Conflicts between touristic recreational activities and breeding shearwaters: short-term effect of artificial light and sound on chick weight

  • Marco Cianchetti-BenedettiEmail author
  • Paolo Becciu
  • Bruno Massa
  • Giacomo Dell’Omo
Original Article


Human disturbances are increasingly becoming a conservation concern for many populations of colonial seabirds. Colonially reproducing species are particularly vulnerable to localised disturbances because detrimental elements can simultaneously affect the entire population. Studies of petrels and shearwaters have shown that light pollution, in particular, can be harmful for both fledglings and adults, but little is known of the way such anthropogenic elements affect the quality of parental care at the nest. Chick provisioning in petrels and shearwaters occurs exclusively at night and is also negatively correlated with the amount of moonlight. We tested the hypothesis that high-intensity light and sound disturbances will disrupt nest attendance and thus affect weight gain in chicks but that the magnitude of such effects would be modulated by moonlight conditions. We measured the effect of two outdoor disco events on overnight weight gain in 26 chicks of Scopoli’s shearwaters (Calonectris diomedea) from a breeding colony on Linosa Island. The two disco events occurred under contrasting moonlight conditions (moonless vs moonlight). Chicks situated closer to the disturbance gained significantly less weight compared to conspecifics from nests further away but the effect was only evident on the moonless night.Our results suggest that light and sound disturbances can have a negative effect on parental care in C. diomedea but moonlight might moderate the bird’s perception and thus the magnitude of the disturbance. However, while occasional disturbances may impact short-term weight gain in C. diomedea chicks, such effects are not perceivable at fledging when measured as differences in the weight or the date at which they left the nest.


Artificial light disturbance Sound disturbance Conservation on islands Moonlight Scopoli’s shearwater (Calonectris diomedea) 



Thanks to Ivan Maggini and Markus Haber for critically reviewing earlier versions of the manuscript. We are grateful to Nadav Pezaro for correcting the English of the manuscript and for his fundamental suggestions. We would like to thank two reviewers that substantially improved the manuscript with their comments and suggestions.

Authors’ contributions

MCB, PB and GD carried out the fieldwork; PB analysed the data; MCB, PB and BM drafted the manuscript; and GD designed and coordinated the study. All authors gave final approval for publication and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Funding information

This work was carried out in the framework of the LIFE project LIFE1+Nat/IT/000093 “Pelagic Birds.” The field work was also supported by Ornis italica. The study was conducted under permit issued by the Regione Siciliana and Assessorato Risorse Agricole e Alimentari

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.


  1. Albores-Barajas YV, Soldatini C, Furness RW (2009) Are burrow nesting seabird chicks affected by human disturbance? Waterbirds 32(4):572–578. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bourgeois K, Dromzée S, Vidal E, Legrand J (2008) Yelkouan shearwater Puffinus yelkouan presence and behaviour at colonies: not only a moonlight question. C R Biol 331(1):88–97. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bretagnolle V (1996) Acoustic communication in a group of nonpasserine birds, the petrels. In: Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in birds. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, pp 160–178Google Scholar
  4. Cianchetti-Benedetti M, Catoni C, Kato A, Massa B, Quillfeldt P (2017) A new algorithm for the identification of dives reveals the foraging ecology of a shallow-diving seabird using accelerometer data. Mar Biol 164(4):77. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Croxall JP, Butchart SH, Lascelles B, Stattersfield AJ, Sullivan B, Symes A, Taylor P (2012) Seabird conservation status, threats and priority actions: a global assessment. Bird Conserv Int 22(1):1–34. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Curé C, Mathevon N, Aubin T (2016) Mate vocal recognition in the Scopoli’s shearwater Calonectris diomedea: do females and males share the same acoustic code? Behav Process 128:96–102. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hamer KC, Hill JK (1993) Variation and regulation of meal size and feeding frequency in Cory’s shearwater Calonectris diomedea. J Anim Ecol 62:441–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Le Corre M, Ollivier A, Ribes S, Jouventin P (2002) Light-induced mortality of petrels: a 4-year study from Réunion Island (Indian Ocean). Biol Conserv 105(1):93–102. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Massa B, Lo Valvo M (1986) Biometrical and biological considerations on the Cory’s shearwater Calonectris diomedea. In: Mediterranean Marine Avifauna. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 293–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Montevecchi W (2006) Influences of artificial light on marine birds. In: Rich C, Longcore T (eds) Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting. Island Press, Washington, pp 94–113Google Scholar
  11. Mougeot F, Bretagnolle V (2000) Predation risk and moonlight avoidance in nocturnal seabirds. J Avian Biol 31(3):376–386. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Müller MS, Massa B, Phillips RA, Dell’Omo G (2015) Seabirds mated for life migrate separately to the same places: behavioural coordination or shared proximate causes? Anim Behav 102:267–276. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Oro D, De León A, Minguez E, Furness RW (2005) Estimating predation on breeding European storm-petrels (Hydrobates pelagicus) by yellow-legged gulls (Larus michahellis). J Zool 265:421–429. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Paleczny M, Hammill E, Karpouzi V, Pauly D (2015) Population trend of the world’s monitored seabirds, 1950-2010. PLoS One 10(6):e0129342. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D (2014) nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1–117. Available at: http://CRAN. R-project. org/package= nlmeGoogle Scholar
  16. R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Version 3.3.3. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. Available at:
  17. Ricklefs RE, Schew WA (1994) Foraging stochasticity and lipid accumulation by nestling petrels. Funct Ecol 8:159–170. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Riou S, Hamer KC (2008) Predation risk and reproductive effort: impacts of moonlight on food provisioning and chick growth in Manx shearwaters. Anim Behav 76(5):1743–1748. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Riou S, Gray C, Brooke M, Quillfeldt P, Masello JF, Perrins C, Hamer KC (2011) Recent impacts of anthropogenic climate change on a higher marine predator in western Britain. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 422:105–112. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rodríguez A, Rodríguez B (2009) Attraction of petrels to artificial lights in the Canary Islands: effects of the moon phase and age class. Ibis (Lond 1859) 151:299–310. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rodríguez A, Chiaradia A, Wasiak P, Renwick L, Dann P (2016) Waddling on the dark side: ambient light affects attendance behavior of little penguins. J Biol Rhythm 31(2):194–204. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rubolini D, Maggini I, Ambrosini R, Imperio S, Paiva VH, Gaibani G, Saino N, Cecere JG (2015) The effect of moonlight on Scopoli’s shearwater Calonectris diomedea colony attendance patterns and nocturnal foraging: a test of the foraging efficiency hypothesis. Ethology 121(3):284–299. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Signorell A (2015) DescTools: tools for descriptive statistics. R package version 0.99, p 15. Available at: Scholar
  24. Storey A (1984) Function of Manx shearwater calls in mate attraction. Behaviour 89(1):73–88. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Telfer T, Sincock J, Byrd G, Reed J (1987) Attraction of Hawaiian seabirds to lights: conservation efforts and effects of moon phase. Wildl Soc Bull (1973-2006), 15(3), 406–413Google Scholar
  26. Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern Applied Statistics with S-PLUS, 4th edn. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Watson H, Bolton M, Monaghan P (2014) Out of sight but not out of harm’s way: human disturbance reduces reproductive success of a cavity-nesting seabird. Biol Conserv 174:127–133. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Warham J (1990) The petrels: their ecology and breeding systems. A&C BlackGoogle Scholar
  29. Weimerskirch H, Shaffer SA, Mabille G, Martin J, Boutard O, Rouanet JL (2002) Heart rate and energy expenditure of incubating wandering albatrosses: basal levels, natural variation, and the effects of human disturbance. J Exp Biol 205(4):475–483PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Yorio P, Frere E, Gandini P, Schiavini A (2001) Tourism and recreation at seabird breeding sites in Patagonia, Argentina: current concerns and future prospects. Bird Conserv Int 11(4):231–245. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ornis ItalicaRomeItaly
  2. 2.Behavioural Ecology & Ecophysiology group, Department of Animal Ecology & SystematicsJustus-Liebig University GiessenGiessenGermany
  3. 3.Animal Flight Laboratory, Department of Evolutionary and Environmental BiologyUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael
  4. 4.Department of Agriculture and Forest SciencesUniversity of PalermoPalermoItaly

Personalised recommendations