No abstract

The piping plover (Charadrius melodus) is listed as Endangered under Alberta's Wildlife Act, and in most otherjurisdictions in North America (Alberta Piping Plover Recovery Team 2002). Poor productivity as a result ofpredation of eggs and chicks has been identified as the greatest source ofreproductive failure for piping plovers in Alberta. The Alberta Piping Plover Recovery Plan 2002-2004 identified a need for increased predator management in order to boost reproductive success (Alberta Piping Plover Recovery Team 2002). This report was produced in order to research and compile information on the various tools, techniques and tactics used to control predators thought to be a threat to piping plover reproductive success. This information was compiled through searches of a variety ofbibliographic databases and Internet resources. A wide variety ofpredator control techniques with potential application to piping plover management was identified. The most useful techniques should have tangible benefits for plover productivity and pose no safety or disturbance concerns for humans. As a rule, they should also be inexpensive relative to the benefits ofemploying the technique, require little manpower to implement and should be non-lethal to the predator species. With these criteria in mind, predator deterrence activities to be considered are: 1) using predator exclosures on as many nests as possible; 2) continued removal of stick nests during the nonbreeding season around key plover breeding lakes; 3) using electrified predator fences to protect habitats with high nest densities that can be exclosed with relatively small amounts offence; 4) experimentation with the use of chick shelters in areas with little or no natural cover; 5) filling ofknown canid dens near plover nesting beaches during the non-breeding season; 6) initiation of discussions with affected parties (recovery team, provincial and federal regulatory agencies, local landowners) on the desirability of and approaches to gull control on piping plover lakes with significant gull colonies and; 7) Monitoring progress on research into the use of scent deterrents. It is likely that a combination ofthese techniques, tailored to individual lakes, would be the most effective. The best strategy will be an adaptive approach that takes into consideration many factors. Techniques that are implemented should be monitored to determine their effectiveness and periodically modified through consultation with the Alberta Piping Plover Recovery Team. 1.0 Table 1. Sample keywords used in database searches. Piping plovers Automatic scare devices Crow control Pest control methods Predator removal Frightening devices Common terns Bird deterrence Gull poisoning Piping plover predation Nest predation Monofilament lines Shorebird predation Bird control Bird control devices Duck predation Bird repellents Repellents Mammal control Coyote control Gull control Egg oiling 2.2 Identification of Potential Predators Research conducted within and outside of Alberta on piping plovers and other ...

An estimated 30% of the North American piping plover (Charadrius melodus) breeding population occurs in Canada, where it is Endangered. Predator exclosures are a common management tool across the species' range to increase nest success. Using data from 1998 to 2010 on 820 nests, collected as part of an ongoing management program in Alberta, we compare daily nest survival (DNS), numbers of chicks hatched and fledglings produced, and cost/chick among three treatments (large, medium, small exclosures) and natural nests. During the early period (1998)(1999)(2000)(2001), when all three types of exclosures were applied, there were no significant differences in DNS between exclosed nests and natural nests. During the late period (2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010), when only small exclosures were applied, nests with small exclosures had a significantly higher DNS rate (x = 0.994, n = 594) compared with natural nests (x = 0.984, n = 88). Nests with small exclosures also hatched more chicks (x = 3.21, n = 598) and produced more fledglings (x = 1.17, n = 337) than natural nests (x = 1.73 chicks, n = 31; x = 0.59 fledglings, n = 21) during the late period. However, considering only successful nests, the differences were not significant for either period, indicating no added benefit of exclosures beyond protecting the nest. The cost/chick rate was lowest using small exclosures (cylindrical, 40 by 60 cm), and this portable design is well-suited for widespread application in the field. We demonstrate increased DNS for nests with small exclosures and a mean fledging rate close to the goal of 1.25 chicks/nest/year, although this did not increase Alberta's piping plover population beyond the timeframe of systematic exclosure application. Long-term, cost-efficient management tools that increase nest success and fledging rates should continue.