Advertisement

Journal of Ornithology

, Volume 148, Supplement 2, pp 247–252 | Cite as

Responses of seabirds to depletion of food fish stocks

  • Robert W. FurnessEmail author
Review

Abstract

Life history theory predicts that seabirds will respond to reduction in food abundance by changes in behaviour or breeding effort, buffering adult survival. Empirical data show some support for this but also sometimes indicate a trade-off in which survival of breeding seabirds may be reduced by food shortage. The sensitivity of seabird adult survival rates may be a feature of the detailed ecology of particular species and may be affected by ecological conditions such as the possibilities for prey switching. Fishery managers may set a lower limit biomass to protect fish stock recruitment, often at about 20% of predicted unfished stock biomass. It is unclear whether this threshold would also protect the needs of seabirds dependent on the fish stock. Time series of seabird breeding success and fish stock biomass may indicate minimum densities of food required. These are orders of magnitude more than the consumption by seabird populations. The critical prey density may also vary tremendously among seabird species and is clearly a function of the detailed ecology of each species. It is possible to predict which species will be most sensitive to reduced food supply. Sensitive species may be sentinels of the “health” of the marine ecosystem. For example, in Shetland and elsewhere in the North Sea, breeding success of kittiwakes Rissa tridactyla is particularly sensitive to abundance and quality of sandeels Ammodytes spp. However, seabird communities may be affected by a variety of interactions prompted by changes in fisheries; maintaining food fish levels may not alone be sufficient where communities have altered in composition over decades of fishing, as in the North Sea, and where predator–prey impacts induced by changes in fishery management may disrupt seabird communities.

Keywords

Seabird Fisheries Stock depletion Ecosystem-based management 

Notes

Acknowledgement

I thank The Leverhulme Trust for a Research Fellowship, during which this paper was prepared.

References

  1. Arnott SA, Ruxton GD (2002) Sandeel recruitment in the North Sea: demographic, climatic and trophic effects. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 238:199–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrett RT, Krasnov JV (1996) Recent responses to changes in fish stocks of prey species by seabirds breeding in the southern Barents Sea. ICES J Mar Sci 53:713–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyd IL, Wanless S, Camphuysen CJ (eds) (2006) Top predators in marine ecosystems: their role in monitoring and management. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Browman HI, Stergiou KI (2004) Theme section: perspectives on ecosystem-based approaches to the management of marine resources. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 274:269–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Camphuysen CJ (ed) (2005) Understanding marine foodweb processes: an ecosystem approach to sustainable sandeel fisheries in the North Sea. IMPRESS final report. Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, TexelGoogle Scholar
  6. Cook RM (2004) Estimation of the age-specific rate of natural mortality for Shetland sandeels. ICES J Mar Sci 61:159–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis SE, Nager RG, Furness RW (2005) Food availability affects adult survival as well as breeding success of parasitic jaegers. Ecology 86:1047–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ellis HI, Gabrielsen GW (2002) Energetics of free-ranging seabirds. In: Schreiber EA, Burger J (eds) Biology of marine birds. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 359–407Google Scholar
  9. Ens BJ (2006) The conflict between shellfisheries and migratory waterbirds in the Dutch Wadden Sea. In: Boere GC, Galbraith CA, Stroud DA (eds) Waterbirds around the world. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh, pp 806–811 Google Scholar
  10. Frederiksen M, Wanless S, Harris MP, Rothery P, Wilson LJ (2004) The role of industrial fisheries and oceanographic change in the decline of North Sea black-legged kittiwakes. J Appl Ecol 41:1129–1139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frederiksen M, Wright PJ, Heubeck M, Harris MP, Mavor RA, Wanless S (2005) Regional patterns of kittiwake Rissa tridactyla breeding success are related to variability in sandeel recruitment. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 300:201–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frederiksen M, Furness RW, Wanless S (2007) Regional variation in the role of bottom-up and top-down processes in controlling sandeel abundance in the North Sea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 337:287–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Furness RW (1987) The skuas. T & AD Poyser, CaltonGoogle Scholar
  14. Furness RW (2002) Management implications of interactions between fisheries and sandeel-dependent seabirds and seals in the North Sea. ICES J Mar Sci 59:261–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Furness RW, Tasker ML (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. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 202:253–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greenstreet SPR (2006) Does the prohibition of industrial fishing for sandeels have any impact on local gadoid populations? In: Boyd IL, Wanless S, Camphuysen CJ (eds) Top predators in marine ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 223–235Google Scholar
  17. Hilton GM, Furness RW, Houston DC (2000) A comparative study of digestion in North Atlantic seabirds. J Avian Biol 31:36–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hjermann DØ, Ottersen G, Stenseth NC (2004) Competition among fishermen and fish causes the collapse of Barents Sea capelin. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101:11679–11684PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hunt GL, McKinnell S (2006) Interplay between top-down, bottom-up, and wasp-waist control in marine ecosystems. Prog Oceanogr 68:115–124Google Scholar
  20. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) (2002) Report of the working group on the assessment of demersal stocks in the North Sea and Skagerrak, June 2001. ICES CM 2002/ACFM:01, International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  21. Jennings S, Kaiser MJ, Reynolds JD (2001) Marine fisheries ecology. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Mavor RA, Parsons M, Heubeck M, Schmitt S (2006) Seabird numbers and breeding success in Britain and Ireland, 2005. UK Nature Conservation 30, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  23. Mehlum F, Gabrielsen GW (1995) Energy expenditure and food consumption by seabird populations in the Barents Sea region. In: Skjoldal HR, Hopkins C, Erikstad KE, Leinaas HP (eds) Ecology of fjords and coastal waters, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 457–470Google Scholar
  24. Mitchell PI, Newton SF, Ratcliffe N, Dunn TE (2004) Seabird populations of Britain and Ireland. T & AD Poyser, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Oro D, Furness RW (2002) Influences of food availability and predation on survival of kittiwakes. Ecology 83:2516–2528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Österblom H, Casini M, Olsson O, Bignert A (2006) Fish, seabirds and trophic cascades in the Baltic Sea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 323:233–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pauly D, Alder J, Bennett E, et al (2003) The future for fisheries. Science 302:1359–1361PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pedersen SA, Lewy P, Wright P (1999) Assessments of the lesser sandeel (Ammodytes marinus) in the North Sea based on revised stock divisions. Fish Res 41: 221–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pennington M, Osborn K, Harvey P, Riddington R, Okill D, Ellis P, Heubeck M (2004) The birds of Shetland. Christopher Helm, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Poloczanska ES, Cook RM, Ruxton GD, Wright PJ (2004) Fishing vs natural recruitment variation in sandeels as a cause of seabird breeding failure at Shetland: a modelling approach. ICES J Mar Sci 61:788–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rindorf A, Wanless S, Harris MP (2000) Effects of sandeel availability on the reproductive output of seabirds. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 202:241–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (2004) Turning the tide: addressing the impact of fisheries on the marine environment. The Stationery Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Votier SC, Furness RW, Bearhop S, et al (2004) Changes in fisheries discard rates and seabird communities. Nature 427:727–730PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Walsh PM, Halley DJ, Harris MP, del Nevo A, Sim IMW, Tasker ML (1995) Seabird monitoring handbook for Britain and Ireland. JNCC, RSPB, ITE, Seabird Group, PeterboroughGoogle Scholar
  35. Wright PJ (1996) Is there a conflict between sandeel fisheries and seabirds? A case history at Shetland. In: Greenstreet SPR, Tasker ML (eds) Aquatic predators and their prey. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 154–165Google Scholar
  36. Zwarts L, Wanink JH, Ens BJ (1996) Predicting seasonal and annual fluctuations in the local exploitation of different prey by oystercatchers Haematopus ostralegus: a ten-year study in the Wadden Sea. Ardea 84A:401–440Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Dt. Ornithologen-Gesellschaft e.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Graham Kerr BuildingUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations