The case for lethal control of gulls on seabird colonies

ABSTRACT Lethal control of wildlife represents an ethical concern for managers, exacerbated by a lack of replicated or controlled data for most taxa or regions. The Gulf of Maine (GOM) has a history of intensive lethal and nonlethal predator control to protect terns ( Sterna spp.) from inflated popu...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Journal of Wildlife Management
Main Authors: Scopel, Lauren C., Diamond, Antony W.
Other Authors: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2017
Subjects:
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21233
https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1002%2Fjwmg.21233
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jwmg.21233
id crwiley:10.1002/jwmg.21233
record_format openpolar
spelling crwiley:10.1002/jwmg.21233 2024-06-23T07:50:37+00:00 The case for lethal control of gulls on seabird colonies Scopel, Lauren C. Diamond, Antony W. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada 2017 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21233 https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1002%2Fjwmg.21233 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jwmg.21233 en eng Wiley http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor The Journal of Wildlife Management volume 81, issue 4, page 572-580 ISSN 0022-541X 1937-2817 journal-article 2017 crwiley https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21233 2024-06-13T04:21:08Z ABSTRACT Lethal control of wildlife represents an ethical concern for managers, exacerbated by a lack of replicated or controlled data for most taxa or regions. The Gulf of Maine (GOM) has a history of intensive lethal and nonlethal predator control to protect terns ( Sterna spp.) from inflated populations of predatory gulls, especially herring ( Larus argentatus ) and great black‐backed gulls ( L. marinus large gulls). We described management strategies in the GOM, reviewed methods of nonlethal and lethal types of control, and compared the effectiveness of 3 control regimes (lethal, nonlethal‐only, and no control) using weighted means of reproductive success metrics for 4 tern species. Nonlethal‐only control is the least effective method of predator control; lethal control is consistently the most effective. Arctic terns ( Sterna paradisaea ) were the most susceptible to predation, whereas common terns ( Sterna hirundo ) were the most resilient. We concluded that targeted lethal control is necessary in the GOM to protect tern colonies from depredation and nesting exclusion by large gulls, and cannot be substituted with nonlethal control. Cessation of lethal control leads to abandonment of tern colonies within 6–7 years, but resumption of appropriately timed lethal control can lead to recolonization the same year. A combination of nonlethal and lethal methods can minimize the number of gulls taken. We recommend that any application of lethal control carefully considers the local needs of any target species and recognizes the need for spatial and temporal commitment. © 2017 The Wildlife Society. Article in Journal/Newspaper Arctic Sterna hirundo Sterna paradisaea Wiley Online Library Arctic The Journal of Wildlife Management 81 4 572 580
institution Open Polar
collection Wiley Online Library
op_collection_id crwiley
language English
description ABSTRACT Lethal control of wildlife represents an ethical concern for managers, exacerbated by a lack of replicated or controlled data for most taxa or regions. The Gulf of Maine (GOM) has a history of intensive lethal and nonlethal predator control to protect terns ( Sterna spp.) from inflated populations of predatory gulls, especially herring ( Larus argentatus ) and great black‐backed gulls ( L. marinus large gulls). We described management strategies in the GOM, reviewed methods of nonlethal and lethal types of control, and compared the effectiveness of 3 control regimes (lethal, nonlethal‐only, and no control) using weighted means of reproductive success metrics for 4 tern species. Nonlethal‐only control is the least effective method of predator control; lethal control is consistently the most effective. Arctic terns ( Sterna paradisaea ) were the most susceptible to predation, whereas common terns ( Sterna hirundo ) were the most resilient. We concluded that targeted lethal control is necessary in the GOM to protect tern colonies from depredation and nesting exclusion by large gulls, and cannot be substituted with nonlethal control. Cessation of lethal control leads to abandonment of tern colonies within 6–7 years, but resumption of appropriately timed lethal control can lead to recolonization the same year. A combination of nonlethal and lethal methods can minimize the number of gulls taken. We recommend that any application of lethal control carefully considers the local needs of any target species and recognizes the need for spatial and temporal commitment. © 2017 The Wildlife Society.
author2 Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Scopel, Lauren C.
Diamond, Antony W.
spellingShingle Scopel, Lauren C.
Diamond, Antony W.
The case for lethal control of gulls on seabird colonies
author_facet Scopel, Lauren C.
Diamond, Antony W.
author_sort Scopel, Lauren C.
title The case for lethal control of gulls on seabird colonies
title_short The case for lethal control of gulls on seabird colonies
title_full The case for lethal control of gulls on seabird colonies
title_fullStr The case for lethal control of gulls on seabird colonies
title_full_unstemmed The case for lethal control of gulls on seabird colonies
title_sort case for lethal control of gulls on seabird colonies
publisher Wiley
publishDate 2017
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21233
https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1002%2Fjwmg.21233
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jwmg.21233
geographic Arctic
geographic_facet Arctic
genre Arctic
Sterna hirundo
Sterna paradisaea
genre_facet Arctic
Sterna hirundo
Sterna paradisaea
op_source The Journal of Wildlife Management
volume 81, issue 4, page 572-580
ISSN 0022-541X 1937-2817
op_rights http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor
op_doi https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21233
container_title The Journal of Wildlife Management
container_volume 81
container_issue 4
container_start_page 572
op_container_end_page 580
_version_ 1802641529095847936