Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 34, Issue 10, pp 2295–2306 | Cite as

Small-scale natural landscape features and seabird nesting sites: the importance of geodiversity for conservation

  • Marie Eveillard-Buchoux
  • Peter Gerard BeningerEmail author
  • Céline Chadenas
  • Dominique Sellier
Research Article
  • 298 Downloads

Abstract

Context

Landscape geodiversity, and in particular small natural features (SNF), are crucial components of habitat suitability for many threatened species. Rocky cliffs at the sea-continent interface present complex small-scale geomorphologies which are exploited by nesting seabirds.

Objectives

Elucidation of the relation between nest-site geomorphology and species preference in cliff-nesting seabirds. Evaluation of the potential of cliff-face SNF as seabird conservation tools.

Methods

Nest site geomorphological characteristics of four Atlantic (Brittany, France) cliff-dwelling seabirds (Razorbill, Guillemot, Fulmar, and Kittiwake) were categorized, and scored for degree of enclosure.

Results

Of the 1048 nest sites examined, the greatest species overlap in location was the mid-region of the cliff face: Fulmar was concentrated in the upper half of the cliff, while Kittiwake showed the most extended vertical distribution. A distinct trend was evident with respect to ceiling presence and size: Razorbill + Kittiwake > Guillemot > Fulmar. Clear trends were also evident in ceiling inclination, ledge size, and side wall presence and inclination. A distinct ‘degree of enclosure’ hierarchy was documented, consolidated with the addition of sympatric species known for their extreme preferences: Atlantic Gannets and Guillemots at the extreme ‘open’ end, and Puffins and Storm Petrels at the extreme ‘closed’ end. Some plasticity in site choice was observed, probably corresponding to sub-optimal default choices.

Conclusions

Despite some plasticity, both vertical level and enclosure characteristics are associated with particular seabird species. Given the importance of nesting sites to seabird reproduction, the identification and conservation of these SNF constitute crucial conservation objectives.

Keywords

Geomorphology Small natural features Nesting site Seabird Conservation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank our field partners (SEPNB Bretagne-Vivante with B. Cadiou et P. Quere, J. Y. Monnat, F. Quénot, P. Provost, A. Deniau) for fruitful discussions. PGB is indebted to Prof. Kraft E. von Maltzahn for his prescient teaching of the importance of landscape in ecology, long before it became a discipline or even an established concept. This work was funded by a Fondation de France grant and PhD scholarship (OCEANE) to CC and MEB.

Supplementary material

10980_2019_879_MOESM1_ESM.docx (877 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 877 kb)

References

  1. Allen AM, Singh N (2016) Linking movement ecology with wildlife management and conservation. Front Ecol Evol 3:155Google Scholar
  2. Anushiravani S, Fadakar D, Roshan ZS, Rezaei H-R (2016) Nest-site selection and its impact on breeding success of the Lesser Kestrel, Falco naumanni, in the North of Iran (Aves: Falconiformes). Zool Middle East 62(1):9–16Google Scholar
  3. Bedard J (1985) Evolution and characteristics of the Atlantic Alcidae. In: Nettleship DN, Birkhead TR (eds) The Atlantic Alcidae: the evolution, distribution, and biology of the auks inhabiting the Atlantic ocean and adjacent water areas. Academic Press, London, pp 1–51Google Scholar
  4. Beninger PG, Elner RW, Morançais M, Decottignies P (2011) Downward trophic shift during breeding migration in the shorebird Calidris mauri (Western sandpiper). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 428:259–269Google Scholar
  5. Berkström C, Gullström M, Lindborg R, Mwandya AW, Yahya SAS, Kautsky N, Nyström M (2012) Exploring ‘knowns’ and ‘unknowns’ in tropical seascape connectivity with insights from East African coral reefs. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 107:1–21Google Scholar
  6. Birdlife International (2004) Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends and conservation status. Bird-Life Conservation Series, vol 12. Birdlife International, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Birkhead TR (1977) The effect of habitat and density on breeding success in the Common Guillemot Uria aalge. J Anim Ecol 46:751–764Google Scholar
  8. Birkhead TR (1978) Behavioural adaptations to high density nesting in the Common Guillemot Uria aalge. Anim Behav 26:321–331Google Scholar
  9. Birkhead TR, Harris MP (1985) Ecological adaptation for breeding in the Atlantic Alcidae. In: Nettleship DN, Birkhead TR (eds) The Atlantic Alcidae: the evolution, distribution, and biology of the auks inhabiting the Atlantic ocean and adjacent water areas. Academic Press, London, pp 205–231Google Scholar
  10. Birkhead TR, Nettleship DN (1987) Ecological relationships between Common Murres Uria aalge and Thick-Billed Murres Uria lomvia at the Gannet Islands, Labrador II. Breeding success and site characteristics. Can J Zool 65:1630–1637Google Scholar
  11. Birkhead TR, Greene E, Biggins JD, Nettleship DN (1985) Breeding site characteristics and breeding success in Thick-billed Murres. Can J Zool 63:1880–1884Google Scholar
  12. Block WM, Brennan LA (1993) The habitat concept in ornithology: theory and applications. Curr Ornithol 11:35–91Google Scholar
  13. Burger J, Gochfeld M (2004) Marine birds as sentinels of environmental pollution. EcoHealth 1(3):263–274Google Scholar
  14. Cadiou B, Pons J-M, Yésou P (2004) Oiseaux marins nicheurs de France métropolitaine (1960–2000). Editions Biotope, MèzeGoogle Scholar
  15. Cadiou B, Jacob Y, Provost P, Quénot F, Yésou P, Février Y (2015) 5e recensement des oiseaux marins nicheurs de France métropolitaine (2009–2012). Ornithos 22:233–257Google Scholar
  16. Caldwell IR, Gergel SE (2013) Thresholds in seascape connectivity: influence of mobility, habitat distribution, and current strength on fish movement. Landscape Ecol 28:1937–1948Google Scholar
  17. Calhoun AJK, Jansujwicz JS, Bell KP, Hunter ML (2014) Improving management of small natural features on private lands by negotiating the science–policy boundary for Maine vernal pools. PNAS Early Edition 111(30):1–5Google Scholar
  18. Carroll JM, Peterson BJ (2013) Ecological trade-offs in seascape ecology: bay scallop survival and growth across a seagrass seascape. Landscape Ecol 28:1401–1413Google Scholar
  19. Chalfoun AD, Martin TE (2007) Assessments of habitat preferences and quality depend on spatial scale and metrics of fitness. J Appl Ecol 44:983–992Google Scholar
  20. Chalfoun AD, Schmidt KA (2012) Adaptive breeding-habitat selection: is it for the birds? Auk 129(4):589–599Google Scholar
  21. Croxall J, Small C, Sullivan B, Wanless R, Frere E, Lascelles B, Ramirez I, Sato M, Yates O (2013) Appropriate scales and data to manage seabird-fishery interactions: comment on Torres et al. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 493:297–300Google Scholar
  22. Cullen E (1957) Adaptations in the kittiwake to cliff-nesting. Ibis 99:275–302Google Scholar
  23. Curd A, Pibot A (2014) The concept of marine landscapes within the French information system on nature and landscapes (SINP). In: Musard O, Le Dû-Blayo L, Francour P, Beurier JP, Feunteun E, Talassinos L (eds) Underwater seascapes: from geographical to ecological perspectives. Springer International, Berlin, pp 153–160Google Scholar
  24. Danchin E, Monnat J-Y (1992) Population dynamics modelling of two neighbouring Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla colonies. Ardea 80:171–180Google Scholar
  25. Danchin E, Boulinier T, Massot M (1998) Conspecific reproductive success and breeding habitat selection: implications for the study of coloniality. Ecology 79(7):2415–2428Google Scholar
  26. Davis JA, Kerezsy A, Nicol S (2017) Springs: conserving perennial water is critical in arid landscapes. Biol Conserv 211(B):30–35Google Scholar
  27. Devries JH, Clark RG, Armstrong LM (2018) Dynamics of habitat selection in birds: adaptive response to nest predation depends on multiple factors. Oecologia 187:305–318PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Diaz RJ, Cutter GR Jr, Able KW (2003) The importance of physical and biogenic structure to juvenile fishes on the shallow inner continental shelf. Estuaries 26:12–20Google Scholar
  29. Dunlop JN (2017) Sentinel seabirds: a guide to using marine birds to monitor marine ecosystems in Western Australia. Northern Agricultural Catchment Council, GeraldtonGoogle Scholar
  30. Eveillard-Buchoux M (2018) Côtes rocheuses de Bretagne et oiseaux pélagiques : vers une valorisation intégrée du patrimoine naturel. PhD thesis, Université de Nantes, FranceGoogle Scholar
  31. Eveillard-Buchoux M, Beninger PG, Chadenas C, Sellier D (2017) European seabirds show stable contemporary biogeography. Waterbirds 4(4):309–321Google Scholar
  32. Ewins PJ (1989) The feeding biology of Black Guillemots in Shetland. Ibis 131:507–520Google Scholar
  33. Ferns P (1992) Birdlife of coasts and estuaries. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Fitzsimons JA, Michael DR (2017) Rocky outcrops: A hard road in the conservation of critical habitats. Biol Conserv 211(B):36–44Google Scholar
  35. Frederiksen M, Mavor RA, Wanless S (2007) Seabirds as environmental indicators: the advantages of combining data sets. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 352:205–211Google Scholar
  36. Furness RW, Camphuysen CJ (1997) Seabirds as monitors of the marine environment. International Council for the Exploitation of the Sea (ICES). J Mar Sci 54:726–737Google Scholar
  37. Game ET, Grantham HS, Hobday AJ, Pressey RL, Lombard AT, Beckley LE, Gjerde K, Bustamante R, Possingham HP, Richardson AJ (2009) Pelagic protected areas: the missing dimension in ocean conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 24:360–369PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Gilchrist HG, Gaston AJ (1997) Effects of murre nest site characteristics and wind conditions on predation by glaucous gulls: an experimental study. Can J Zool 75:518–524Google Scholar
  39. Gilchrist HG, Mallory ML (2005) Declines in abundance and distribution of the Ivory Gull (Pagophila eburnea) in Arctic Canada. Biol Conserv 121:303–309Google Scholar
  40. Gilchrist HG, Gaston AJ, Smith JNM (1998) Wind and prey nest sites as foraging constraints on an avian predator, the Glaucous Gull. Ecology 79(7):2403–2414Google Scholar
  41. Gray M (2011) Other nature: geodiversity and geosystem services. Environ Conserv 38:271–274Google Scholar
  42. Gray M (2013) Geodiversity: valuing and conserving abiotic nature, 2nd edn. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  43. Harris MP, Wanless S (1988) The breeding biology of Guillemots Uria aalge on the Isle of May over a six year period. Ibis 130:172–192Google Scholar
  44. Harris MP, Wanless S, Barton TR (1996) Site use and fidelity in the Common Guillemot Uria aalge. Ibis 138:399–404Google Scholar
  45. Harris MP, Wanless S, Barton TR, Elston DA (1997) Nest-site characteristics, duration of use and breeding success in the Guillemot Uria aalge. Ibis 139:468–476Google Scholar
  46. Hasebe M, Aotsuka M, Terasawa T, Fukuda Y, Niimura Y, Watanabe Y, Watanuki Y, Haruo O (2012) Status and conservation of the Common Murre Uria aalge breeding on Teuri Island, Hok-kaido. Ornithol Sci 11:29–38Google Scholar
  47. Hatchwell BJ (1991) An experimental study of the effects of timing of breeding on the reproductive success of Common Guillemots (Uria aalge). J Anim Ecol 60:721–736Google Scholar
  48. Hinchey EK, Nicholson MC, Zajac RN, Irlandi EA (2008) Preface: marine and coastal applications in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecol 23(Supplement 1):1–5Google Scholar
  49. Hjort J, Gordon JE, Gray M, Hunter ML (2015) Why geodiversity matters in valuing nature’s stage. Conserv Biol 29:630–639PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Hovel KA, Regan HM (2008) Using an individual-based model to examine the roles of habitat fragmentation and behavior on predator–prey relationships in seagrass landscapes. Landscape Ecol 23(Supplement 1):75–89Google Scholar
  51. Hudson PJ (1982) Nest site characteristics and breeding success in the Razorbill Alca torda. Ibis 124:355–359Google Scholar
  52. Huettmann F, Diamond AW (2006) Large-scale effects on the spatial distribution of seabirds in the Northwest Atlantic. Landscape Ecol 21:1089–1108Google Scholar
  53. Hunter ML, Acuña V, Bauer DM, Bell KP, Calhoun AJK, Felipe-Lucia MR, Fitzsimons JA, González E, Kinnison M, Lindenmayer D, Lundquist CJ, Medellin RA, Nelson EJ, Poschlod P (2017) Conserving small natural features with large ecological roles: a synthetic overview. Biol Conserv 211(B):88–95Google Scholar
  54. Jelinski DE (2015) On a landscape ecology of a harlequin environment: the marine landscape. Landscape Ecol 30:1–6Google Scholar
  55. Jones J (2001) Habitat selection studies in avian ecology: a critical review. Auk 118:557–562Google Scholar
  56. Kokko H, Lopez-Sepulcre A (2006) From individual dispersal to species ranges: perspectives for a changing world. Science 313:789–791PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Kokko H, Harris MP, Wanless S (2004) Competition for breeding sites and site-dependent population regulation in a highly colonial seabird, the Common Guillemot Uria aalge. J Anim Ecol 73:367–376Google Scholar
  58. Lambertucci SA, Ruggiero A (2016) Cliff outcrops used as condor communal roosts are local hotspots of occupancy and intense use by other bird species. Biol Conserv 200:8–16Google Scholar
  59. Lawler JJ, Ackerly DD, Albano CM, Anderson MG, Dobrowski SZ, Gill JL, Heller NE, Pressey RL, Sanderson EW, Weiss SB (2015) The theory behind, and the challenges of, conserving nature’s stage in a time of rapid change. Conserv Biol 29:618–629PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Lindenmayer DB (2017) Conserving large old trees as small natural features. Biol Conserv 211(B):51–59Google Scholar
  61. Lindquist K, Roletto J, Nairn T, Devlin D (2016) Seabirds as sentinel indicators of ecosystem health. Biological mortality anomalies in the northern and central California ecosystem, 2014–201. Proceedings in the Warm Water Anomalies Workshop, January 20–21, 2016, Northwest Association of Networked Ocean Observing Systems, Seattle, WA. https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/notes/2016/seabirds-indicators-ecosystem-health.html
  62. Malcolm L, Hunter ML (2017) Conserving small natural features with large ecological roles: an introduction and definition. Biol Conserv 211:1–2Google Scholar
  63. Mallory ML, Forbes MR (2011) Nest shelter predicts nesting success but not nesting phenology or parental behaviors in high arctic Northern Fulmars Fulmarus glacialis. J Ornithol 152:119–126Google Scholar
  64. Mallory ML, Robinson SA, Hebert CE, Forbes MR (2010) Seabirds as indicators of aquatic ecosystem conditions: a case for gathering multiple proxies of seabird health. Mar Poll Bull 60(1):7–12Google Scholar
  65. Martin T, Chadès I, Arcese P, Marra PP, Possingham HP, Norris DR (2007) Optimal conservation of migratory species. PLoS ONE 2(8):e751:1–e751:15Google Scholar
  66. Massaro M, Chardine JW, Jones IL (2001) Relationships between black-legged kittiwake nest-site characteristics and susceptibility to predation by large gulls. The Condor 103(4):793–801Google Scholar
  67. McGowan J, Beger M, Lewison RL, Harcourt R, Campbell H, Priest M, Dwyer RG, Lin H, Lentini P, Dudgeon C, McMahon C, Watts M, Possingham HP (2017) Integrating research using animal-borne telemetry with the needs of conservation management. J Appl Ecol 54(2):423–429Google Scholar
  68. Millones A, Frere E (2017) How nest site characteristics influence breeding success in Red-legged Cormorants. Acta Ornithol 52(2):239–244Google Scholar
  69. Mitchell PI, Newton SF, Ratcliffe N, Dunn TE (2004) Seabird populations of Britain and Ireland: result of the Seabird 2000 census (1998–2002). T & A. D. Poyser, LondonGoogle Scholar
  70. Musard O, Le Dû-Blayo L, Francour P, Beurier JP, Feunteun E, Talassinos L (2014) Underwater seascapes: from geographical to ecological perspectives. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  71. Nelson JB (1980) Seabirds: their biology and ecology. Hamlyn, LondonGoogle Scholar
  72. Nelson JB (2002) The Atlantic Gannet, 2nd edn. Fenix Books Ltd/Scottish Seabird Centre, Norfolk/North BerwickGoogle Scholar
  73. Newell M, Wanless S, Harris MP, Daunt F (2015) Effects of an extreme weather event on seabird breeding success at a North Sea colony. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 532:257–268Google Scholar
  74. North American Bird Conservation Initiative (2016) The State of North America’s Birds 2016. Environment and Climate Change Canada, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  75. Olsthoorn JCM, Nelson JB (1990) The availability of breeding sites for some British seabirds. Bird Study 37:145–164Google Scholar
  76. Oppel S, Bolton M, Carneiro APB et al (2018) Spatial scales of marine conservation management for breeding seabirds. Mar Policy 98:37–46Google Scholar
  77. Ospar Commission (2010) Iberian guillemot, quality status report 2010. Case Reports for the OSPAR List of threatened and/or declining species and habitatsGoogle Scholar
  78. Paleczny M, Hammill E, Karpouzi V, Pauly D (2015) Population trend of the world’s monitored seabirds, 1950–2010. PLoS ONE 10(6):eO129342:1–eO129342:11Google Scholar
  79. Parker MW, Kress SW, Golightly RT, Carter HR, Parsons EB, Schubel SE, Boyce JA, McChesney GJ (2007) Assessment of social attraction techniques used to restore a Common Murre colony in Central California. Waterbirds 30:17–28Google Scholar
  80. Parsons M, Mitchelle I, Butler A, Ratcliffe N, Frederiksen M, Foster S, Reid JB (2008) Seabirds as indicators of the marine environment. ICES J Mar Sci 65:1520–1526Google Scholar
  81. Peterson R, Mounfort G, Hollom PAD, Géroudet P (2010) Guide Peterson des oiseaux de France et d’Europe, 4th edn. Delachaux et Niestlé, ParisGoogle Scholar
  82. Pfeiffer MB, Venter JA, Downs CT (2016) Cliff characteristics, neighbour requirements and breeding success of the colonial Cape Vulture Gyps coprotheres. Ibis 159:26–37Google Scholar
  83. Piersma T, Lindström Å (2004) Migrating shorebirds as integrative sentinels of global environmental change. Ibis 146:61–69Google Scholar
  84. Poschlod P, Braun-Reichert R (2017) Small natural features with large ecological roles in ancient agricultural landscapes of Central Europe—history, value, status, and conservation. Biol Conserv 211(B):60–68Google Scholar
  85. Ramos JA, Monteiro RJ, Sola E, Moniz Z (1997) Characteristics and competition for nest cavities in burrowing procellariiformes. The Condor 99:634–641Google Scholar
  86. Regehr HM, Rodway MS, Montevecchi WA (1998) Antipredator benefits of nest-site selection in Black-legged Kittiwakes. Can J Zool 76(5):910–915Google Scholar
  87. Retief EF, Diamond M, Anderson MD, Smit HA, Jenkins A, Brooks M, Simmons R (2013) Avian wind farm sensitivity map for South Africa: criteria and procedures used. Endangered Wildlife Trust and BirdLife South Africa, JohannesburgGoogle Scholar
  88. Rowe S, Jones IL (2000) The enigma of Razorbill Alca torda breeding site selection: adaptation to a variable environment. Ibis 142:324–327Google Scholar
  89. Russell RW, Hunt GL Jr, Coyle KO, Cooney RT (1992) Foraging in a fractal environment: spatial patterns in a marine predator-prey system. Landscape Ecol 7:195–209Google Scholar
  90. Shealer DA (2001) Foraging behavior and food of seabirds. In: Schreiber EA, Burger J (eds) Biology of marine birds. CRC marine biology series. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 137–177Google Scholar
  91. Smith JL, Mulder CPH, Ellis JC (2011) Seabirds as ecosystem engineers: nutrient inputs and physical disturbance. In: Mulder CPH, Anderson WB, Towns DR, Bellingham PJ (eds) Seabird islands, ecology, invasion and restoration. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 27–55Google Scholar
  92. Svensson L, Mullarney K, Zetterström D (2015) Le guide ornitho, 5th edn. Delachaux et Niestlé, ParisGoogle Scholar
  93. van Lier JR, Wilson SK, Depczynski M, Wenger LN, Fulton CJ (2018) Habitat connectivity and complexity underpin fish community structure across a seascape of tropical macroalgae meadows. Landscape Ecol 33:1287–1300Google Scholar
  94. Webb SL, Olson CV, Dzialak MR, Harju SM, Winstead JB, Lockman D (2012) Landscape features and weather influence nest survival of a ground-nesting bird of conservation concern, the Greater Sage-Grouse, in human altered environments. Ecol Processes 1(4):1–15Google Scholar
  95. Yorio P (2009) Marine protected areas, spatial scales, and governance: implications for the conservation of breeding seabirds. Conserv Lett 2:171–178Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CNRS, UMR LETG, Arts and Social Sciences FacultyNantes UniversityNantes Cedex 3France
  2. 2.Marine Biology Laboratory MMS, Science FacultyNantes UniversityNantes Cedex 1France

Personalised recommendations