2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.12.009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Seabird foraging ranges as a preliminary tool for identifying candidate Marine Protected Areas

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
116
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 176 publications
(143 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
1
116
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The distances between the colonies ranged from 10 to 90 km. Arctic Tern foraging ranges are typically <10 km from the colony (Rock et al 2007, Thaxter et al 2012, and so the foraging ranges of individuals from these colonies are not likely to overlap much. Colonies also varied in size, ranging from 50 to 10 000 pairs.…”
Section: Study Area and Coloniesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The distances between the colonies ranged from 10 to 90 km. Arctic Tern foraging ranges are typically <10 km from the colony (Rock et al 2007, Thaxter et al 2012, and so the foraging ranges of individuals from these colonies are not likely to overlap much. Colonies also varied in size, ranging from 50 to 10 000 pairs.…”
Section: Study Area and Coloniesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is one of the most abundant seabirds breeding in northeast Britain (Harris & Wanless 2004) yet a recent review of data relevant to the foraging ranges of British seabirds revealed that less is known of the feeding areas used by Puffins than by most other species and more information is urgently needed (Thaxter et al 2012). One reason for this knowledge gap is that Puffins are sensitive to disturbance, particularly handling (Wernham 1993, Rodway et al 1996, Harris & Wanless 2011 and, like the Tufted Puffin F. cirrhata (Whidden et al 2007), seem intolerant of back-mounted devices (pers obs).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Currently, site-selection of MPAs for safeguarding seabirds has been proposed using different approaches (e.g. protection of areas associated with breeding colonies and aggregations of non-breeding birds, and protection of migratory bottlenecks) (Grecian et al 2012;Thaxter et al 2012). We believe that including sites that comprise geographic range of species with high extinction risk, as those showed here, could increase spatial prioritization effectiveness avoiding species losses.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 84%