Effects of Long Piers on Birds in Tidal Wetlands

Abstract

As human development continues in coastal areas, shoreline properties adjacent to expansive tidal marsh habitat are increasingly used for access to coastal waterways via long piers (>30 m) over marsh habitat. These tidal wetlands provide breeding and foraging habitat for many marsh birds, which may be affected by the human disturbance associated with long piers. Our objectives were to determine the effect of long piers over vegetated tidal marshes on the relative abundance and species richness of marsh birds. We completed combined passive and callback surveys in tidal marsh habitat at 22 sites with long piers and 24 sites without long piers, May‐July 2005–2006 in Worcester County, Maryland, USA. Pier sites had lower relative abundance and species richness of obligate marsh birds than nonpier sites. Pier sites had a greater relative abundance of gulls, terns, herons, and egrets than nonpier sites. Pier sites had fewer species of herons and egrets than at nonpier sites. The presence of long piers had no affect on facultative marsh birds. Long pier density was negatively related to obligate marsh bird relative abundance and species richness, and facultative marsh bird species richness, whereas it was positively related to the relative abundance and species richness of gulls and terns. Herons and egrets relative abundance and species richness were not related to long pier density. Obligate marsh birds were negatively affected by long piers, whereas herons, egrets, gulls, and terns appeared to benefit from perching opportunities. Based on the negative effects of long piers on obligate marsh birds, management should focus on reducing the presence and density of long piers in tidal marshes by requiring the removal of existing long piers, or reducing or eliminating permits for construction of new long piers.

The effect of white-tailed deer density on breeding songbirds in Delaware

“…For the BBS data, we used a 1‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA), blocking on year with percent forest cover within a 50‐m buffer as a covariate, to determine whether the relative abundance or species richness of vulnerable guilds was affected by deer‐density category (low, moderate, high). For species that were detected on ≥25% ( n = 73 of 291) of points, we used a 1‐way ANOVA, blocking on year with percent forest cover within a 50‐m buffer as a covariate, to determine whether bird abundance was affected by deer‐density category (Banning et al ). If we detected significance, we used a protected least significant differences (LSD) analysis to compare among density categories (Sokal and Rohlf ).…”

The Protection of Estuarine Margins under the Maritime–Terrestrial Public Domain, the Cases of Portugal, Angola, Brazil, and Mozambique

“…For these, estuarine margins ownership is often associated with management constraints, since many interventions, being related to rehabilitation, the control of invasive species, or environmental monitoring, may be thwarted by private owners (Fouts et al 2017;Hindman et al 2014;Provencher et al 2012). Similar constraints are referred to when owners carry out works to protect their property without integrated planning approaches or taking into due account neighbours' parcels and associated biodiversity and habitats (Smith et al 2017;Almar et al 2012;Gabriel and Bodensteiner 2012;Jones and Strange 2009;Banning and Bowman 2009). On the contrary, other authors reflect the understanding of margins as public assets and managed under integrated approaches linking the environmental vulnerabilities with social and economic concerns.…”