's tern  190  59; 24; 271  Multi  30; 41; 91  C  PLD  3  0  2  <0.1; <0.1  7  Multi  27; 40; 87  C  PLD  3  0  2  99; 111  19 20  Multi  23; 26; 69  C  PLD  3  1  2  236; 156  One  26; 35; 81  C  PLD  3  0  2  50; 269  24  Multi  26; 35; 81  C  SS  3  0  2  130; 75  17 18  Sterna fuscata  Sooty tern  180  45; 25; 305  One  29; 60; 109  P  SS  4  0  2  118096; 39766  Sterna hirundinacea  South American tern  190  ; ; 300  Multi  23; 27; 70  C  SS  3  1  2  216; 147  9  Sterna hirundo  Common tern  120  38; 21; 280  Multi  24; 26; 70  C  SS  3  0  2  1319; 1242  19  Sterna lorata  Peruvian tern  Sterna lunata  Gray-backed tern  140  ; ; 280  Sterna maxima  Royal tern  500  49; 80; 381  Sterna nereis  Fairy tern  57  Sterna nilotica  Gull-billed tern  290  Sterna paradisaea  Arctic tern  110  Sterna repressa  White-cheeked tern  142  Sterna sandvicensis  Sandwich tern  300  Sterna eurygnatha  Cayenne tern  300  Sterna saundersi  Saunder's tern  50  Sterna striata  White-fronted tern  Multi  23; 27; 70  C  SS  3  0  2  2; 2  26  One  30; 49; 99  C  SS  3  0  2  392; 199  18 20  One  31; 30; 81  C  SS  3  1  2  459; 539  Multi  25; 30; 75  C  SS  3  0  2  12; 9  24  41; 23; 330  Multi  23; 32; 74  C  SS  3  0  1  51; 36  24  34; 17; 270  Multi  22; 25; 67  C  SS  3  0  2  4498; 2119  23  Multi  25; 30; 75  C  PLD  3  0  2  1259; 390  7  58; 25; 325  One  24; 28; 72  C  PLD  3  1  2  794; 445  22  55; 27; 250  One  29; 28; 77  C  PLD  3  1  2  70; 99  14  Multi  25; 30; 75  C  PLD  3  0  2  2; 3  6  Multi  25; 35; 80  C  PLD  3  0  2  1140; 50  13  ; ; 274  Sterna sumatrana  Black-naped tern  110  35; ; 222  Multi  23; 24; 67  C  SS  3  1  2  23; 29  13  Sterna virgata  Kerguelen tern  125  ; ; 259  Multi  24; 39; 83  C  SS  3  0  2  7; 7  21  Sterna vittata  Antarctic tern  143  ; ; 263  One  25; 25; 70  C  SS  3  0  2  153; 69  14  264  16; 29; 171  One  34; 33; 87  O  PD  1  0  0  6132; 4964  21  84  15; 19; 102  One  30; 29; 79  O  PD  1  0  0  7384; 15899  21 15  Alcidae Aethia cristatella  Crested auklet  Aethia pusilla  Least auklet  Aethia pygmaea  Whiskered auklet  121  10; 22; 110  One  36; 41; 96  I  PD  1  0  0  76; 180  Alca torda  Razorbill  719  35; 30; 211  One  35; 23; 78  O  PD  1  0  2  4181; 1998  19  Alle alle  Dovekie  163  13; 21; 115  One  29; 28; 77  O  PD  1  0  1  56313; 117312  19  Brachyramphus brevirostris  Kittlitz's murrelet  296  20; 18; 140  One  30; 24; 74  I  PD  1  0  2  16; 15  13  Brachyramphus marmoratus  Marbled murrelet  203  16; 16; 127  One  29; 34; 83  I  PD  1  0  2  394; 307  16  Brachyramphus perdix  Long-billed murrelet  293  20; 18; 141  One  29; 40; 89  I  PD  1  0  2  11; 11  0  Cepphus carbo  Spectacled guillemot  490  41; 37;  Multi  30; 40; 90  I  PD  1  0  2  248; 136  12  Cepphus columba  Pigeon guillemot  487  44; ; 188  Multi  29; 40; 89  I  PD  1  0  2  1031; 880  18  Cepphus grylle  Black guillemot  405  33; 39; 137  Multi  29; 37; 86  C  PD  1  0  2  1041; 706  18  Cerorhinca monocerata  Rhinoceros auklet  520  35; 30; 152  One  45; 60; 125  O  PD  1  0  2  2622; 2976  13  Cyclorrhynchus psittacula  Parakeet auklet  258  16; 30; 152  One  35; 35; 90  I  PD  1  0  1  1089; 1191  21  Endomychura craveri  Craveri's murrelet  150  Multi  34; 2; 56  O  PD  1  0  2  18; 25  17  Endomychura hypoleuca  Xantus' murrelet  170  18; 24; 120  Multi  34; 2; 56  O  PD  1  0  2  15; 23  11  Fratercula arctica  Atlantic puffin  381  46; 29; 172  One  42; 39; 101  O  PD  2  0  2  44804; 19142  20  Fratercula cirrhata  Tufted puffin  779  58; 36; 201  One  44; 55; 119  O  PD  1  0  2  6799; 2676  21  113  Fratercula corniculata  Horned puffin  619  48; 31; 190  One  40; 38; 98  O  PD  1  0  2  1946; 1110  17  Ptychoramphus aleuticus  Cassin's auklet  188  19; 27; 148  One  39; 46; 105  O  PD  1  0  1  5584; 5076  14  Synthliboramphus antiquus  Ancient murrelet  206  30; 32; 146  Multi  33; 2; 55  O  PD  1  0  1  2935; 1245  20  Synthliboramphus wumizusume  Japanese murrelet  296  20; 18; 144  Multi  33; 2; 55  I  PD  1  0  1  6; 8  17  Uria aalge  Common murre  993  48; 38; 203  One  33; 22; 75  O  PD  0  0  2  19316; 16098  22  Uria lomvia  Thick-billed murre  964  43; 48; 224  One  33; 23; 76  O  PD  0  0  2  34826; 20079  21  a  Classification follows Peters (1979). Average of available records for adults. c C=close to shore (within 10km), I=inshore (within 50km), O=offshore (within 150km), P=pelagic (within 750km), F=far distant pelagic (>750km). d PD= pursuit diving, SS= surface seizing, PLD= plunge-diving, KL= kleptoparasitism, SC= scavenging. e 0=regularly dive to 60m, 1=regularly dive to 30m, 2=regularly dive to 10m, 3=upper 1m of water column, 4=surface feeders. f 0= have not been observed in diet, 1= have been observed in diet. g 0= fish occur only in diet only rarely if at all, 1=fish present but not the most important prey item, <30% of weight, 2=fish are the most important/predominate or only prey item, or one of two most important prey items (e.g., fish & squid). h after the present study (see Section 2.1.2). i average length (years) of datasets for all populations of the species with more than one record. b  114  Appendix II. Examples of data used to calculate abundance estimates for four numerically important seabird species. Complete references available upon request. Species Blue Petrel (Halobaena caerulea)  Coastal stretch Crozet Islands Diego Ramirez Islands Kerguelen Islands  Macquarie Island Prince Edward Islands  South Georgia  Year 1982 1984 1982 2002 1985 1989 2002 1979 1984 1977 1982 1990 1997 1980 1982  Global  Antarctic Prion (Pachyptila desolata)  207900 294015 2000000 3105000 466690 495000 1866762 1980 1815 99000 99000 1815000 660000 231000 231000 “at least 3,000,000” 6,159,000  Auckland Island  1980  2333452  Crozet Islands Kerguelen Islands Macquarie Island  1982 1985 1979 1985 1999 1987 1990 1980 1982 1982 1982 1982  330 8083316 161370 161700 97800 33330 33033 72600000 72600000 330000 33000 1452  McDonald Islands South Georgia South Orkney Islands South Sandwich Islands South Shetland Islands Global  Sooty Tern (Sterna fuscata)  Number of individuals a  Amsterdam Island  Anguilla Antigua Barbuda Aruba  “approx. 50,000,000” 83,512,000 1972 1982 1985 1996 1999 1982 1982 1984 1985 1986 1987  3 3 3 3 7753 3300 1320 1208 1337 2475 4950  Reference Jouventin et al. 1984 www.birdlife.net/datazone Fugler et al. 1987 Lawton et al 2006 Weimerskirch et al. 1989 www.birdlife.net/datazone Barbraud & Delord 2006 Rounsevell& Brothers 1984 Brooke 2004 Williams et al. 1979 Williams 1984 Cooper & Brown 1990 www.birdlife.net/datazone Croxall et al. 1985 Croxall et al. 1984 (Brooke, 2004a) Modern abundance Robertson & Bell 1984 Jouventin et al. 1984 Weimerskirch & Jouventin 1989 Rounsevell & Brothers 1984 Garnett & Crowley 2000 Goldsworthy et al. 2001 Woehler 1991 Marchant & Higgins 1990 Croxall et al. 1985 Croxall et al. 1984 Croxall et al. 1984 Croxall et al. 1984 Croxall et al. 1984 (Brooke, 2004a) Modern abundance Bourne & David 1995 Jouventin et al. 1984 Bourne & David 1995 www.birdlife.net/datazone Saliva 2000 Halewyn & Norton 1984 Halewyn & Norton 1985 Gochfeld et al. 1994 Gochfeld et al. 1995 Gochfeld et al. 1996 Gochfeld et al. 1997  115  Ascension Island  Ashmore Reef Bahamas Baja California Banda Sea Belize Br Virgin Islands Caroline Islands Chagos  Cocos Islands Cuba Dominica Dominican Republic Europa Island  Fiji Florida French Polynesia Gambia Glorieuses Great Barrier Reef  Guadeloupe Gulf of Mexico Hawaii  Houtman Abrolhos Indonesian Sea Islands off Mexico Jamaica Johnston Atoll  1988 1989 1990 1942 1959 1962 1997 2002 2007 1998 1981 1999 1983 1987 2006 1982 1999 1995 1970 1996 2006 1983 1982 1999 1982 1982 1999 1974 1996 2000 2003 1980 1982 1973 1980 1975 2003 1989 1990 1995 1982 1999 1977 1982 1975 1980 1985 1993 1963 1990 1982 1999 1923 1973 1999  7260 6600 10560 1000000 750000 104355 640200 906200 420000 6900 139071 18668 250 3300 1414 660 330 200 1147907 240900 271286 116 9900 161666 3300 330000 168300 150000 3000000 2475000 2508000 1043 132000 55044000 11479067 7 891000 910200 862100 88800 990 16167 122 231 5182650 4852650 4918650 859056 1650 990 7379 266709 5500 600000 295161  Gochfeld et al. 1998 Gochfeld et al. 1999 Gochfeld et al. 2000 Ashmole 1963 Ashmole 1964 Williams 1984 www.birdlife.net/datazone Ratcliffe et al. 2010 Hulsman et al. 2008 Milton 1999 Sprunt 1984 Saliva 2000 Pitman 1985 De Korte & Silvius 1994 Miller & Miller 2006 Halewyn & Norton 1984 Saliva 2000 Bunden 1996 Feare 1984 McGowan et al. 2008 McGowan et al. 2008 Stokes et al. 1984 Halewyn & Norton 1984 Saliva 2000 Halewyn & Norton 1984 Halewyn & Norton 1984 Saliva 2000 Le Corre & Jouventin 1997 Le Corre & Jouventin 1997 www.birdlife.net/datazone Jaquemet et al. 2005 Garnett 1984 Halewyn & Norton 1984 Holyoak & Thibault 1984 Garnett 1984 Cooper et al. 1984 Le Corre & Jouventin 2005 Fuller & Burbidge 1992 Fuller & Burbidge 1992 Hulsman et al. 1997 Halewyn & Norton 1984 Saliva 2000 Clapp & Buckley 1984 Halewyn & Norton 1984 Harrison et al. 1984 Harrison & Seki 1987 Harrison 1990 Fuller et al. 1994 Wells 1991 Everett & Anderson 1991 Halewyn & Norton 1984 Saliva 2000 Saliva 2000 Saliva 2000 Saliva 2000  116  Juan de Nova Kenya Kermadec  Line Islands  Lord Howe Island Madagascar  Mariana Islands Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritious Mexico Caribbean Mexico Gulf Mexico West Mozambique Nauru Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia  Norfolk Island Noronha Archipelago Oman Panama Pacific Phoenix Islands Puerto Rico  Queensland Rio Grande do Norte Ryuku Islands  Sala y Gomez Islands  Salvages Sao Tome Principe Seychelles  2003 1980 1967 1994 1995 1997 1970 1980 1983 1984 1988 1970 1973 1980 1998 2000 1995 1966 1967 1982 1975 1998 1982 1982 1998 1997 1980 1982 1995 1996 1997 1998 1970 2006 1981 2004 1980 2006 1971 1980 1981 1982 1999 1990 1980 1994 1981 1982 1983 1985 1986 1997 1980 2000 1976  6600000 16500 328515 7983 8913 6683 18960000 13530000 11431535 40000 621047 3300000 397650 23100 6600 6930 924000 16000 16000 1650 1864500 1303995 363 7379 700 6600 104355 46669 33000 990 660 50 181500 5610 33 9900 10435516 2036100 551100 99000 59400 99000 98759 296862 99000 5558 21120 13530 10230 330 165 637 3 330000 7475490  Le Corre & Jaquemet 2005 Cooper et al. 1984 Veitch et al. 2004 Veitch et al. 2004 Veitch et al. 2004 Veitch et al. 2004 Perry 1980 Garnett 1984 Schreiber & Schreiber 1986 Schreiber & Schreiber 1986 Kepler et al. 1994 Fullagar & Disney 1975 van Tets & Fullagar 1984 Cooper et al. 1984 www.birdlife.net/datazone Le Corre & Jaquemet 2005 Stinson 1995 Carpenter et al. 1968 Carpenter et al. 1968 Halewyn & Norton 1984 Feare 1984 www.birdlife.net/datazone Halewyn & Norton 1984 Halewyn & Norton 1984 Chipley 1999 Kromer 1998 Garnett 1984 Halewyn & Norton 1984 Robinet et al. 1997 Benoit & Bretagnolle 2002 Benoit & Bretagnolle 2002 Benoit & Bretagnolle 2002 Taylor 2000 De Luca et al. 2006 Gallagher et al. 1984 www.birdlife.net/datazone Garnett 1984 Pierce et al. 2006 Furniss 1983 Furniss 1983 Furniss 1984 Furniss 1985 Saliva 2000 King 1993 Williams 1984 Neto 1998 Abe et al. 1986 Abe et al. 1986 Kohno et al. 1986 Harrison & Jehl 1988 Harrison & Jehl 1989 Vilina & Gazitua 1999 Le Grand et al. 1984 www.birdlife.net/datazone Feare 1984  117  St Helena Tanzania  Trinidad US Virgin Islands Venezuela W Australia  2000 1950 1980 1972 1989 2005 1980 1982 1982 1999 1982 1986  Global  Dovekie (Alle alle)  Baffin Bay Bear Island  Chukchi Sea East Bering Sea Franz Josef Land Greenland East  Greenland West  Iceland Jan Mayen Island  Norwegian Shelf SW Novaya Zemlya  Svalbard  Global  2002 1982 1984 1985 1985 1997 1950 1985 1980 1985 1989 1980 1985 2002 1979 1982 1984 1986 1993 1950 1967 1992 1996 1978 1982 1985 1989 1993 1994  3630000 3300 3300 73790 29580 14553 16500 14850 104355 115457 165000 247500  www.birdlife.net/datazone Williams 1984 Williams 1984 Cooper et al. 1984 Crawford et al. 2006 Crawford et al. 2006 Williams 1984 Halewyn & Norton 1984 Halewyn & Norton 1984 Saliva 2000 Halewyn & Norton 1984 Burbidge & Fuller 1989  “21,000,000-22,000,000” 39,766,000  (Delany and Scott, 2006) Modern abundance  1650 33000 165000 165000 90 20 825000 507514 115500 193070 3300000 49501650 82669930 108900000 33 165000 330000 330000 705000 16500 73790 73790 102300 4950000 5280000 5346000 3300000 3300000 3300000 “16,000,000-36,000,000” 117,312,000  ICES 2003 Evans 1984 Barrett & Mehlum 1989 www.birdlife.net/datazone U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009 Golovkin 1984 Evans 1986 Evans 1984 Evans 1986 www.birdlife.net/datazone Evans 1984 Evans 1986 ICES 2003 Evans 1984 Evans 1984 Barrett & Mehlum 1989 www.birdlife.net/datazone www.birdlife.net/datazone Joiris et al. 1996 Golovkin 1984 Anker-Nilssen et al. 2000 www.birdlife.net/datazone Kempf & Sittler 1987 Evans 1984 Evans 1986 Mehlum & Bakken 1994 Isaksen & Bakken 1995 Anker-Nilssen et al. 2000 (del Hoyo et al., 1996) Modern abundance  118  Appendix III. Estimates of global abundance per seabird family in 1950 and 2010, as per Section 2.4.4. Family  Estimated abundance in 1950 (106 individuals)  Estimated abundance in 2010 (106 individuals)  Spheniscidae  92  65  Diomedeidae  5  5  Procellariidae  404  288  Hydrobatidae  28  46  Pelecanoididae  63  48  Phaethontidae  <1  <1  Pelecanidae  1  1  Phalacrocoracidae  21  6  Fregatidae  1  1  Sulidae  7  7  Stercorariidae  2  1  Laridae  41  35  Sternidae  168  54  Alcidae  190  212  Total  1023  768  119  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
China 27 19
United States 11 3
Russia 4 0
Romania 2 0
Brazil 2 0
Taiwan 1 0
Australia 1 2
Canada 1 0
Japan 1 0
City Views Downloads
Beijing 21 0
Unknown 6 8
Ashburn 4 0
Shanghai 3 0
Seattle 2 0
Suceava 2 0
Wuhan 2 0
Rio de Janeiro 2 0
Washington 2 0
Shenzhen 1 19
University Park 1 0
Vancouver 1 0
Wilmington 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0073392/manifest

Comment

Related Items