Experimental test of a conservation intervention for a highly threatened waterbird

Abstract

Human exploitation and disturbance often threaten nesting wildlife. Nest guarding, a technique that employs local people to prevent such interference, is being applied to an increasing number of species and sites, particularly in South‐East Asia. Although research has begun to assess the cost‐effectiveness of nest guarding, case–control studies are rare and the circumstances in which the schemes are most useful remain unclear. We experimentally tested the effect of nest guarding for the critically endangered white‐shouldered ibis (Pseudibis davisoni), a species exploited opportunistically for food and now largely confined to dry forests in Cambodia. We randomly applied guarded and unguarded (control) treatments to 24 and 25 nests, respectively, at a single site over 2 years. Nest guarding had no detectable effect on nest success, with an overall probability of nest success of 0.63–0.86 at guarded and 0.55–0.82 at unguarded nests. Nest monitoring across 4 study sites over 3 breeding seasons found a combination of natural predation, weather, and anthropogenic activities (robbery and vandalism) responsible for nest failure, although causes of failure remained unknown at 58% of nests. Nest guarding itself increased nest destruction at 1 site, indicating that this intervention needs cautious implementation if only a small proportion of the local community gains benefit. Comparison with other studies suggests that nest guarding effectiveness may be context‐specific and differ between species that are exploited opportunistically, such as white‐shouldered ibis, and those routinely targeted for trade. © 2013 The Wildlife Society.

Effectiveness of direct payments to increase reproductive success of sandbar-nesting river birds in Cambodia

“…Direct payment programmes have frequently been used to protect threatened birds (Sok et al 2012, Clements et al 2013, Wright et al 2013) and turtles (Ferraro and Gjertsen 2009, Gjertsen and Niesten 2010). In Cambodia, direct payments for bird nest protection have been effective for some species (Clements et al 2013), but equivocal for others (Sok et al 2012, Wright et al 2013).…”

“…Direct payment programmes have frequently been used to protect threatened birds (Sok et al 2012, Clements et al 2013, Wright et al 2013) and turtles (Ferraro and Gjertsen 2009, Gjertsen and Niesten 2010). In Cambodia, direct payments for bird nest protection have been effective for some species (Clements et al 2013), but equivocal for others (Sok et al 2012, Wright et al 2013). Although Sok et al (2012) included the same population of River Terns in their analysis and found little evidence that nest protection was effective, shortcomings of their study were: unguarded control nests were lacking, nest protection was not included as a covariate in the analyses, and nest data were limited to 2011, a year when exclosures were not tested.…”

“…Yet, compared to the number of direct payment schemes implemented worldwide, there have been few assessments of the effectiveness of direct payment programmes. Although direct payment nest protection programmes in Cambodia have received some of the most thorough investigation to date (Sok et al 2012, Clements et al 2013, Wright et al 2013), conflicting results highlight the need to further explore this topic.…”

“…Direct payments for biodiversity conservation, which fall under the broad category of payments for ecosystem services (PES), have frequently been used to protect breeding sea turtles (Ferraro and Gjertsen 2009, Gjertsen and Niesten 2010) and more recently, to protect bird nests, especially in South-East Asia (Sok et al 2012, Clements et al 2013, Wright et al 2013). Because bird and turtle nesting sites can be monitored relatively easily, they are ideally suited for community-based conservation programmes involving direct payments.…”