Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 657–673 | Cite as

Shorebirds and stakeholders: Effects of beach closure and human activities on shorebirds at a New Jersey coastal beach

Article

Abstract

Coastal habitats are critical for conservation of migrant shorebirds. We examined the effect of beach closure on recreationists and on shorebirds, at an important southbound stopover area for shorebirds at Brigantine, New Jersey. The study had three prongs: 1) involve stakeholders during all phases, 2) assess public use of the beach and responses to closure, and 3) assess shorebird use of the beach and response to closure. Stakeholders were involved in the design, implementation and evaluation of the project. The beach was used for fishing, walking, dog-walking, and other recreational activities. Sixty percent of recreationists were positive about the study and beach closure to protect shorebirds. The data indicate that: 1) involving a wide range of stakeholders early and often was important to our ability to conduct, design, and implement the study, 2) the beach was used by different types of recreationists 3) beach users were supportive of the closure, 4) spatial use by shorebirds depended upon whether the beach was open or closed, especially for red knot, and 5) all species of shorebirds used a small beach area behind a protective fence whether the beach was open or closed. Red knot behavior was most affected by beach closure; they spread out over the entire beach when it was closed, and concentrated at the tip when it was open. Conservation measures should take into account stakeholders views, human uses, beach physiognomy, and potential closure of refuge areas during critical migration times for shorebirds.

Keywords

Closure Conservation Shorebirds Human disturbance Stakeholder involvement Community participation 

References

  1. Allen ML, Culhane-Pera KA, Pergament SI, Call KT (2010) Facilitating research faculty participation in CBPR: development of a model based on key informant interviews. Clin Trans Sci 3:233–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker AJ, Gonzalez PM, Piersma T, Niles LJ et al (2004) Rapid population decline in red knots: fitness consequences of refuelling rates and late arrival in Delaware Bay. Proc Royal Soc London 271:875–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burger J (ed) (2011) Stakeholders and scientists: achieving implementable solutions to energy and environmental issues. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Burger J, Jeitner C, Clark K, Niles LJ (2004) The effect of human activities on migrant shorebirds: successful adaptive management. Environ Cons 31(4):283–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burger J, Gordon C, Niles LJ, Newman J, Forcey G, Vlietstra L (2011) Risk evaluation for federally listed (roseate tern, piping plover) or candidate (red knot) bird species in offshore waters: a first step for managing the potential impacts of wind facility development on the Atlantic outer continental shelf. Renew Ener 36:32–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carney KM, Sydeman WJ (1999) A review of human disturbance effects on nesting colonial waterbirds. Waterbirds 22:68–79Google Scholar
  7. Chase LC, Decker DJ, Lauber TT (2004) Public participation in wildlife management: what doe stakeholders want? Soc Nat Res 17:629–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Conklin JR, Battley PF, Potter MA, Fox JW (2010) Breeding latitude drives individual schedules in a trans-hemispheric migrant bird. Nat Comm 1:67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dekker D, Dekker I, Christie D, Ydenberg R (2011) Do staging Semipalmated Sandpipers spend the high-tide period in flight over the ocean to avoid falcon attacks along the shore? Waterbirds 34:195–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dolman PM, Sutherland WJ (1995) The response of bird populations to habitat loss. Ibis 137:538–546Google Scholar
  11. Dulin MF, Tapp H, Smith HA, Urquieta D, Hernandez B, Furuseth OJ (2010) A community based participatory approach to improving health in a Hispanic population. Implement Sci 6:38 [Epub ahead of print]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Galbraith HR, Jones R, Park J, Clough S et al (2002) Global climate change and sea level rise: potential losses of intertidal habitat for shorebirds. Colonial Waterbirds 25:173–183Google Scholar
  13. Gill JA, Norris K, Sutherland WJ (2001) Why behavioral responses may not reflect the population consequences of human disturbance. Biol Cons 97:265–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goss-Custard JD, Triplet P, Sueur F, West AD (2006) Critical thresholds of disturbance by people and raptors in foraging wading birds. Biol Cons 127:88–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gregory R, Ohlson D, Arvai J (2006) Deconstructing adaptive management: criteria for applications to environmental management. Ecol App 16:2411–2425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hannah L (2011) Climate change, connectivity, and conservation success. Cons Biol 25:1139–1142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harrington BA (2001) Red knot, Calidris canutus. In: Poole A (ed) The birds of North America online. Cornell laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca (New York)Google Scholar
  18. Jordan R, Gray SA, Howe DV, Brooks WR, Ehrenfeld JG (2011) Knowledge gain and behavioural change in citizen-science programs. Cons Biol 25:1148–1154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lyons JE, Runge MC, Laskowski HP, Kendall WL (2008) Monitoring in the context of structured decision-making and adaptive management. J Wildl Manag 72:1683–1692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Macnab J (1985) Carrying capacity and related slippery shibboleths. Wildl Soc Bull 13:4-3-411Google Scholar
  21. Mccleery RA, Lopez RR, Silvy NJ (2007) Transferring research to endangered species management. J Wildl Manag 71:2134–2141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mills M, Jupiter SD, Pressy RL, Ban NC, Comley J (2011) Incorporating effectiveness of community-based management in a national marine gap analysis for Fiji. Cons Biol 25:1155–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Morrison RIG, Hobson KA (2004) Use of body stores in shorebirds after arrival on high-Arctic breeding grounds. Auk 121:333–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morrison RIG, Ross RK, Niles LJ (2004) Declines in wintering populations of Red knots in southern South America. Condor 106:60–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Morrison RIG, Davidson NC, Wilson JR (2007) Survival of the fattest: body stores on migration and survival in Red Knots, Calidris canutus islandica. J Avian Biol 38:479–487Google Scholar
  26. Munoz R, Fox MD (2011) Research impacting social contexts: the moral import of community-based participatory research. Am J Bioethics 11:37–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. National Institute of Environmental Health Research (NIEHS) (2011) Environmental justice and community-based research. http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/supported/programs/justice/ (accessed May 5, 2011)
  28. Niles LJ, Sitters HP, Dey AD, Atkinson PW, Baker AJ et al (2008) Status of the Red knot, Calidris canutus rufa, in the Western Hemisphere. Stud Avian Biol 36:1–185Google Scholar
  29. Niles LJ, Burger J, Porter R, Dey AD, Minton C, et al (2010) First results using light level geolocators to track Red Knots in the Western Hemisphere show rapid and long intercontinental flights and new details of migration paths. Wader Stud Group Bull 117:1–8: 32–39Google Scholar
  30. O’Donnell TK, Galat DL (2008) Evaluating success criteria and project monitoring in river enhancement within an adaptive management framework. Environ Manag 41:90–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pearce-Higgins JW, Finney SK, Yalden DW, Langston RHW (2007) Testing the effects of recreational disturbance on two upland breeding waders. Ibis 149:45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pfister C, Harrington BA, Lavine M (1992) The impact of human disturbance on shorebirds at a migration staging area. Biol Cons 60:115–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Piersma T, Baker J (2000) Life history characteristics and the conservation of migratory shorebirds. In: Gosling LM, Sutherland WJ (eds) Behaviour and conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, pp 105–124Google Scholar
  34. Piersma T, Gill REJ, deGoejj P, Dekinga A, Ml S, Ruthruf D, Tibbitts L (2006) Shorebird avoidance of nearshore feeding and roosting areas at night correlates with presence of nocturnal avian predator. Wader Stud Group Bull 109:73–75Google Scholar
  35. President’s Commission (PCCRAM) (1997) Presidential/congressional commission on risk assessment and management. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  36. Ramsden VR, McKay S, Crowe J (2010) The pursuit of excellence: engaging the community in participatory health research. Global Health Prom 17:32–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rodgers JA, Schwikert S (2002) Buffer-zone distances to protect foraging and loafing waterbirds from disturbance by personal watercraft and outboard-powered boats. Cons Biol 16:216–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sabine JB, Meyers JM, Moore CT, Schweitzer SH (2008) Effects of human activity on behavior of breeding American oystercatchers, Cumberland island national seashore, Georgia, USA. Waterbirds 31:70–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. SAS (Statistical Analysis Systems) (2005) Statistical analysis. SAS, Cary, SCGoogle Scholar
  40. Stillman RA, West AD, Caldow RWG, Durell SE (2007) Predicting the effect of disturbance on coastal birds. Ibis 149:73–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tarr NM, Simons TR, Pollock KH (2010) An experimental assessment of vehicle disturbance effects on migratory shorebirds. J Wildl Manag 74:1776–1783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thomas K, Kvitek RG, Bretz C (2003) Effects of human activity on the foraging behavior of Sanderlings Calidris alba. Biol Cons 109:67–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Warnock N, Elphick C, Rubega MA (2002) Shorebirds in the marine environment. In: Schreiber EA, Burger J (eds) Biology of marine birds. CRC Press, Boca Raton Florida, pp 582–615Google Scholar
  44. West AD, Goss-Custard JD, Stillman RA, Caldow RWG, leVdit Durrell REA, McGrorty S (2002) Predicting the impacts of disturbances on shorebird mortality using a behaviour-based model. Biol Cons 106:319–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Weston MA, Elgar MA (2007) Responses of incubating Hooded Plovers (Thinornis rubricollis) to disturbance. J Coast Res 23:569–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yasue M (2006) Environmental factors and spatial scale influence shorebirds’ responses to human disturbance. Biol Cons 128:47–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Life SciencesRutgers UniversityPiscatawayUSA
  2. 2.Conserve WildlifeGreenwichUSA
  3. 3.NJ Department of Environmental Protection, Endangered and Nongame Species ProgramTrentonUSA

Personalised recommendations