Search

SummaryPelagic seabird populations have declined strongly worldwide. In the North Atlantic there was a huge reduction in seabird populations following the European colonization of the Azores, Madeira and Canary archipelagos but information on seabird status and distribution for the subtropical region of Cabo Verde is scarce, unavailable or dispersed in grey literature. We compiled and compared the historical and current distribution of all seabird species breeding in the Cabo Verde archipelago, updated their relative abundance, investigated their inland habitat preferences, and reviewed their threats. Currently, the breeding seabird community in Cabo Verde is composed of Bulwer’s Petrel Bulweria bulwerii, White-faced Storm-petrel Pelagodroma marina aedesorum, Cape Verde Shearwater Calonectris edwardsii, Cape Verde Storm-petrel Hydrobates jabejabe, Cape Verde Petrel Pterodroma feae, Boyd's Shearwater Puffinus lherminieri boydi, Brown Booby Sula leucogaster, and Red-billed Tropicbird Phaethon aethereus. One breeding species is currently extinct, the Magnificent Frigatebird Fregata magnificens. The relative abundance of Cape Verde Shearwater, Boyd’s Shearwater, Cape Verde Petrel, and Cape Verde Storm-petrel was determined from counts of their nocturnal calls in Santo Antão, São Vicente, Santa Luzia, Branco, Raso and São Nicolau. Cape Verde Petrel occurred only on mountainous islands (Santo Antão, São Nicolau, Santiago, and Fogo) from mid-to high elevations. Larger species such as the Cape Verde Shearwater and Boyd’s Shearwater exhibited a wider distribution in the archipelago, occurring close to the coastline but at lower densities on populated islands. Small procellariforms such as the Cape Verde Storm-petrel occurred at high densities only on rat-free islets and in steep areas of main islands where introduced cats and rats are unlikely to occur. The main threats to seabird populations in Cabo Verde range from predation by introduced predators, habitat alteration or destruction, and some residual human persecution.

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.

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

Aim Anthropogenic activities alter and constrain the structure of marine ecosystems with implications for wide-ranging marine vertebrates. In spite of the environmental importance of vast oceanic ecosystems, most conservation efforts mainly focus on neritic areas. To identify relevant oceanic areas for conservation, we assessed the year-round spatial distribution and spatio-temporal overlap of eight truly oceanic seabird species of gadfly petrels (Pterodroma spp.) inhabiting the Atlantic Ocean. Location Atlantic Ocean. Methods Using tracking data (mostly from geolocators), we examined year-round distributions, the timing of life-cycle events, and marine habitat overlap of eight gadfly petrel species that breed in the Atlantic Ocean. Results We compiled 125 year-round tracks. Movement strategies ranged from non-migratory to long-distance migrant species and from species sharing a common non-breeding area to species dispersing among multiple non-breeding sites. Gadfly petrels occurred throughout the Atlantic Ocean but tended to concentrate in subtropical regions. During the boreal summer, up to three species overlapped spatio-temporally over a large area around the Azores archipelago. During the austral summer, up to four species coincided in a core area in subtropical waters around Cape Verde, and three species shared habitat over two distinct areas off Brazil. The petrels used many national Exclusive Economic Zones, although they also exploited offshore international waters. Main conclusions Tracking movements of highly mobile vertebrates such as gadfly petrels can provide a powerful tool to evaluate and assess the potential need for and location of protected oceanic areas. As more multispecies, year-round data sets are collected from wide-ranging vertebrates, researchers and managers will have greater insight into the location of biodiversity hotspots. These can subsequently inform and guide marine spatial planning efforts that account for both conservation and sustainable use of resources such as commercial fisheries.