Search

The designation of Marine Protected Areas has become an important approach to conserving marine ecosystems that relies on robust information on the spatial distribution of biodiversity. We used GPS tracking data to identify marine Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs) for the Endangered northern rockhopper penguin Eudyptes moseleyi within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of Tristan da Cunha in the South Atlantic. Penguins were tracked throughout their breeding season from 3 of the 4 main islands in the Tristan da Cunha group. Foraging trips remained largely within the EEZ, with the exception of those from Gough Island during the incubation stage. We found substantial variability in trip duration and foraging range among breeding stages and islands, consistent use of areas among years and spatial segregation of the areas used by neighbouring islands. For colonies with no or insufficient tracking data, we defined marine IBAs based on the mean maximum foraging range and merged the areas identified to propose IBAs around the Tristan da Cunha archipelago and Gough Island. The 2 proposed marine IBAs encompass 2% of Tristan da Cunha’s EEZ, and are used by all northern rockhopper penguins breeding in the Tristan da Cunha group, representing ~90% of the global population. Currently, one of the main threats to northern rockhopper penguins within the Tristan da Cunha EEZ is marine pollution from shipping, and the risk of this would be reduced by declaring waters within 50 nautical miles of the coast as ‘areas to be avoided’.

We present the first objective quantitative assessment of the threats to all 359 species of seabirds, identify the main challenges facing them, and outline priority actions for their conservation. We applied the standardised Threats Classification Scheme developed for the IUCN Red List to objectively assess threats to each species and analysed the data according to global IUCN threat status, taxonomic group, and primary foraging habitat (coastal or pelagic). The top three threats to seabirds in terms of number of species affected and average impact are: invasive alien species, affecting 165 species across all the most threatened groups; bycatch in fisheries, affecting fewer species (100) but with the greatest average impact; and climate change/severe weather, affecting96 species. Overfishing, hunting/trapping and disturbance were also identified as major threats to seabirds. Reversing the top three threats alone would benefit two-thirds of all species and c. 380 million individual seabirds (c. 45% of the total global seabird population). Most seabirds (c. 70%), especially globally threatened species, face multiple threats. For albatrosses, petrels and penguins in particular (the three most threatened groups of seabirds), it is essential to tackle both terrestrial and marine threats to reverse declines. As the negative effects of climate change are harder to mitigate, it is vital to compensate by addressing other major threats that often affect the same species, such as invasive alien species, bycatch and overfishing, for which proven solutions exist. Fil: Dias, Maria P.. Birdlife International; Reino Unido Fil: Martin, Rob. Birdlife International; Reino Unido Fil: Pearmain, Elizabeth J.. Birdlife International; Reino Unido Fil: Burfield, Ian J.. Birdlife International; Reino Unido Fil: Small, Cleo. Birdlife International; Reino Unido Fil: Phillips, Richard A.. Natural Environment Research Council; Reino Unido Fil: Yates, Oliver. Centre for the Environment, Fishery and Aquaculture Science; Reino Unido Fil: Lascelles, Ben. Birdlife International; Reino Unido Fil: Garcia Borboroglu, Jorge Pablo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Centro Nacional Patagónico. Centro para el Estudio de Sistemas Marinos; Argentina. University of Washington; Estados Unidos. Global Penguin Society; Argentina Fil: Croxall, John P.. BirdLife International; Reino Unido

Migratory marine species cross political borders and enter the high seas, where the lack of an effective global management framework for biodiversity leaves them vulnerable to threats. Here, we combine 10,108 tracks from 5775 individual birds at 87 sites with data on breeding population sizes to estimate the relative year-round importance of national jurisdictions and high seas areas for 39 species of albatrosses and large petrels. Populations from every country made extensive use of the high seas, indicating the stake each country has in the management of biodiversity in international waters. We quantified the links among national populations of these threatened seabirds and the regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) which regulate fishing in the high seas. This work makes explicit the relative responsibilities that each country and RFMO has for the management of shared biodiversity, providing invaluable information for the conservation and management of migratory species in the marine realm., This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 766417. Research made possible with the support, permissions, and funding granted by the following organizations, institutions, and grant agreements: Marine Conservation Program of DPIPWE Tasmania; American Bird Conservancy; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management; communities of Isla Mocha and Islas Juan Fernández; Corporación Nacional Forestal and Servicio Agrícola y Ganadería (Chile); Environment Canada; the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation; the National Geographic Society; ProDelphinus; and the Wallis Foundation; NSF grants DEB 9304579, DEB 9629539, DEB9806606, DEB0235818, and DEB 0842199 to D.J.A.; the National Geographic Society; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Geological Survey Ecosystems Mission Area, Wake Forest University; Max-Planck Society and State of Baden-Wuerttemberg Innovation funding; Colorado State University International Programs; Swiss Friends of Galapagos; the International Center for Tropical Ecology at University of Missouri-St. Louis; the Instituto Antartico Chileno (INACH) and the Australian Antarctic Division (AAD); LIFE “Marine IBAs IN Spain” (LIFE04NAT/ES/000049, 2004-2009) and LIFE+ INDEMARES (2009-2014); Sea World Research and Rescue Foundation Inc.; Holsworth Wildlife Research Endowment; and Winifred Violet Scott Trust; FCT-Portugal through projects (UIDB/04292/2020 and UIDP/04292/2020 and UIDP/50017/2020 and UIDB/50017/2020, granted to MARE and CESAM, respectively); the Falklands Islands Government; Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC) core funding to British Antarctic Survey Ecosystems Programme and Official Development Assistance Atlantic Islands project (NE/ R000 107/1); the New Zealand Department of Conservation; Ministry for Primary Industries; Ngāti Rehua Ngāti Wai ki Aotea; Falklands Island Conservation; University of Barcelona (APIF/2015, to M.C.-F.); the French Polar Institute (program IPEV n°109 to H.W.); Réserve Naturelle Nationale des Terres Australes Françaises; and the Zones Atelier Antarctique (LTSER France, CNRS-INEE); European funds through the European Commission Training and Mobility of Researchers Programme (ERBFMBICT983030); Spanish funds through the Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología (REN2002-01164/GLO), Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia (CGL2006-01315/BOS), Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (CGL2009-11278/BOS), and Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (CGL2013-42585-P); Catalan funds through the Generalitat de Catalunya (2001SGR00091); and additional funding from SEO/BirdLife (programa Migra & proyecto LIFE+ Indemares), Fundación Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (BIOCON04/099) and Fundación Biodiversidad (18PCA4328, 2012-2013); NSERC Discovery Grant and Government of Canada’s Program for International Polar Year to W.A.M.; and an ACAP AC Grant in 2013-14, predoctoral contract BES-2017-079874 of the Spanish Ministerio de Industria, Economía y Competitividad (to L.N.-H.); Spanish Foundation for Biodiversity and Spanish Ministry of Science grant ref. CGL2013-42203-R; the Pew Environment Group via the Pew Fellowship Award in Marine Conservation (to M.L.C.); National Research Foundation; South Africa and Oceans and Coasts; Department of Environment, Agriculture and Fisheries; Malta Seabird Project (LIFE10NAT/MT/090) co-funded by the LIFE program of the European Commission and the Maltese Ministry for the Environment, Sustainable Development and Climate Change, in partnership with the Royal Society for the Protection of Bird and the Portuguese Society for the Study of Birds; predoctoral contract BES-2014-068025 of the Spanish Ministerio de Industria, Economía y Competitividad (to V.M.-P.); Scientific Expert PIM initiative (Petites Iles de Méditerranée); the PIM initiative (Petites Iles de Méditerranée); the Tunisian Coastal Protection and Planning Agency (APAL); Ministry of the Environment, Japan; Funding by Fundación Ecocentro, Argentina; Wildlife Conservation Society, USA; and Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación, Argentina; Centro Nacional Patagónico (CONICET), postdoctoral contracts by Beatriu de Pinós (2010-BP_A-00173), Juan de la Cierva (JCI-2009-05426), PLEAMAR (2017/2349), and Ramón y Cajal (RYC-2017-22055) programme (to R.R.); Seventh Framework Programme (Research Executive Agency of the European Commission, 618841, FP7-PEOPLE-2013-CIG); Fondation Total pour la Biodiversité (project: Trophic ecology and impacts of bycatch on the avifauna communities of Zembra archipelago); Agence de Protection et d’Aménagement du Littoral (APAL-Tunisia); Killam Postdoctoral fellowship from Dalhousie University; South African National Antarctic Programme; ACAP; Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument; NOAA; Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Kakenhi grant 19651100 and 15H02857; National Parks and Conservation Service (Mauritius) (to M.L.C.); IPEV Prog 109; and NASA. The use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. government. The scientific results and conclusions, as well as any views or opinions expressed herein, are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NOAA or the Department of Commerce. This communication reflects only the authors’ view, and the Research Executive Agency of the European Union is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains. Z.Z. acknowledges funding from a predoctoral grant (APIF/2012) from the University of Barcelona. J.Ad. acknowledges funding from the U.S. Geological Survey Ecosystems Mission Area, U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Pacific OCS Region.

Funding: This research was funded by the Pew Bertarelli Ocean Legacy Project of the Pew Charitable Trusts and Bertarelli Foundation. Aim Marine protected areas can serve to regulate harvesting and conserve biodiversity. Within large multi‐use MPAs, it is often unclear to what degree critical sites of biodiversity are afforded protection against commercial activities. Addressing this issue is a prerequisite if we are to appropriately assess sites against conservation targets. We evaluated whether the management regime of a large MPA conserved sites (Key Biodiversity Areas, KBAs) supporting the global persistence of top marine predators. Location Southwest Atlantic Ocean. Method We collated population and tracking data (1,418 tracks) from 14 marine predator species (Procellariiformes, Sphenisciformes, Pinnipedia) that breed at South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and identified hotspots for their conservation under the recently developed KBA framework. We then evaluated the spatiotemporal overlap of these sites and the different management regimes of krill, demersal longline and pelagic trawl fisheries operating within a large MPA, which was created with the intention to protect marine predator species. Results We identified 12 new global marine KBAs that are important for this community of top predators, both within and beyond the focal MPA. Only three species consistently used marine areas at a time when a potentially higher‐risk fishery was allowed to operate in that area, while other interactions between fisheries and our target species were mostly precluded by MPA management plans. Main conclusions We show that current fishery management measures within the MPA contribute to protecting top predators considered in this study and that resource harvesting within the MPA does not pose a major threat—under current climate conditions. Unregulated fisheries beyond the MPA, however, pose a likely threat to identified KBAs. Our approach demonstrates the utility of the KBA guidelines and multispecies tracking data to assess the contributing role of well‐designed MPAs in achieving local and internationally agreed conservation targets. Publisher PDF

1. The identification of geographic areas where the densities of animals are highest across their annual cycles is a crucial step in conservation planning. In marine environments, however, it can be particularly difficult to map the distribution of species, and the methods used are usually biased towards adults, neglecting the distribution of other life-history stages even though they can represent a substantial proportion of the total population. 2. Here we develop a methodological framework for estimating populationlevel density distributions of seabirds, integrating tracking data across the main life-history stages (adult breeders and non-breeders, juveniles and immatures). We incorporate demographic information (adult and juvenile/immature survival, breeding frequency and success, age at first breeding) and phenological data (average timing of breeding and migration) to weight distribution maps according to the proportion of the population represented by each life-history stage. 3. We demonstrate the utility of this framework by applying it to 22 species of albatrosses and petrels that are of conservation concern due to interactions with fisheries. Because juveniles, immatures and non-breeding adults account for 47%–81% of all individuals of the populations analysed, ignoring the distributions of birds in these stages leads to biased estimates of overlap with threats, and may misdirect management and conservation efforts. Population-level distribution maps using only adult distributions underestimated exposure to longline fishing effort by 18%–42%, compared with overlap scores based on data from all lifehistory stages. 4. Synthesis and applications. Our framework synthesizes and improves on previous approaches to estimate seabird densities at sea, is applicable for data-poor situations, and provides a standard and repeatable method that can be easily updated as new tracking and demographic data become available. We provide scripts in the R language and a Shiny app to facilitate future applications of our approach. We recommend that where sufficient tracking data are available, this framework be used to assess overlap of seabirds with at-sea threats such as overharvesting, fisheries bycatch, shipping, offshore industry and pollutants. Based on such an analysis, conservation interventions could be directed towards areas where they have the greatest impact on populations. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia - FCT; French Polar Institute IPEV; Falkland Islands Government info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

1. Senescence has been widely documented in wild vertebrate populations, yet the\ud proximate drivers of age-related declines in breeding success, including allocation\ud trade-offs and links with foraging performance, are poorly understood. For longlived,\ud migratory species, the non-breeding period represents a critical time for\ud investment in self-maintenance and restoration of body condition, which in many\ud species is linked to fitness. However, the relationships between age, non-breeding\ud foraging behaviour and fitness remain largely unexplored.\ud 2. We performed a cross-sectional study, investigating age-related variation in the foraging\ud activity, distribution and diet of an extremely long-lived seabird, the wandering\ud albatross Diomedea exulans, during the non-breeding period. Eighty-two adults aged\ud 8–33 years were tracked with geolocator-immersion loggers, and body feathers were\ud sampled for stable isotope analysis. We tested for variation in metrics of foraging\ud behaviour and linked age-related trends to subsequent reproductive performance.\ud 3. There was an age-related decline in the number of landings (a proxy of foraging effort)\ud during daylight hours, and a decrease in body feather δ\ud 13C values in older males but not\ud females, yet this did not accompany an age-related shift in distributions. Males conducted\ud fewer landings than females, and the sexes showed some spatial segregation,\ud with males foraging further south, likely due to their differential utilization of winds.\ud 4. Although younger (

Knowing the spatial scales at which effective management can be implemented is fundamental for conservation planning. This is especially important for mobile species, which can be exposed to threats across large areas, but the space use requirements of different species can vary to an extent that might render some management approaches inefficient. Here the space use patterns of seabirds were examined to provide guidance on whether conservation management approaches should be tailored for taxonomic groups with different movement characteristics. Seabird tracking data were synthesised from 5419 adult breeding individuals of 52 species in ten families that were collected in the Atlantic Ocean basin between 1998 and 2017. Two key aspects of spatial distribution were quantified, namely how far seabirds ranged from their colony, and to what extent individuals from the same colony used the same areas at sea. There was evidence for substantial differences in patterns of space-use among the ten studied seabird families, indicating that several alternative conservation management approaches are needed. Several species exhibited large foraging ranges and little aggregation at sea, indicating that area-based conservation solutions would have to be extremely large to adequately protect such species. The results highlight that short-ranging and aggregating species such as cormorants, auks, some penguins, and gulls would benefit from conservation approaches at relatively small spatial scales during their breeding season. However, improved regulation of fisheries, bycatch, pollution and other threats over large spatial scales will be needed for wide-ranging and dispersed species such as albatrosses, petrels, storm petrels and frigatebirds. Fil: Oppel, Steffen. Royal Society For The Protection Of Birds; Fil: Bolton, Mark. Royal Society For The Protection Of Birds; Fil: Carneiro, Ana P.B.. Birdlife International; Fil: Dias, Maria P.. Birdlife International; Fil: Green, Jonathan A.. University of Liverpool; Reino Unido Fil: Masello, Juan F.. Justus Liebig University Giessen; Fil: Phillips, Richard A.. British Antarctic Survey; Fil: Owen, Ellie. Royal Society For The Protection Of Birds; Fil: Quillfeldt, Petra. Justus Liebig University Giessen; Fil: Beard, Annalea. Environmental And Natural Resources Directorate; Fil: Bertrand, Sophie. Universidad Federal Rural Pernambuco; Brasil. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Institut de Recherche pour le Développement; Francia Fil: Blackburn, Jez. British Trust For Ornithology; Fil: Boersma, P. Dee. University Of Washington, Seattle; Fil: Borges, Alder. Projecto Vitó; Fil: Broderick, Annette C.. University of Exeter; Reino Unido Fil: Catry, Paulo. Ispa - Instituto Universitário; Portugal Fil: Cleasby, Ian. Royal Society For The Protection Of Birds; Fil: Clingham, Elizabeth. Environmental And Natural Resources Directorate; Fil: Creuwels, Jeroen. Naturalis Biodiversity Center; Fil: Crofts, Sarah. Falklands Conservation; Fil: Cuthbert, Richard J.. Royal Society For The Protection Of Birds; Fil: Dallmeijer, Hanneke. Veda Consultancy; Fil: Davies, Delia. University Of Cape Town; Fil: Davies, Rachel. Marinelife; Fil: Dilley, Ben J.. University Of Cape Town; Fil: Dinis, Herculano Andrade. Parque Natural Do Fogo; Fil: Dossa, Justine. Birdlife International; Fil: Dunn, Michael J.. British Antarctic Survey; Fil: Efe, Marcio A.. Universidade Federal de Alagoas; Brasil Fil: Fayet, Annette L.. University of Oxford; Reino Unido Fil: Figueiredo, Leila. Universidade Federal de Alagoas; Brasil Fil: Frederico, Adelcides Pereira. Projecto Vitó; Fil: Gjerdrum, Carina. Environment Canada; Canadá Fil: Godley, Brendan J.. University of Exeter; Reino Unido Fil: Granadeiro, José Pedro. Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa; Portugal Fil: Guilford, Tim. University of Oxford; Reino Unido Fil: Hamer, Keith C.. University Of Leeds; Fil: Hazin, Carolina. Birdlife International; Fil: Hedd, April. Environment Canada; Canadá Fil: Henry, Leeann. Environmental And Natural Resources Directorate; Fil: Hernández-Montero, Marcos. Projeto Biodiversidade; Fil: Hinke, Jefferson. Noaa Fisheries Service; Fil: Kokubun, Nobuo. National Institute Of Polar Research; Fil: Leat, Eliza. Ascension Island Government; Fil: Tranquilla, Laura McFarlane. Royal Society For The Protection Of Birds; . Environmental And Natural Resources Directorate; Fil: Metzger, Benjamin. Birdlife Malta; Malta Fil: Militão, Teresa. Universidad de Barcelona; España Fil: Montrond, Gilson. Projecto Vitó; Fil: Mullié, Wim. Veda Consultancy; Fil: Padget, Oliver. University of Oxford; Reino Unido Fil: Pearmain, Elizabeth J.. Birdlife International; Fil: Pollet, Ingrid L.. Bird Studies Canada; Canadá Fil: Pütz, Klemens. Antarctic Research Trust; Fil: Quintana, Flavio Roberto. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Centro Nacional Patagónico. Instituto de Biología de Organismos Marinos; Argentina Fil: Ratcliffe, Norman. British Antarctic Survey; Fil: Ronconi, Robert A.. Environment Canada; Canadá Fil: Ryan, Peter G.. University Of Cape Town; Fil: Saldanha, Sarah. Universidad de Barcelona; España Fil: Shoji, Akiko. University of Oxford; Reino Unido Fil: Sim, Jolene. Ascension Island Government; Fil: Small, Cleo. Royal Society For The Protection Of Birds; Fil: Soanes, Louise. University of Liverpool; Reino Unido Fil: Takahashi, Akinori. National Institute Of Polar Research; Fil: Trathan, Phil. British Antarctic Survey; Fil: Trivelpiece, Wayne. Noaa Fisheries Service; Fil: Veen, Jan. Veda Consultancy; Fil: Wakefield, Ewan. University of Glasgow; Reino Unido Fil: Weber, Nicola. University of Exeter; Reino Unido. Ascension Island Government; Fil: Weber, Sam. Ascension Island Government; . University of Exeter; Reino Unido Fil: Zango, Laura. Universidad de Barcelona; España Fil: González-Solís, Jacob. Universidad de Barcelona; España Fil: Croxall, John. Birdlife International