Effects of industrial and investigator disturbance on Arctic‐nesting geese

Abstract

Oil and gas development on the Arctic Coastal Plain (ACP) of Alaska, USA may have effects on Arctic‐nesting birds. To estimate effects of industrial activity and investigator disturbance on avian productivity, we monitored nests of greater white‐fronted geese (Anser albifrons) with digital cameras and periodic nest visits during 2013–2014 at 2 sites on the ACP. A disturbed site was adjacent to human‐made infrastructure and industrial clean‐up activities initiated at the onset of the study and a control site was >2 km from sources of industrial disturbance. We assessed variation in estimates of incubation constancy, nest survival, and predator behavior relative to site, year, and distance from industrial activity using nest photographs obtained at 1‐minute intervals. We compared analysis of hourly nest survival informed by intensive monitoring with cameras to analysis of daily nest survival informed by traditional nest visit data obtained at intervals of 5–7 days to assess how method and time scale of sampling affect ecological inference. Geese in both sites exhibited high levels of nest attendance and initiated incubation breaks less than once per day. Observer‐caused incubation breaks associated with nest visits (truex¯ = 37.8 min) were longer than other types of incubation breaks (truex¯ = 8.7 min), demonstrating a differential response by nesting geese to direct human encroachment versus indirect vehicular and aircraft traffic. During both years, geese were absent from nests more frequently in the disturbed (truex¯ = 0.9 breaks/day) than control (truex¯ = 0.6 breaks/day) site, and this break frequency was slightly higher for nests closer to industrial activity. In the year with high rates of depredation, nest survival was positively related to distance from industrial activity and abandoned infrastructure, consistent with predictions of industry‐caused effects. This relationship, however, was not evident in the year with reduced predation pressure, likely because of annual variation in arctic fox (Vulpes lagopus) behavior. Analysis of nest survival probability informed by camera data allowed for detection of detailed patterns of variation that were not supported when using only visit data for the same nests. Observer visits were responsible for reductions of 7–35% in nest survival probability, highlighting the importance of minimizing, and controlling for, observer effects in studies of avian productivity. Indirect vehicular and aircraft disturbance posed less risk to nest survival than direct encroachment by observers at nest sites. Therefore, effects of industrial activities on avian productivity in the Arctic can be minimized through practices that limit direct encounters with nests. Published 2017. This article is a U.S.Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Comparative nest survival of three sympatric loon species breeding in the Arctic

“…comm.) and in a study area ~80 km to the northeast (Meixell and Flint 2017). The low nest survival in 2013 suggests that predators can impact Pacific and yellow-billed loons in years with low mictrotine abundance.…”

“…Nest predation is one of the major causes of nest failure among tundra breeding birds (Liebezeit et al 2011, Meixell andFlint 2017), and nest site selection may be an adaptive response to predators in some species (Forstmeier and Weiss 2004). Our results suggest that Pacific and yellow-billed loons choose nest sites based on nest predation risk (Petersen Shore 50 55 8 113 Vegetation mat 50 8 13 71 Island 133 47 12 192 Peninsula 17 21 0 38 Channel 0 12 0 12 Total 250 143 33 426 1979, Haynes et al 2014b).…”

Comment on “Global pattern of nest predation is disrupted by climate change in shorebirds”

“…Finally, we note that nest searching effort and frequency of nest visits likely increased in recent years as researchers learned how best to obtain accurate estimates of nest survival (11)(12)(13). Researchers also intensified their activities (e.g., capturing adults to band, tag, and collect samples and placing monitoring equipment near nests, which may increase the predation rate) (14,15). Thus, an increase in the quality of data reporting as well as increased research activity around nests may have further induced a time-on July 5, 2020 http://science.sciencemag.org/ Downloaded from dependent bias in estimates with an underestimation of true predation rates in the historic data (see above), and perhaps an overestimation in the contemporary data.…”

Summary of wildlife-related research on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, 2002–17

“…Results for observer effects are consistent with findings from other studies on the central Arctic Coastal Plain involving king eiders (Somateria spectabilis; Bentzen and others, 2008) and loons (Uher-Koch and others, 2015). Meixell and Flint (2017) conclude that these results demonstrate a differential response by nesting geese to varying types of disturbance. Whereas observer visits were associated with direct human encroachment at nests that caused female geese to be absent from nests longer, sources of industrial disturbance in their study were characterized primarily by vehicular, aircraft, and foot travel that followed similar routes and usually did not directly approach nest sites.…”

“…Although predation events were determined to be the primary cause of nest failure, the authors found that predator abundance was not related to nest survival and non-subsidized predators accounted for 32-77 percent of the total predators observed during surveys. Meixell and Flint (2017) also examined predators and distance to industrial disturbance in relation to nesting behavior and success of greater white-fronted geese (Anser albifrons). Additionally, these authors quantified the effect of observer visits to nests.…”