Potential interactions between humans and non‐breeding shorebirds on a subtropical intertidal flat

Zharikov, Yuri; Skilleter, G. A.

doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.2004.01404.x

Cited by 16 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The small crabs were the main prey (75.01±3.34% of the prey items captured and visually identified), and their occurrence did not differ significantly with the presence of harvesters on the intertidal area (harvesting, median: 1; range: 0–4; n =54; no harvesting, median: 1; range: 0–5; n =58; Table 2). Apparently, the sizes of individual prey were similar with and without harvesting; hence the feeding rate could be used as a proxy for intake rate (Zharikov & Skilleter, 2004). The number of aggressions without harvesters (median: 0; range: 0–3; n =54) and with harvesters (median: 0; range: 0–3; n =57) did not differ significantly (Table 2).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Overall, intertidal areas are often patchily distributed and fairly small in area (Atkinson et al , 2003). Hence, where the estuarine areas occupy a strategic geographical position on flyways, the increasing human disturbance associated with harvesting by hand could pose a threat to the migratory process, especially during adverse weather events, because shellfishing and digging by hand may reduce directly or indirectly the benthic prey stocks and/or disturb the waterbirds, forcing them to feed in areas of less quality (De Boer & Longamane, 1996; Townshend & O'Connor, 1993; Shepherd & Boates; 1999; review in Goss‐Custard et al , 2000; Zharikov & Skilleter, 2004; Masero et al , in press). Some long‐distance migratory shorebirds are globally endangered (International Wader Study Group, 2003) and particularly vulnerable to disturbance in their coastal habitats (Piersma & Baker, 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Measuring potential negative effects of traditional harvesting practices on waterbirds: a case study with migrating curlews

Navedo

Masero

2007

Animal Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Because of potential conflicts between commercial and conservation interests, one challenge in coastal-area management is how to regulate harvesting practices in coastal areas without adversely affecting the survival of migratory waterbirds. In most Spanish intertidal areas of importance for shorebirds, managers have concentrated only on stock management of the shellfish species. Here, we studied aspects of the foraging behaviour of Eurasian curlews Numenius arquata migrating through a Ramsar area in north Spain in the presence and absence of hand harvesters. We aimed to assess potential negative effects on curlews with a view to making coastal management recommendations that would help reduce conflict between local people and waterbirds. The average density of hand harvesters and foraging curlews at low tide was 0.56 AE 0.09 persons per 10 ha and 16.47 AE 0.73 birds per 10 ha, respectively. The presence of harvesters had a significant effect on foraging activity (no harvesting: 86.47 AE 1.01%; harvesting: 82.70 AE 1.00%). However, the absence of significant differences in all other foraging variables, between days with and without harvesting, indicated that curlews were able to compensate for the impact of harvesters on their foraging activity. We recommend, as a point of departure, that intertidal coastal managers of this Spanish site and similar areas of importance for shorebirds limit the harvesting load to o0.56 persons per 10 ha À1 at least during autumn migration.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring potential negative effects of traditional harvesting practices on waterbirds: a case study with migrating curlews

Navedo

Masero

2007

Animal Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The groups of animals most affected by dugong grazing were small crustaceans and polychaetes, all of which are potentially important food for estuarine fish (e.g. Coull et al 1995) and shorebirds (Zharikov & Skilleter 2003, 2004. These significant impacts on benthic assemblages associated with seagrass occurred at the scale of an individual grazing dugong.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of grazing by a marine mega-herbivore on benthic assemblages in a subtropical seagrass bed

Skilleter¹,

Wegscheidl²,

Lanyon³

2007

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of grazing by the dugong Dugong dugon on benthic invertebrate assemblages in seagrass beds were examined in subtropical Moreton Bay, southeast Queensland, Australia. During feeding, dugongs leave distinct trails through seagrass beds where vegetation has been removed and sediments disturbed. The abundance of benthic fauna was examined along 3 recently created feeding trails and compared to 3 nearby patches of ungrazed seagrass within the same bed. A controlled, manipulative field experiment was then conducted, simulating the effects of dugong grazing, but distinguishing between the effect of removal of vegetation and the disturbance of the sediment during feeding. Dugong grazing was associated with declines in the abundance of benthic animals by up to 85% along trails, with the most noticeable impacts on amphipods and polychaete worms. Simulated dugong grazing caused a significant decline in the biomass of seagrass, through the removal of the vegetation but also from the physical disturbance during feeding. The combined and separate effects on the vegetation and from disturbance were associated with: (1) significant effects of grazing but not of physical disturbance for amphipods, capitellid and opheliid polychaetes; (2) significant effects of physical disturbance with no additional effect of grazing for terebellid polychaetes; (3) significant effects of physical disturbance with an additional effect of grazing for tanaids, bivalves and sabellid polychaetes; (4) significant short-term effects after 1 wk, no longer apparent after 4 wk, for ostracods, nereidid and syllid polychaetes and nemerteans; and (5) no effect of grazing or physical disturbance for isopods and spionid polychaetes. KEY WORDS: Dugong · Grazing · Subtropical seagrass · Benthic infaunaResale or republication not permitted without written consent of the publisher

show abstract

“…Klawe & Dickie 1957, Blake 1979a,b, McLusky et al 1983, de Boer & Prins 2002, Zharikov & Skilleter 2004, most of these have focussed on areas of unvegetated intertidal habitat. There is little detailed information on how baitharvesting affects vegetated habitats such as seagrass beds.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of physical disturbance on infaunal and epifaunal assemblages in subtropical, intertidal seagrass beds

Skilleter

Cameron

Zharikov

et al. 2006

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:We assessed the impact of large-scale commercial and recreational harvesting of polychaete worms Marphysa spp. on macrobenthic assemblages in a subtropical estuary in Queensland, Australia, by examining: (1) the spatial extent of harvesting activities and the rate of recovery of the seagrass habitat over an 18 to 20 mo period; (2) the recovery of infauna in and around commercial pits of known age; (3) the indirect effects of physical disturbance from trampling and deposition of sediments during harvesting on epibenthos in areas adjacent to commercial and recreational pits; (4) impacts of potential indirect effects through manipulative experimentation. Harvesting caused a loss of seagrass, changes to the topography and compaction of the sediments associated with the creation of walls around commercial pits, and the deposition of rubble dug from within the pit. The walls and rubble were still evident after 18 to 20 mo, but comprised only a small proportion of the total area on the intertidal banks. There was a shift from an intertidal area dominated by Zostera capricorni to one with a mixture of Z. capricorni, Halophila spp. and Halodule uninervis, but there was no overall decline in the biomass of seagrass in these areas. There were distinct impacts from harvesting on the abundance of benthic infauna, especially amphipods, polychaetes and gastropods, and these effects were still detectable after 4 mo of potential recovery. After 12 mo, there were no detectable differences in the abundances of these infauna between dug areas and reference areas, which suggested that infauna had recovered from impacts of harvesting; however, an extensive bloom of toxic fireweed Lyngbya majuscula may have masked any remaining impacts. There were no detectable impacts of harvesting on epifauna living in the seagrass immediately around commercial or recreational pits.

show abstract

Potential interactions between humans and non‐breeding shorebirds on a subtropical intertidal flat

Cited by 16 publications

References 53 publications

Measuring potential negative effects of traditional harvesting practices on waterbirds: a case study with migrating curlews

Measuring potential negative effects of traditional harvesting practices on waterbirds: a case study with migrating curlews

Effects of grazing by a marine mega-herbivore on benthic assemblages in a subtropical seagrass bed

Effects of physical disturbance on infaunal and epifaunal assemblages in subtropical, intertidal seagrass beds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About