Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
BREEDING STATUS
AND POPULATION
TRENDS OF SEABIRDS
IN ALASKA, 2015
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
AMNWR 2016/03
BREEDING STATUS AND POPULATION TRENDS OF SEABIRDS IN ALASKA, 2015
Compiled By:
Donald E. Dragoo, Heather M. Renner and Robb S. A. Kalera
Key words: Aethia, Alaska, Aleutian Islands, ancient murrelet, Bering Sea, black-legged kittiwake, Cepphus, Cerorhinca, Chukchi Sea, common murre, crested auklet, fork-tailed storm-petrel, Fratercula, Fulmarus, glaucous-winged gull, Gulf of Alaska, hatching chronology, horned puffin, Larus, Leach’s storm-petrel, least auklet, long-term monitoring, northern fulmar, Oceanodroma, parakeet auklet, pelagic cormorant, Phalacrocorax, pigeon guillemot, Prince William Sound, productivity, red-faced cormorant, red-legged kittiwake, rhinoceros auklet, Rissa, seabirds, Synthliboramphus, thick-billed murre, tufted puffin, Uria, whiskered auklet.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge Migratory Bird Management 95 Sterling Highway, Suite 1 1011 East Tudor Road Homer, Alaska, USA 99603 Anchorage, Alaska USA 99503
March 2016
Cite as: Dragoo, D. E., H. M. Renner, and R. S. A. Kaler. 2016. Breeding status and population trends of seabirds in Alaska, 2015. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2016/03. Homer, Alaska.aDragoo ([email protected]) and Renner ([email protected]), Alaska Maritime NWR, Homer; Kaler ([email protected]), U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management, Anchorage.
When using information from this report, data, results, or conclusions specific to a location(s) should not be used in other publications without first obtaining permission from the original contributor(s). Results and conclusions general to large geographic areas may be cited without permission. This report updates previous reports.
The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the Department of the Interior.
i
Executive Summary
Data are collected annually for selected species of marine birds at breeding colonies on the far-flung Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), and at other areas in Alaska, to monitor the condition of the marine ecosystem and to evaluate the conservation status of species under the trust of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The strategy for colony monitoring includes estimating timing of nesting events, rates of reproductive success, and population trends of representative species of various foraging guilds (e.g., offshore diving fish-feeders, diving plankton-feeders) at geographically dispersed breeding sites. This information enables managers to better understand ecosystem processes and respond appropriately to resource issues. It also provides a basis for researchers to test hypotheses about ecosystem change. The value of the marine bird monitoring program is enhanced by having sufficiently long time-series to describe patterns for these long-lived species.
During the summer of 2015, seabird data were gathered at seven annual monitoring sites on the Alaska Maritime NWR. The species monitored were northern fulmars, storm-petrels, cormorants, murres, ancient murrelets, auklets, puffins, kittiwakes, and glaucous-winged gulls. In addition, data were gathered at other locations which are visited intermittently, or were part of a research or monitoring program outside the refuge.
Timing of breeding (Table A)
l Statewide, in 2015 mean hatch date was early in 31% of the species, average in 50%, and late in 19%.
l Murre and black-legged kittiwake eggs failed to hatch on study plots at Chowiet Island, as did the eggs of red-legged kittiwakes at St. Paul Island.
Table A. Regional and statewide seabird breeding chronologya compared to averages for past years within regions and the state of Alaska as a whole. Only regions for which there were data from 2015 are included.
Productivity (Table B)
l Statewide, productivity was above average for only one species (glaucous-winged gull).
l In 2015, kittiwakes exhibited widespread breeding failures, as did many other species breeding on Chowiet Island.
l Anecdotal evidence suggests that common murres failed to breed at some colonies in the Gulf of Alaska (e. g., E. Amatuli and Gull islands), in 2015.
l Southeast Alaska was the only region where productivity was above average, overall, in 2015.
aCodes: “E” and red cell color indicate hatching chronology was > 3 days earlier than the average for sites in this region. “A” and yellow cell color indicate hatching chronology was within 3 days of average. “L” and green cell color indicate hatching chronology was > 3 days later than the average for sites in this region.bFTSP=fork-tailed storm-petrel, LHSP=Leach’s storm-petrel, RFCO=red-faced cormorant, COMU=common murre, TBMU=thick-billed murre, ANMU=ancient murrelet, PAAU=parakeet auklet, LEAU=least auklet, WHAU=whiskered auklet, CRAU=crested auklet, RHAU=rhinoceros auklet, HOPU=horned puffin, TUPU=tufted puffin, BLKI=black-legged kittiwake, RLKI=red-legged kittiwake, GWGU=glaucous-winged gull.cGOA=Gulf of Alaska.
Region FTSPb LHSP RFCO COMU TBMU ANMU PAAU LEAU WHAU CRAU RHAU HOPU TUPU BLKI RLKI GWGU
SE Bering L A E L A A E E L L A ESW Bering A E A E A L L L EN. GOAc A A A ESoutheast E E L L E LAlaska A E E L A A A E E A E A L L A A
ii
Table B. Regional and statewide seabird breeding productivity levelsa compared to averages for past years within regions and the state of Alaska as a whole. Only regions for which there were data from 2015 are included.
Population trends during 2006-2015 (Table C)
l Statewide, 27% of species showed increasing population trends, 60% were stable and 13% declined between 2006 and 2015.
l Near complete abandonment of the Chowiet Island colony by murres and black-legged kittiwakes in 2015 drove the declining recent trends exhibited for these species there.
l The mean 2015 murre count on study plots at Chowiet Island was roughly 3% of the long-term average; from more than 3300 birds on average down to an average of 94 birds on the plots in 2015.
Table C. Regional and statewide seabird population trendsa between 2006 and 2015 within regions and the state of Alaska as a whole. Only sites for which there were data from at least two years (at least 5 years apart) within the target decade are included.
aCodes: “L” and red cell color indicate productivity was > 20% below the average for the region. “A” and yellow cell color indicate productivity was within 20% of average. “H” and green cell color indicate productivity was > 20% above the average for the region.bFTSP=fork-tailed storm-petrel, LHSP=Leach’s storm-petrel, RFCO=red-faced cormorant, PECO=pelagic cormorant, COMU=common murre, TBMU=thick-billed murre, ANMU=ancient murrelet, PAAU=parakeet auklet, LEAU=least auklet, WHAU=whiskered auklet, CRAU=crested auklet, RHAU=rhinoceros auklet, HOPU=horned puffin, TUPU=tufted puffin, BLKI=black-legged kittiwake, RLKI=red-legged kittiwake, GWGU=glaucous-winged gull.cGOA=Gulf of Alaska.
Region FTSPb LHSP RFCO PECO COMU TBMU ANMU PAAU LEAU WHAU CRAU RHAU HOPU TUPU BLKI RLKI GWGU
SE Bering A A A A A L A L A L L L HSW Bering A A L A A L A A A L L L HN. GOAc L L L L L A L A L HSoutheast A A L H H H H AAlaska A A L L A A A A L A A A L L L L H
aCodes: i and red cell color indicate a negative population trend of ≥3% per annum for this site or region. 1 and yellow cell color indicate no population trend. h and green cell color indicate a positive population trend of ≥3% per annum for this site or region.bBS=Bering Sea, CS=Chukchi Sea, GOA=Gulf of Alaska.cNOFU=northern fulmar, FTSP=fork-tailed storm-petrel, STPE=unspecified storm-petrel, RFCO=red-faced cormorant, PECO=pelagic cormorant, COMU=common murre, TBMU=thick-billed murre, UNMU=unspecified murre, PIGU=pigeon guillemot, LEAU=least auklet, RHAU=rhinoceros auklet, TUPU=tufted puffin, BLKI=black-legged kittiwake, RLKI=red-legged kittiwake, GWGU=glaucous-winged gull.
Regionb NOFUc FTSP STPE RFCO PECO COMU TBMU UNMU PIGU LEAU RHAU TUPU BLKI RLKI GWGU
N. BS/CS h hSE Bering h 1 i 1 1 1 i h 1 1 h iSW Bering h h hN. GOA 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 1Southeast 1 h 1 1 h 1 hAlaska h 1 1 i h 1 1 i 1 h 1 1 1 h 1
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................iTable of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... iii Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................1Methods ........................................................................................................................................................1Results ............................................................................................................................................................4 Northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis) ..............................................................................................4 Populations ..........................................................................................................................4 Fork-tailed storm-petrel (Oceanodroma furcata) .............................................................................5 Breeding chronology ...........................................................................................................5 Productivity ..........................................................................................................................5 Populations ..........................................................................................................................8 Leach’s storm-petrel (Oceanodroma leucorhoa) ..............................................................................9 Breeding chronology ...........................................................................................................9 Productivity ..........................................................................................................................9 Populations ..........................................................................................................................8 Red-faced cormorant (Phalacrocorax urile)...................................................................................12 Productivity ........................................................................................................................12 Populations ........................................................................................................................14 Pelagic cormorant (Phalacrocorax pelagicus) ...............................................................................15 Productivity ........................................................................................................................15 Populations ........................................................................................................................14 Common murre (Uria aalge) ..........................................................................................................17 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................17 Productivity ........................................................................................................................17 Populations ........................................................................................................................20 Thick-billed murre (Uria lomvia) ...................................................................................................23 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................23 Productivity ........................................................................................................................23 Populations ........................................................................................................................20 Pigeon guillemot (Cepphus columba) .............................................................................................26 Populations ........................................................................................................................26 Ancient murrelet (Synthliboramphus antiquus) ..............................................................................27 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................27 Productivity ........................................................................................................................27 Parakeet auklet (Aethia psittacula) .................................................................................................28 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................28 Productivity ........................................................................................................................28 Least auklet (Aethia pusilla) ...........................................................................................................31 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................31 Productivity ........................................................................................................................31 Populations ........................................................................................................................31 Whiskered auklet (Aethia pygmaea) ...............................................................................................34 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................34 Productivity ........................................................................................................................34
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page
Crested auklet (Aethia cristatella) ..................................................................................................35 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................35 Productivity ........................................................................................................................35 Rhinoceros auklet (Cerorhinca monocerata) .................................................................................36 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................36 Productivity ........................................................................................................................36 Populations ........................................................................................................................36 Horned puffin (Fratercula corniculata) ..........................................................................................38 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................38 Productivity ........................................................................................................................38 Tufted puffin (Fratercula cirrhata) ................................................................................................41 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................41 Productivity ........................................................................................................................41 Populations ........................................................................................................................44 Black-legged kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla) ......................................................................................45 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................45 Productivity ........................................................................................................................45 Populations ........................................................................................................................48 Red-legged kittiwake (Rissa brevirostris) ......................................................................................50 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................50 Productivity ........................................................................................................................50 Populations ........................................................................................................................53 Glaucous-winged gull (Larus glaucescens) ....................................................................................54 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................54 Productivity ........................................................................................................................54 Populations ........................................................................................................................57Summary tables ............................................................................................................................................58Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................61References ...................................................................................................................................................61
1
Introduction
This report is the latest in a series of annual reports summarizing the results of seabird monitoring efforts at breeding colonies on the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and elsewhere in Alaska (see Byrd and Dragoo 1997, Byrd et al. 1998 and 1999, Dragoo et al. 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004 and 2006-2015 for compilations of previous years’ data). The seabird monitoring program in Alaska is designed to keep track of selected species of marine birds that indicate changes in the ocean environment. Furthermore, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has the responsibility to conserve seabirds, and monitoring data are used to identify conservation problems. The objective is to provide long-term, time-series data from which biologically significant changes may be detected and from which hypotheses about causes of changes may be tested. The Alaska Maritime NWR was established specifically to conserve marine bird populations and habitats in their natural diversity and the marine resources upon which they rely and to provide for an international program for research on marine resources (Alaska National Interests Land Conservation Act of 1982). The monitoring program is an integral part of the management of this refuge and provides data that can be used to define “normal” variability in demographic parameters and identify patterns that fall outside norms and thereby constitute potential conservation issues. Although approximately 80% of the seabird nesting colonies in Alaska occur on the Alaska Maritime NWR, marine bird nesting colonies occur on other public lands (e.g., national and state refuges) and on private lands as well. The strategy for colony monitoring includes estimating timing of nesting events, reproductive success, population trends, and prey used by representative species of various foraging guilds (e.g., murres are offshore diving fish-feeders, kittiwakes are surface-feeding fish-feeders, auklets are diving plankton-feeders, etc.) at geographically dispersed breeding sites along the entire coastline of Alaska (Figure 1). A total of nine sites on the Alaska Maritime NWR, located roughly 300-500 km apart, are scheduled for annual surveys (Byrd 2007), and at least some data were available from most of these in 2015. Furthermore, data are recorded annually or semiannually at other sites in Alaska (e.g., Round and Middleton islands, and Prince William Sound). In addition, colonies near the annual sites are identified for less frequent surveys to “calibrate” the information at the annual sites. Data provided from other research projects (e.g., those associated with evaluating the impacts of invasive rodents on marine birds) also supplement the monitoring database. In this report, we summarize information from 2015 for each species; i.e., tables with estimates of average hatch dates and reproductive success, and maps with symbols indicating the relative timing of hatching and reproductive success at various sites. In addition, historical patterns of hatching chronology and productivity are illustrated for those sites for which we have sufficient data. Population trend information is included for sites where adequate data are available.
Methods
Data collection methods followed standardized protocols (e.g., AMNWR 2015). Timing of nesting events and productivity usually were based on periodic checks of samples of nests (usually in plots) throughout the breeding season, but a few estimates of productivity were based on single visits to colonies late in the breeding season (as noted in tables). Hatch dates were used to describe nesting chronology. Productivity typically was expressed as chicks fledged per egg, but occasionally other variables were used (Table 1). Population surveys were conducted for ledge-nesting species at times of the day and breeding season when variability in attendance was reduced. Most burrow-nester counts were made early in the season before vegetation obscured burrow entrances. Deviations from standard methods are indicated in reports from individual sites which are referenced herein.
2
Figure 1. Map of Alaska showing the locations of seabird monitoring sites summarized in this report. Text color indicates geographic regions.
500
KM
N
Cape
Lisb
urne
Cape
Peir
ceSt
. Pau
l I.
St. G
eorg
e I.
Buldi
r I.
Aikta
k I.
Roun
d I.
Chow
iet I.
E. A
matul
i I.Midd
leton
I.Princ
e Willi
am S
ound
St. L
azar
ia I.
Nor
ther
n B
erin
g/C
hukc
hiS
outh
east
ern
Ber
ing
Nor
ther
n G
ulf o
f Ala
ska
Sou
thw
este
rn B
erin
g
Sou
thea
st A
lask
a
Hall I
.
Puale
Bay
3
Table 1. Productivity parameters used in this report (see AMNWR 2015).Species Productivity Value Storm-petrels Chicks Fledged/Egg (Total chicks fledged/Total eggs) Cormorants Chicks Fledged/Nest (Total chicks fledged/Total nests)Murres Chicks Fledged/Nest Site (Total chicks fledged/Total sites where egg was laid)Ancient murrelet Chicks Fledged/Egg (Total chicks fledged/Total eggs)Auklets (except RHAU) Chicks Fledged/Nest Site (Total chicks fledged/Total sites where egg was laid)Rhinoceros auklet Overall Residency Index (Late apparent occupancy/Early apparent occupancy)Horned puffin Chicks Fledged/Egg (Total chicks fledged/Total eggs)Tufted puffin Overall Residency Index (Late apparent occupancy/Early apparent occupancy)Kittiwakes Chicks Fledged/Nest (Total chicks fledged/Total nests)Glaucous-winged gull Hatching Success (Total chicks/Total eggs)
This report summarizes monitoring data for 2015, and compares 2015 results with previous years. For sites with at least two years of data prior to 2015, site averages were used for comparisons. For chronology, we considered dates within 3 days of the long-term average to be “normal”; larger deviations represented relatively early or late dates. For productivity, we defined significant deviations from “normal” as any that differed by more than 20% from the site average. Population trends were analyzed using linear regression models on log-transformed data (ln) to calculate the slope of the line. The resultant slope is equivalent to the annual rate of population change. A trend was defined as any change greater than or equal to a three percent per annum increase or decline (≥3% p.a.). Population counts were analyzed using two time frames: 1) data from all available years, and 2) data from the last decade (2006-2015 for this report). A percent per annum change was calculated for each data set during both time periods, if sufficient data were available. We also summarized seabird phenology and productivity, as well as recent population trends (from 2006-2015), by region and for the entire state. Chronology was calculated for each species in a region using data from all colonies. Each colony was weighted equally within each region. The chronology was averaged for all sites within each region resulting in a value for each species, thus producing one statewide value for each species. Productivity was calculated for each species in a region using data from all colonies. Each colony was weighted equally within each region. The productivity was averaged for all sites within each region resulting in a value for each species. Species productivities were then averaged to calculate a statewide value for each species. Population trends were calculated for each species in a region using data from all colonies. Each colony was weighted equally within each region. Trends (line slopes) were averaged for all sites within each region resulting in a regional value for each species. Only sites for which there were data from at least two years (at least 5 years apart) between 2006 and 2015 were included.
4
Results
Northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis)
Figure 2. Trends in populations of northern fulmars at Alaskan sites. Error bars (90% confidence intervals) are shown for years with multiple counts. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2006-2015, in parentheses). “NA” indicates that insufficient data were available.
Results
Northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis)
Year1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(48
7 bi
rds)
0
100
Northern fulmar, Hall I. +0.2% p.a. (N/A)
Year1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(19
8 bi
rds)
0
100
Northern fulmar, St. Paul I. +2.0% p.a. (+16.4% p.a.)
Year1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(23
50 b
irds
)
0
100
Northern fulmar, St. George I. -0.7% p.a. (+21.7% p.a.)
Year1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011
Per
cent
of
max
imum
(62
3 bi
rds)
0
100
Northern fulmar, Chowiet I. -0.9% p.a. (-2.9% p.a.)
5
Fork-tailed storm-petrel (Oceanodroma furcata)
Table 2. Hatching chronology of fork-tailed storm-petrels at Alaskan sites monitored in 2015. Long-term Site Mean Average ReferenceAiktak I. 21 Jul (26)a 15 Jul (18)a Youngren et al. 2015St. Lazaria I. 7 Jul (34) 16 Jul (12) Evans and Slater 2016aSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate the mean hatch date and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not included in long-term average.
Table 3. Reproductive performance of fork-tailed storm-petrels at Alaskan sites monitored in 2015. Chicks No. of Long-termSite Fledgeda/Egg Plots Average ReferenceBuldir I. 0.60 7 (52)b 0.73 (28)b Mudge and Pietrzak 2015Aiktak I. 0.75 13 (64) 0.80 (15) Youngren et al. 2015St. Lazaria I. 0.68 8 (107) 0.68 (20) Evans and Slater 2016aFledged chick defined as being alive at last check in August or September.bSample size in parentheses represents the number of eggs used to calculate productivity and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.
6
Figure 3. Hatching chronology of fork-tailed storm-petrels at Alaskan sites. Graphs indicate the departure in days (if any) from the site mean (value in parentheses; current year not included). Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >3 days early, black is within 3 days and green is >3 days later than the site mean). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.
Aik
tak
(15
Jul)
St.
Laza
ria (1
6 Ju
l)
Aver
age
=La
te+-E
arly
NN
o H
atch
2015
FTS
PH
atch
ing
Chr
onol
ogy -
+
0
-20
-1001020
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
-20
-1001020
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
7
Figure 4. Productivity of fork-tailed storm-petrels (chicks fledged/egg) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (value in parentheses; current year not included). Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.
N
0.76
- 1.
00
0.51
- 0.
75
0.26
- 0.
50
0.01
- 0.
25
<0.0
1
2015
FTS
PP
rodu
ctiv
ity
Bul
dir (
0.73
)
Aik
tak
(0.8
0)
St.
Laza
ria (0
.68)
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
7479
8489
9499
0409
14
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
7479
8489
9499
0409
14
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
7479
8489
9499
0409
14
8
Figure 5. Trends in populations of storm-petrels at Alaskan sites. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2006-2015, in parentheses).
Year1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(D
ensi
ty 0
.22)
0
100
Storm-petrels, Aiktak I. +2.5% p.a. (+2.0% p.a.)
Year1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(61
5 bu
rrow
s)
0
100
Fork-tailed storm-petrel, E. Amatuli I. +0.4% p.a. (+1.7% p.a.)
Year1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(D
ensi
ty 2
.86)
0
100
Storm-petrels, St. Lazaria I. +0.9% p.a. (+1.4% p.a.)
9
Leach’s storm-petrel (Oceanodroma leucorhoa)
Table 4. Hatching chronology of Leach’s storm-petrels at Alaskan sites monitored in 2015. Long-term Site Mean Average ReferenceAiktak I. 28 Jul (36)a 30 Jul (18)a Youngren et al. 2015St. Lazaria I. 22 Jul (29) 30 Jul (20) Evans and Slater 2016aSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate the mean hatch date and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not included in long-term average.
Table 5. Reproductive performance of Leach’s storm-petrels at Alaskan sites monitored in 2015. Chicks No. of Long-term Site Fledgeda/Egg Plots Average ReferenceBuldir I. 0.88 5 (62)b 0.74 (28)b Mudge and Pietrzak 2015Aiktak I. 0.81 13 (101) 0.84 (15) Youngren et al. 2015St. Lazaria I. 0.66 8 (73) 0.71 (20) Evans and Slater 2016aFledged chick defined as being alive at last check in August or September.bSample size in parentheses represents the number of eggs used to calculate productivity and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.
10
Figure 6. Hatching chronology of Leach’s storm-petrels at Alaskan sites. Graphs indicate the departure in days (if any) from the site mean (value in parentheses; current year not included). Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >3 days early, black is within 3 days and green is >3 days later than the site mean). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.
Aver
age
=La
te+-E
arly
NN
o H
atch
2015
LHS
PH
atch
ing
Chr
onol
ogy
Aik
tak
(30
Jul)
St.
Laza
ria (3
0 Ju
l)
-
=
0
-20
-1001020
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
00
-20
-1001020
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
11
Figure 7. Productivity of Leach’s storm-petrels (chicks fledged/egg) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (value in parentheses; current year not included). Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.
N
0.76
- 1.
00
0.51
- 0.
75
0.26
- 0.
50
0.01
- 0.
25
<0.0
1
2015
LHS
PP
rodu
ctiv
ityB
uldi
r (0.
74)
Aik
tak
(0.8
4)
St.
Laza
ria (0
.71)
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
7479
8489
9499
0409
14
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
7479
8489
9499
0409
14
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
7479
8489
9499
0409
14
12
Red-faced cormorant (Phalacrocorax urile)
Table 6. Hatching chronology of red-faced cormorants at Alaskan sites monitored in 2015. Long-term Site Mean Average Reference St. Paul I. 23 Jun (46)a 29 Jun (25)a Thomson et al. 2015aSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate the mean hatch date and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not included in long-term average.
Table 7. Reproductive performance of red-faced cormorants at Alaskan sites monitored in 2015. Chicks No. of Long-termSite Fledged/Nest Plots Average ReferenceSt. Paul I. 1.20 4 (65)a 1.33 (30)a Thomson et al. 2015St. George I. 0.71 3 (24) 1.25 (18) Tappa et al. 2015Aiktak I. 0.83 NAb (6) 0.85 (10) Youngren et al. 2015Chowiet I. 0.09 3 (97) 0.16 (4) Pollom et al. 2015aSample size in parentheses represents the number of nests used to calculate productivity and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.bNot applicable or not reported.
13
Figure 8. Productivity of red-faced cormorants (chicks fledged/nest) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (value in parentheses; current year not included). Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.
N
1.51
- 2.
00
1.01
- 1.
50
0.51
- 1.
00
0.01
- 0.
50
<0.0
1
2.01
- 2.
50
2.51
- 3.
00
2015
RFC
OP
rodu
ctiv
ity
St. P
aul (
1.33
)
St. G
eorg
e (1
.25)
Aik
tak
(0.8
5)
Bu
ldir
(1.1
9)
Ch
ow
iet
(0.1
6)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
7580
8590
9500
0510
150
00.
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
00.
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
14
Figure 9. Trends in populations of cormorants at Alaskan sites. Error bars (90% confidence intervals) are shown for years with multiple counts. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2006-2015, in parentheses). “NA” indicates that insufficient data were available.
Year1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(61
bir
ds)
0
100
Pelagic cormorant, Hall I. -3.6% p.a. (N/A)
Year1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(34
5 bi
rds)
0
100
Red-faced cormorant, St. Paul I. -1.1% p.a. (-24.4% p.a.)
Year1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(19
5 bi
rds)
0
100
Red-faced cormorant, St. George I. -1.4% p.a. (+5.3% p.a.)
Year1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(14
9 bi
rds)
0
100
Pelagic cormorant, Cape Peirce +0.2% p.a. (+0.8% p.a.)
Year1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(29
7 ne
sts)
0
100
Pelagic cormorant, St. Lazaria I.+5.0% p.a. (+15.2% p.a.)
15
Pelagic cormorant (Phalacrocorax pelagicus)
Table 8. Reproductive performance of pelagic cormorants at Alaskan sites monitored in 2015. Chicks No. of Long-termSite Fledged/Nest Plots Average ReferenceAiktak I. 0.88 NAb (17) 1.01 (13) Youngren et al. 2015Chowiet I. 0.36 2 (28) 0.75 (4) Pollom et al. 2015St. Lazaria I. 0.48 NA (158) 0.72 (21) Evans and Slater 2016aSample size in parentheses represents the number of nests used to calculate productivity and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.bNot applicable or not reported.
16
Figure 10. Productivity of pelagic cormorants (chicks fledged/nest) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (value in parentheses; current year not included). Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean).
1.51
- 2.
00
1.01
- 1.
50
0.51
- 1.
00
0.01
- 0.
50
<0.0
1
2.01
- 2.
50
2.51
- 3.
00
N
2015
PE
CO
Pro
duct
ivity
C. P
eirc
e (1
.17)
Ro
un
d (1
.47)
Bu
ldir
(0.9
8)A
ikta
k (1
.01)
St. L
azar
ia (0
.72)
Mid
dle
ton
(0.5
1)
Ch
ow
iet
(0.7
5)
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5
7479
8489
9499
0409
14
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5
7479
8489
9499
0409
14
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5
7479
8489
9499
0409
140
00
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5
7479
8489
9499
0409
14
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5
7479
8489
9499
0409
14
000
00.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5
7479
8489
9499
0409
14
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5
7479
8489
9499
0409
14
17
Common murre (Uria aalge)
Table 9. Hatching chronology of common murres at Alaskan sites monitored in 2015. Long-termSite Mean Average ReferenceSt. Paul I. 8 Aug (43)a 3 Aug (28)a Thomson et al. 2015St. George I. 13 Aug (40) 3 Aug (31) Tappa et al. 2015St. Lazaria I. 22 Aug (55) 12 Aug (21) Evans and Slater 2016aSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate the mean hatch date and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not included in long-term average.
Table 10. Reproductive performance of common murres at Alaskan sites monitored in 2015. Chicks Fledged/ No. of Long-termSite Nest Sitea Plots Average ReferenceSt. Paul I. 0.53 5 (93)b 0.50 (28)b Thomson et al. 2015St. George I. 0.30 9 (129) 0.50 (31) Tappa et al. 2015Round I. 0.16 3 (57) 0.19 (13) E. Weiss Unpubl. DataBuldir I. 0.33 1 (3) 0.42 (17) Mudge and Pietrzak 2015Aiktak I. 0.30 2 (27) 0.23 (19) Youngren et all. 2015Chowiet I. 0.00 NAc (0) 0.51 (20) Pollom et al. 2015St. Lazaria I. 0.77 4 (105) 0.48 (21) Evans and Slater 2016aSince murres do not build nests, nest sites were defined as sites where eggs were laid.bSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate productivity and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.cNot applicable or not reported.
18
Figure 11. Hatching chronology of common murres at Alaskan sites. Graphs indicate the departure in days (if any) from the site mean (value in parentheses; current year not included). Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >3 days early, black is within 3 days and green is >3 days later than the site mean). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.
Aver
age
=La
te+-E
arly
NN
o H
atch
2015
CO
MU
Hat
chin
gC
hron
olog
y
St.
Pau
l (3
Aug
)
St.
Geo
rge
(3 A
ug)
Cho
wie
t (22
Jul
)
E. A
mat
uli (
12 A
ug)
St.
Laza
ria (1
2 A
ug)
Aik
tak
(13
Aug
)P
uale
Bay
(21
Aug
)
+
++
00
-20
-1001020
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
000
00
-20
-1001020
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
-20
-1001020
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
-20
-1001020
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
-20
-1001020
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
-20
-1001020
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
000
-20
-1001020
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
N
19
Figure 12. Productivity of common murres (chicks fledged/nest site) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (value in parentheses; current year not included). Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.
N
0.76
- 1.
00
0.51
- 0.
75
0.26
- 0.
50
0.01
- 0.
25
<0.0
1
2015
CO
MU
Pro
duct
ivity
St. P
aul (
0.50
)
St. G
eorg
e (0
.50)
Ro
un
d (0
.19)
Bu
ldir
(0.4
2)A
ikta
k (0
.23)
Ch
ow
iet
(0.5
1)
St. L
azar
ia (0
.48)
Pual
e B
ay (0
.51)
.00.25.50.751.00
7681
8691
9601
0611
.00
.25
.50
.75
1.00
7681
8691
9601
0611
0.0
0
.25
.50
.75
1.00
7681
8691
9601
0611
00
.00
.25
.50
.75
1.00
7681
8691
9601
0611
000
000
0000
0.0
0
.25
.50
.75
1.00
7681
8691
9601
0611
0.0
0
.25
.50
.75
1.00
7681
8691
9601
0611
N
.00
.25
.50
.75
1.00
7681
8691
9601
0611
.00.25.50.751.00
7681
8691
9601
0611
20
Figure 13. Trends in populations of murres at Alaskan sites. Error bars (90% confidence intervals) are shown for years with multiple counts. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2006-2015, in parentheses). “NA” indicates that insufficient data were available.
Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(39
57 b
irds
)
0
100
Murres, Cape Lisburne+2.7% p.a. (+3.7% p.a.)
Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(38
75 b
irds
)
0
100
Common murre, Hall I.-1.8% p.a. (N/A)
Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(30
14 b
irds
)
0
100
Thick-billed murre, Hall I.-2.6% p.a. (N/A)
Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(39
03 b
irds
)
0
100
Common murre, St. Paul I.-2.7% p.a. (5.9% p.a.)
Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(10
,223
bir
ds)
0
100
Thick-billed murre, St. Paul I.-1.3% p.a. (+1.1% p.a.)
Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(32
39 b
irds
)
0
100
Common murre, St. George I.-0.4% p.a. (+4.9% p.a.)
21
Figure 13 (continued). Trends in populations of murres at Alaskan sites. Error bars (90% confidence intervals) are shown for years with multiple counts. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2006-2015, in parentheses).
Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(23
,890
bir
ds)
0
100
Thick-billed murre, St. George I.+0.6% p.a. (+1.6% p.a.)
Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(44
90 b
irds
)
0
100
Common murre, Cape Peirce-1.9% p.a. (-3.9% p.a.)
Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(14
32 b
irds
)
0
100
Common murre, Round I.+0.1% p.a. (-4.2% p.a.)
Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
0Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(32
03 b
irds
) 100
Murres, Buldir I.+8.6% p.a. (+3.9% p.a.)
Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
0
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(31
01 b
irds
) 100
Murres, Aiktak I.-4.9% p.a. (-9.1% p.a.)
Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(42
83 b
irds
)
0
100
Murres, Chowiet I.-0.5% p.a. (-20.1 p.a.)
22
Figure 13 (continued). Trends in populations of murres at Alaskan sites. Error bars (90% confidence intervals) are shown for years with multiple counts. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2006-2015, in parentheses). “NA” indicates that insufficient data were available.
Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(19
07 b
irds
)
0
100
Murres, Puale Bay+3.6% p.a. (N/A)
Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(97
5 bi
rds)
0
100
Murres, St. Lazaria I.-0.9% p.a. (-1.1% p.a.)
23
Thick-billed murre (Uria lomvia)
Table 11. Hatching chronology of thick-billed murres at Alaskan sites monitored in 2015. Long-termSite Mean Average ReferenceSt. Paul I. 8 Aug (163)a 5 Aug (30)a Thomson et al. 2015St. George I. 7 Aug (65) 31 Jul (34) Tappa et al. 2015Buldir I. 17 Jul (92) 19 Jul (27) Mudge and Pietrzak 2015Aiktak 26 Jul (4) 10 Aug (5) Youngren et al. 2015St. Lazaria I. 19 Aug (3) 10 Aug (20) Evans and Slater 2016aSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate the mean hatch date and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not included in long-term average.
Table 12. Reproductive performance of thick-billed murres at Alaskan sites monitored in 2015. Chicks Fledged/ No. of Long-termSite Nest Sitea Plots Average ReferenceSt. Paul I. 0.53 13 (303)b 0.46 (30)b Thomson et al. 2015St. George I. 0.25 17 (324) 0.52 (34) Tappa et al. 2015Buldir I. 0.57 9 (259) 0.67 (27) Mudge and Pietrzak 2015Aiktak I. 0.19 2 (16) 0.26 (14) Youngren et al. 2015Chowiet I. 0.00 2 (4) 0.41 (20) Pollom et al. 2015St. Lazaria I. 0.83 1 (6) 0.44 (21) Evans and Slater 2016aSince murres do not build nests, nest sites were defined as sites where eggs were laid.bSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate productivity and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.
24
Figure 14. Hatching chronology of thick-billed murres at Alaskan sites. Graphs indicate the departure in days (if any) from the site mean (value in parentheses; current year not included). Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >3 days early, black is within 3 days and green is >3 days later than the site mean). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.
Aver
age
=La
te+-E
arly
NN
o H
atch
2015
TBM
UH
atch
ing
Chr
onol
ogy
St.
Pau
l (5
Aug
)
St.
Geo
rge
(31
Jul)
Bul
dir (
19 J
ul)
Cho
wie
t (20
Jul
)
St.
Laza
ria (1
0 A
ug)
=
-=
+
Aik
tak
(10
Aug
)
Pua
le B
ay (2
0 A
ug)
0
-15-80815
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
+
N
-15-80815
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
0
-15-80815
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
0
-15-80815
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
000
-15-80815
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
-15-80815
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
00
-15-80815
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
25
Figure 15. Productivity of thick-billed murres (chicks fledged/nest site) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (value in parentheses; current year not included). Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.
N
0.76
- 1.
00
0.51
- 0.
75
0.26
- 0.
50
0.01
- 0.
25
<0.0
1
2015
TBM
UP
rodu
ctiv
ity
St. P
aul (
0.46
)
St. G
eorg
e (0
.52)
Bu
ldir
(0.6
7)A
ikta
k (0
.26)
Ch
ow
iet
(0.4
1)
St. L
azar
ia (0
.44)
Pual
e B
ay (0
.48)
.00.30.60.90
7681
8691
9601
0611
.00.30.60.90
7681
8691
9601
0611
.00.30.60.90
7681
8691
9601
0611
000
000
.00.30.60.90
7681
8691
9601
0611
N
0.00.30.60.90
7681
8691
9601
0611
.00.30.60.90
7681
8691
9601
0611
.00.30.60.90
7681
8691
9601
0611
26
Pigeon guillemot (Cepphus columba)
Figure 16. Trends in populations of pigeon guillemots at Alaskan sites. Error bars (90% confidence intervals) are shown for years with multiple counts. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2006-2015, in parentheses).
Year1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(66
25 b
irds
)
0
100
Pigeon guillemot, Pr. William Snd.-3.3% p.a. (+1.6% p.a.)
Year1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(13
4 bi
rds)
0
100
Pigeon guillemot, St. Lazaria I.-0.4% p.a. (-0.8% p.a.)
27
Ancient murrelet (Synthliboramphus antiquus)
Table 13. Hatching chronology of ancient murrelets at Alaskan sites monitored in 2015. Long-term Site Mean Average ReferenceAiktak I. 1 Jul (77)a 4 Jul (18)a Youngren et al. 2015aSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate the mean hatch date and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not included in long-term average.
Table 14. Reproductive performance of ancient murrelets at Alaskan sites monitored in 2015. Chicks No. of Long-termSite Fledged/Egga Plots Average ReferenceAiktak I. 0.82 NAb (186)c 0.79 (18)c Youngren et al. 2015aTotal chicks fledged/Total eggs.bNot applicable or not reported.cSample size in parentheses represents the number of eggs used to calculate productivity and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.
28
Parakeet auklet (Aethia psittacula)
Table 15. Hatching chronology of parakeet auklets at Alaskan sites monitored in 2015. Long-termSite Mean Average ReferenceBuldir I. 29 Jun (12)a 5 Jul (23)a Mudge and Pietrzak 2015Chowiet I. 4 Jul (10) 4 Jul (10) Pollom et al. 2015aSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate the mean hatch date and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not included in long-term average.
Table 16. Reproductive performance of parakeet auklets at Alaskan sites monitored in 2015. Chicks Fledged/ No. of Long-termSite Nest Sitea Plots Average ReferenceBuldir I. 0.46 NAb (54)c 0.52 (23)c Mudge and Pietrzak 2015Chowiet I. 0.29 NA (62) 0.38 (10) Pollom et al. 2015aNest site is defined as a site where an egg was laid.bNot applicable or not reported.cSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate productivity and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.
29
Figure 17. Hatching chronology of parakeet auklets at Alaskan sites. Graphs indicate the departure in days (if any) from the site mean (value in parentheses; current year not included). Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >3 days early, black is within 3 days and green is >3 days later than the site mean). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.
Aver
age
=La
te+-E
arly
NN
o H
atch
2015
PAA
UH
atch
ing
Chr
onol
ogy
Bul
dir (
5 Ju
l)
Cho
wie
t (4
Jul)=
-000
-15-80815
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
00
0
-15-80815
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
30
Figure 18. Productivity of parakeet auklets (chicks fledged/nest site) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (value in parentheses; current year not included). Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean).
N
0.76
- 1.
00
0.51
- 0.
75
0.26
- 0.
50
0.01
- 0.
25
<0.0
1
2015
PAAU
Prod
uctiv
ity
Buld
ir (0
.52)
Ch
owie
t (0.
38)
0.0
0
.20
.40
.60
.80
1.00
9196
0106
11
.00
.20
.40
.60
.80
1.00
9196
0106
11
31
Least auklet (Aethia pusilla)
Table 17. Hatching chronology of least auklets at Alaskan sites monitored in 2015. Long-termSite Mean Average ReferenceSt. George I. 4 Jul (53)a 15 Jul (7)a Tappa et al. 2015Buldir I. 27 Jun (34) 27 Jun (25) Mudge and Pietrzak 2015aSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate the mean hatch date and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not included in long-term average.
Table 18. Reproductive performance of least auklets at Alaskan sites monitored in 2015. Chicks Fledged/ No. of Long-termSite Nest Sitea Plots Average ReferenceSt. George I. 0.48 NAb (85)c 0.70 (7)c Tappa et al. 2015Buldir I. 0.42 NA (74) 0.59 (26) Mudge and Pietrzak 2015aNest site is defined as a site where an egg was laid.bNot applicable or not reported.cSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate productivity and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.
Figure 19. Trends in populations of least auklets at Alaskan sites. Error bars (90% confidence intervals) are shown for years with multiple counts. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2006-2015, in parentheses).
Year1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
0Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(14
82 b
irds
) 100
Least auklet, St. George I.+0.6% p.a. (+6.5% p.a.)
32
Figure 20. Hatching chronology of least auklets at Alaskan sites. Graphs indicate the departure in days (if any) from the site mean (value in parentheses; current year not included). Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >3 days early, black is within 3 days and green is >3 days later than the site mean). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.
Aver
age
=La
te+-E
arly
NN
o H
atch
2015
LEA
UH
atch
ing
Chr
onol
ogy
Bul
dir (
27 J
un)
St.
Geo
rge
(15
Jul)
-=
-15-80815
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
00
00
-15-80815
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
33
Figure 21. Productivity of least auklets (chicks fledged/nest site) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (value in parentheses; current year not included). Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean).
N
0.76
- 1.
00
0.51
- 0.
75
0.26
- 0.
50
0.01
- 0.
25
<0.0
1
2015
LEA
UP
rodu
ctiv
ity
Bu
ldir
(0.5
9)
St. G
eorg
e (0
.70)
.00
.30
.60
.90
8893
9803
0813
.00
.30
.60
.90
8893
9803
0813
34
Whiskered auklet (Aethia pygmaea)
Table 19. Hatching chronology of whiskered auklets at Alaskan sites monitored in 2015. Long-termSite Mean Average ReferenceBuldir I. 16 Jun (37)a 22 Jun (24)a Mudge and Pietrzak 2015a Sample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate the mean hatch date and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not included in long-term average.
Table 20. Reproductive performance of whiskered auklets at Alaskan sites monitored in 2015. Chicks Fledged/ No. of Long-termSite Nest Sitea Plots Average ReferenceBuldir I. 0.71 NAb (75)c 0.64 (25)c Mudge and Pietrzak 2015aNest site is defined as a site where an egg was laid.bNot applicable or not reported.cSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate productivity and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.
35
Crested auklet (Aethia cristatella)
Table 21. Hatching chronology of crested auklets at Alaskan sites monitored in 2015. Long-termSite Mean Average ReferenceBuldir I. 27 Jun (52)a 29 Jun (25)a Mudge and Pietrzak 2015aSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate the mean hatch date and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not included in long-term average.
Table 22. Reproductive performance of crested auklets at Alaskan sites monitored in 2015. Chicks Fledged/ No. of Long-termSite Nest Sitea Plots Average ReferenceBuldir I. 0.59 NAb (113)c 0.64 (26)c Mudge and Pietrzak 2015aNest site is defined as a site where an egg was laid.bNot applicable or not reported.cSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate productivity and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.
36
Rhinoceros auklet (Cerorhinca monocerata)
Table 23. Hatching chronology of rhinoceros auklets at Alaskan sites monitored in 2015. Long-termSite Mean Average ReferenceSt. Lazaria I. 19 Jun (16)a 26 Jun (20)a Evans and Slater 2016aSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate the mean or median hatch date and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not included in long-term average.
Table 24. Reproductive performance of rhinoceros auklets at Alaskan sites monitored in 2015. Chicks No. of Long-termSite Fledged/Egg Plots Average ReferenceChowiet I. 0.61 NAa (41)b 0.62 (3)b Pollom et al. 2015Middleton I 0.63 NA (60) 0.70 (15) Hatch 2015St. Lazaria I. 0.92 NA (154) 0.62 (21) Evans and Slater 2016aNot applicable or not reported.bSample size in parentheses represents the number of burrows used to calculate productivity and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.
Figure 22. Trends in populations of rhinoceros auklets at Alaskan sites. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2006-2015, in parentheses).
Year1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(D
ensi
ty 1
.07)
0
100
Rhinoceros auklet, St. Lazaria I.+4.5% p.a. (+3.4% p.a.)
Year1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(D
ensi
ty 0
.31)
0
100
Rhinoceros auklet, Chowiet I.+1.3% p.a. (+1.3% p.a.)
37
Figure 23. Productivity of rhinoceros auklets (chicks fledged/nest site) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (value in parentheses; current year not included). Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean).
N
0.76
- 1.
00
0.51
- 0.
75
0.26
- 0.
50
0.01
- 0.
25
<0.0
1
2015
RH
AUPr
oduc
tivity
St. L
azar
ia (0
.62)
Cho
wie
t (0.
62)
Mid
dlet
on (0
.70)
.00
.25
.50
.75
1.00
9499
0409
14
.00
.30
.60
.90
9498
0206
1014
.00
.25
.50
.75
1.00
9498
0206
1014
38
Horned puffin (Fratercula corniculata)
Table 25. Hatching chronology of horned puffins at Alaskan sites monitored in 2015. Long-termSite Mean Average ReferenceBuldir I. 31 Jul (48)a 25 Jul (25)a Mudge and Pietrzak 2015Aiktak I. 25 Jul (4) 31 Jul (10) Youngren et al. 2015Chowiet I. 29 Jul (17) 31 Jul (11) Pollom et al. 2015aSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate the mean hatch date and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not included in long-term average.
Table 26. Reproductive performance of horned puffins at Alaskan sites monitored in 2015. Chicks No. of Long-termSite Fledged/Egg Plots Average ReferenceBuldir I. 0.55 NAa (44)b 0.46 (27)b Mudge and Pietrzak 2015Aiktak I. 0.50 NA (10) 0.58 (13) Youngren et al. 2015Chowiet I. 0.03 NA (93) 0.37 (10) Pollom et al. 2015aNot applicable or not reported.bSample size in parentheses represents the number of eggs used to calculate productivity and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.
39
Figure 24. Hatching chronology of horned puffins at Alaskan sites. Graphs indicate the departure in days (if any) from the site mean (value in parentheses; current year not included). Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >3 days early, black is within 3 days and green is >3 days later than the site mean). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.
Aver
age
=La
te+-E
arly
NN
o H
atch
2015
HO
PU
Hat
chin
gC
hron
olog
y
Bul
dir (
25 J
ul)
Aik
tak
(31
Jul)
Cho
wie
t (31
Jul
)
-+
=
00
-15-80815
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
-15-80815
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
00
-15-80815
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
40
Figure 25. Productivity of horned puffins (chicks fledged/egg) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (value in parentheses; current year not included). Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean).
N
0.76
- 1.
00
0.51
- 0.
75
0.26
- 0.
50
0.01
- 0.
25
<0.0
1
2015
HO
PUPr
oduc
tivity
Buld
ir (0
.46)
Ch
owie
t (0.
37)
Aik
tak
(0.5
8)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
8893
9803
0813 0.00.20.40.60.8
8893
9803
0813
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
8893
9803
0813
41
Tufted puffin (Fratercula cirrhata)
Table 27. Hatching chronology of tufted puffins at Alaskan sites monitored in 2015. Long-term Site Mean Average ReferenceBuldir I. 21 Jul (6)a 13 Jul (20)a Mudge and Pietrzak 2015Aiktak I. 7 Aug (11) 31 Jul (18) Youngren et al. 2015Chowiet I. 26 Jul (26) 24 Jul (10) Pollom et al. 2015aSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate the mean hatch date and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not included in long-term average.
Table 28. Reproductive performance of tufted puffins at Alaskan sites monitored in 2015. Chicks No. of Long-term Site Fledgeda/Egg Plots Average ReferenceBuldir I. 0.16 NAb (18)c 0.40 (27)c Mudge and Pietrzak 2015Aiktak I. 0.30 NA (56) 0.56 (19) Youngren et al. 2015Chowiet I. 0.31 NA (54) 0.36 (9) Pollom et al. 2015Middleton I. 0.35 NA (52) 0.44 (10) Hatch 2015St. Lazaria I. 0.65 NA (17) 0.52 (13) Evans and Slater 2016aFledged chick defined as being still alive at last check in August or September.bNot applicable or not reported.cSample size in parentheses represents the number of burrows used to calculate productivity and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.
42
Figure 26. Hatching chronology of tufted puffins at Alaskan sites. Graphs indicate the departure in days (if any) from the site mean (value in parentheses; current year not included). Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >3 days early, black is within 3 days and green is >3 days later than the site mean). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.
Aver
age
=La
te+-E
arly
NN
o H
atch
2015
TUP
UH
atch
ing
Chr
onol
ogy
Bul
dir (
13 J
ul)
Aik
tak
(31
Jul)
Cho
wie
t (24
Jul
)
++
=
00
-15-80815
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
0
-15-80815
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
-15-80815
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
43
Figure 27. Productivity of tufted puffins (chicks fledged/egg) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (value in parentheses; current year not included). Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean).
N
0.76
- 1.
00
0.51
- 0.
75
0.26
- 0.
50
0.01
- 0.
25
<0.0
1
2015
TUP
UP
rodu
ctiv
ity
Bu
ldir
(0.4
0)
Aik
tak
(0.5
6)
Ch
ow
iet
(0.3
6)
Mid
dle
ton
(0.4
4)
St. L
azar
ia (0
.52)
0.0
0
.25
.50
.75
1.00
8893
9803
0813
.00.25.50.751.00
8893
9803
0813
0.0
0
.25
.50
.75
1.00
8893
9803
0813
.00
.25
.50
.75
1.00
8893
9803
0813
0.0
0
.25
.50
.75
1.00
8893
9803
0813
44
Figure 28. Trends in populations of tufted puffins at Alaskan sites. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2006-2015, in parentheses).
Year1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
0
100
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(D
ensi
ty 0
.62)
Tufted puffin, Aiktak I.-0.1% p.a. (+0.3% p.a.)
Year1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(19
9 bu
rrow
s)
0
100
Tufted puffin, E. Amatuli I.-3.3% p.a. (-3.7% p.a.)
Year1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(D
ensi
ty 0
.79)
0
100
Tufted puffin, St. Lazaria I.-1.7% p.a. (-0.4% p.a.)
45
Black-legged kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla)
Table 29. Hatching chronology of black-legged kittiwakes at Alaskan sites monitored in 2015. Long-term Site Mean Average ReferenceSt. Paul I. 27 Jul (13)a 16 Jul (31)a Thomson et al. 2015St. George I. 2 Aug (5) 15 Jul (30) Tappa et al. 2015Buldir I. 13 Jul (72) 7 Jul (27) Mudge and Pietrzak 2015aSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate the mean hatch date and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not included in long-term average.
Table 30. Reproductive performance of black-legged kittiwakes at Alaskan sites monitored in 2015. Chicks No. of Long-termSite Fledgeda/Nest Plots Average ReferenceSt. Paul I. 0.04 13 (247)b 0.28 (35)b Thomson et al. 2015St. George I. 0.00 9 (147) 0.21 (39) Tappa et al. 2015Round I. 0.16 2 (50) 0.23 (16) E. Weiss Unpubl. DataBuldir I. 0.01 10 (287) 0.16 (27) Mudge and Pietrzak 2015Chowiet I. 0.00 11 (319) 0.19 (19) Pollom et al. 2015N. PWSc 0.21d NAe (20,432) NA (NA) D. Irons Unpubl. DataS. PWSc 0.04d NA (4,383) NA (NA) D. Irons Unpubl. DataaTotal chicks fledged/Total nests.bSample size in parentheses represents the number of nests used to calculate productivity and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.cPrince William Sound.dShort visit.eNot applicable or not reported.
46
Figure 29. Hatching chronology of black-legged kittiwakes at Alaskan sites. Graphs indicate the departure in days (if any) from the site mean (value in parentheses; current year not included). Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >3 days early, black is within 3 days and green is >3 days later than the site mean). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.
Aver
age
=La
te+-E
arly
NN
o H
atch
2015
BLK
IH
atch
ing
Chr
onol
ogy
St.
Pau
l (16
Jul
)
St.
Geo
rge
(15
Jul)
Bul
dir (
7 Ju
l)
Cho
wie
t (16
Jul
)
E. A
mat
uli (
12 J
ul)
+ ++
N
0
-20
-1001020
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
00
-20
-1001020
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
0
-20
-1001020
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
0
-20
-1001020
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
0
-20
-1001020
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
47
Figure 30. Productivity of black-legged kittiwakes (chicks fledged/nest) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (value in parentheses; current year not included). Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.
C. L
isb
urn
e (0
.56)
St. P
aul (
0.28
)
St. G
eorg
e (0
.21)
C. P
eirc
e (0
.21)
Rou
nd
(0.2
3)
Buld
ir (0
.16)
Mid
dle
ton
(0.1
5)
Ch
owie
t (0.
19)
N. P
r. W
illia
m S
nd.
E. A
mat
uli
(0.3
4)
N
0.76
- 1.
00
0.51
- 0.
75
0.26
- 0.
50
0.01
- 0.
25
<0.0
1
2015
BLKI
Prod
uctiv
ity1.
01 -
1.25
S. P
r. W
illia
m S
nd.
NN
00
0.00.30.60.91.21.51.8
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
00
00.00.30.60.91.21.51.8
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
00
00
00
0.00.30.60.91.21.51.8
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
000
00
0
0.00.30.60.91.21.51.8
7580
8590
9500
0510
1500
00
0
0.00.30.60.91.21.51.8
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
00.00.30.60.91.21.51.8
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
00
00
0
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
00
00
0.00.30.60.91.21.51.8
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
000
0000
0000
0.00.30.60.91.21.51.8
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
48
Figure 31. Trends in populations of black-legged kittiwakes at Alaskan sites. Error bars (90% confidence intervals) are shown for years with multiple counts. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2006-2015, in parentheses). “NA” indicates that insufficient data were available.
Year1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(10
69 b
irds
)
0
100
Black-legged kittiwake, Cape Lisburne+3.4% p.a. (+4.2% p.a.)
Year1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(37
4 bi
rds)
0
100
Black-legged kittiwake, Hall I.-5.8% p.a. (N/A.)
Year1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(29
39 b
irds
)
0
100
Black-legged kittiwake, St. Paul I.-1.4% p.a. (+1.4% p.a.)
Year1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(18
82 b
irds
)
0
100
Black-legged kittiwake, St. George I.+0.4% p.a. (-0.2% p.a.)
Year1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(19
06 b
irds
)
0
100
Black-legged kittiwake, Cape Peirce-2.2% p.a (+7.8% p.a.)
Year1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Perc
ent o
f M
axim
um (
445
bird
s)
0
100
Black-legged kittiwake, Round I.-1.2% p.a. (+1.5% p.a.)
49
Figure 31 (continued). Trends in populations of black-legged kittiwakes at Alaskan sites. Error bars (90% confidence intervals) are shown for years with multiple counts. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2006-2015, in parentheses). “NA” indicates that insufficient data were available.
Year1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(41
00 n
ests
)
0
100
Black-legged kittiwake, Buldir I.+3.0% p.a. (+3.8% p.a.)
Year1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(48
5 bi
rds)
0
100
Black-legged kittiwake, Chowiet I.-0.9% p.a. (-5.8% p.a.)
Year1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(13
26 b
irds
)
0
100
Black-legged kittiwake, Puale Bay-0.7% p.a. (N/A)
Year1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(32
,501
nes
ts)
0
100
Black-legged kittiwake, Pr. William Snd.+1.6% p.a. (+0.2% p.a.)
50
Red-legged kittiwake (Rissa brevirostris)
Table 31. Hatching chronology of red-legged kittiwakes at Alaskan sites monitored in 2015. Long-termSite Mean Average ReferenceSt. George I. 18 Jul (10)a 15 Jul (34)a Tappa et al. 2015aSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate the mean hatch date and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not included in long-term average.
Table 32. Reproductive performance of red-legged kittiwakes at Alaskan sites monitored in 2015. Chicks No. of Long-termSite Fledgeda/Nest Plots Average ReferenceSt. Paul I. 0.00 3 (6)b 0.26 (35)b Thomson et al. 2015St. George I. 0.01 13 (307) 0.25 (39) Tappa et al. 2015Buldir I. 0.04 4 (25) 0.19 (27) Mudge and Pietrzak 2015aTotal chicks fledged/Total nests.bSample size in parentheses represents the number of nests used to calculate productivity and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.
51
Figure 32. Hatching chronology of red-legged kittiwakes at Alaskan sites. Graphs indicate the departure in days (if any) from the site mean (value in parentheses; current year not included). Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >3 days early, black is within 3 days and green is >3 days later than the site mean). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.
Aver
age
=La
te+-E
arly
NN
o H
atch
2015
R
LKI
Hat
chin
gC
hron
olog
y
St.
Pau
l (18
Jul
)
St.
Geo
rge
(15
Jul)
Bul
dir (
11 J
ul)
=
-25
-1301325
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
00
00
0
-25
-1301325
7580
8590
9500
0510
15N
0
-25
-1301325
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
52
Figure 33. Productivity of red-legged kittiwakes (chicks fledged/nest) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (value in parentheses; current year not included). Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.
N
0.76
- 1.
00
0.51
- 0.
75
0.26
- 0.
50
0.01
- 0.
25
<0.0
1
2015
RLK
IP
rodu
ctiv
ity
St. P
aul (
0.26
)
St. G
eorg
e (0
.25)
Bu
ldir
(0.1
9)
N
00
00
00
.00.25.50.75
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
0.0
0
.25
.50
.75
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
0.00.25.50.75
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
53
Figure 34. Trends in populations of red-legged kittiwakes at Alaskan sites. Error bars (90% confidence intervals) are shown for years with multiple counts. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2006-2015, in parentheses).
Year1975 1985 1995 2005 2015
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(18
0 bi
rds)
0
100
Red-legged kittiwake, St. Paul I.-4.1% p.a. (+6.8% p.a.)
Year1975 1985 1995 2005 2015
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(44
84 b
irds
)
0
100
Red-legged kittiwake, St. George I.+0.7% p.a. (-0.1% p.a.)
Year1975 1985 1995 2005 2015
0
100
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(10
95 n
ests
)
Red-legged kittiwake, Buldir I.+2.3% p.a. (+9.4% p.a.)
54
Glaucous-winged gull (Larus glaucescens)
Table 33. Hatching chronology of glaucous-winged gulls at Alaskan sites monitored in 2015. Long-termSite Mean Average ReferenceBuldir I. 20 Jun (25)a 24 Jun (14)a Mudge and Pietrzak 2015Aiktak I. 7 Jul (107) 11 Jul (20) Youngren et al. 2015Chowiet I. 28 Jun (60) 3 Jul (9) Pollom et al. 2015St. Lazaria I. 7 Jul (96) 3 Jul (16) Evans and Slater 2016aSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate the mean hatch date and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not included in long-term average.
Table 34. Reproductive performance of glaucous-winged gulls at Alaskan sites monitored in 2015. Hatching No. of Long-termSite Successa Plots Average ReferenceBuldir I. 0.65 NAb (31)c 0.46 (17)c Mudge and Pietrzak 2015Aiktak I. 0.72 4 (260) 0.52 (20) Youngren et al. 2015Chowiet I. 0.70 3 (79) 0.57 (8) Pollom et al. 2015St. Lazaria I. 0.62 5 (153) 0.55(20) Evans and Slater 2016aTotal chicks/Total eggs.bNot applicable or not reported.cSample size in parentheses represents the number of eggs used to calculate hatching success and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.
55
Figure 35. Hatching chronology of glaucous-winged gulls at Alaskan sites. Graphs indicate the departure in days (if any) from the site mean (value in parentheses; current year not included). Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >3 days early, black is within 3 days and green is >3 days later than the site mean). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.
Aver
age
=La
te+-E
arly
NN
o H
atch
2015
GW
GU
Hat
chin
gC
hron
olog
y
Aik
tak
(11
Jul)
St.
Laza
ria (3
Jul
)
Cho
wie
t (3
Jul)
Bul
dir (
24 J
un)
--
-
Pua
le B
ay (9
Jul
)
+
00
0
-20
-100102030
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
0
-20
-1001020
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
-20
-1001020
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
-20
-1001020
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
-20
-1001020
7580
8590
9500
0510
15
56
Figure 36. Productivity of glaucous-winged gulls (hatching success) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (value in parentheses; current year not included). Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.
N
0.76
- 1.
00
0.51
- 0.
75
0.26
- 0.
50
0.01
- 0.
25
<0.0
1
2015
GW
GU
Pro
duct
ivity
Bu
ldir
(0.4
6)
Aik
tak
(0.5
2)C
ho
wie
t (0
.57)
St. L
azar
ia (0
.55)
.00
.25
.50
.75
1.00
9296
0004
0812
.00
.25
.50
.75
1.00
9296
0004
0812
.00
.25
.50
.75
1.00
9296
0004
0812
.00
.25
.50
.75
1.00
9296
0004
0812
57
Figure 37. Trends in populations of glaucous-winged gulls at Alaskan sites. Error bars (90% confidence intervals) are shown for years with multiple counts. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2006-2015, in parentheses).
Year1994 1999 2004 2009 2014
0
100
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(44
68 b
irds
)Glaucous-winged gull, Aiktak I.
+0.7% p.a. (-4.0% p.a.)
Year1994 1999 2004 2009 2014
0
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(22
5 ne
sts)
100
Glaucous-winged gull, Chowiet I. +0.2% p.a. (+1.9% p.a.)
Year1994 1999 2004 2009 2014
Per
cent
of
Max
imum
(16
1 ne
sts)
0
100
Glaucous-winged gull, St. Lazaria I.+8.1% p.a. (+6.7% p.a.)
58
Tabl
e 35
. Sea
bird
rela
tive
bree
ding
chr
onol
ogya c
ompa
red
to a
vera
ges f
or p
ast y
ears
. Onl
y si
tes f
or w
hich
ther
e w
ere
data
from
20
15 a
re in
clud
ed.
Reg
ion
Site
FTS
Pb
LHS
PR
FCO
CO
MU
TBM
UA
NM
UPA
AU
LEA
UW
HA
UC
RA
UR
HA
UH
OP
UTU
PU
BLK
IR
LKI
GW
GU
SE
Ber
ing
St.
Pau
l I.
EL
AL
St.
Geo
rge
I.L
LE
LA
Aik
tak
I.L
AE
EL
ES
W B
erin
gB
uldi
r I.
AA
EA
EA
LL
LE
N G
ulf o
f AK
Cho
wie
t I.
AA
AE
Sou
thea
stS
t. La
zaria
I.E
EL
LE
La C
odes
: “
E” a
nd re
d ce
ll co
lor i
ndic
ate
hatc
hing
chr
onol
ogy
was
> 3
day
s ear
lier t
han
the
aver
age
for s
ites i
n th
is re
gion
. “
A”
and
yello
w c
ell c
olor
indi
cate
hat
chin
g ch
rono
logy
was
with
in 3
day
s of a
vera
ge.
“L”
and
gre
en c
ell c
olor
indi
cate
hat
chin
g ch
rono
logy
was
> 3
day
s lat
er th
an th
e av
erag
e fo
r site
s in
this
regi
on.
b FTS
P=fo
rk-ta
iled
stor
m-p
etre
l, LH
SP=L
each
’s st
orm
-pet
rel,
RFC
O=r
ed-f
aced
cor
mor
ant,
CO
MU
=com
mon
mur
re, T
BM
U=t
hick
-bill
ed m
urre
, AN
MU
=anc
ient
mur
rele
t, PA
AU
=par
akee
t auk
let,
LEA
U=l
east
auk
let,
WH
AU
=whi
sker
ed a
ukle
t, C
RA
U=c
rest
ed a
ukle
t, R
HA
U=r
hino
cero
s auk
let,
HO
PU=h
orne
d pu
ffin,
TU
PU=t
ufte
d pu
ffin,
BLK
I=bl
ack-
legg
ed k
ittiw
ake,
RLK
I=re
d-le
gged
ki
ttiw
ake,
GW
GU
=gla
ucou
s-w
inge
d gu
ll.
59
Tabl
e 36
. Sea
bird
rela
tive
prod
uctiv
ity le
vels
a com
pare
d to
ave
rage
s for
pas
t yea
rs. O
nly
site
s for
whi
ch th
ere
wer
e da
ta fr
om 2
015
are
incl
uded
.
a Cod
es:
“L”
and
red
cell
colo
r ind
icat
e pr
oduc
tivity
was
> 2
0% b
elow
the
aver
age
for t
he re
gion
. “
A”
and
yel
low
cel
l col
or in
dica
te p
rodu
ctiv
ity w
as w
ithin
20%
of a
vera
ge.
“H
” an
d gr
een
cell
colo
r ind
icat
e pr
oduc
tivity
was
> 2
0% a
bove
the
aver
age
for t
he re
gion
.b F
TSP=
fork
-taile
d st
orm
-pet
rel,
LHSP
=Lea
ch’s
stor
m-p
etre
l, R
FCO
=red
-fac
ed c
orm
oran
t, PE
CO
=pel
agic
cor
mor
ant,
CO
MU
=com
mon
mur
re, T
BM
U=t
hick
-bill
ed m
urre
, AN
MU
=anc
ient
m
urre
let,
PAA
U=p
arak
eet a
ukle
t, LE
AU
=lea
st a
ukle
t, W
HA
U=w
hisk
ered
auk
let,
CR
AU
=cre
sted
auk
let,
RH
AU
=rhi
noce
ros a
ukle
t, H
OPU
=hor
ned
puffi
n, T
UPU
=tuf
ted
puffi
n, B
LKI=
blac
k-le
gged
kitt
iwak
e, R
LKI=
red-
legg
ed k
ittiw
ake,
GW
GU
=gla
ucou
s-w
inge
d gu
ll.
Reg
ion
Site
FTS
Pb
LHS
PR
FCO
PE
CO
CO
MU
TBM
UA
NM
UPA
AU
LEA
UW
HA
UC
RA
UR
HA
UH
OP
UTU
PU
BLK
IR
LKI
GW
GU
SE
Ber
ing
St.
Pau
l I.
AA
AL
LS
t. G
eorg
e I.
LL
LL
LL
Rou
nd I.
AL
Aik
tak
I.A
AA
AH
LA
AL
HS
W B
erin
gB
uldi
r I.
AA
LA
AL
AA
AL
LL
HN
Gul
f of
Ala
ska
Cho
wie
t I.
LL
LL
LA
LA
LH
Mid
dlet
on I.
AA
Sou
thea
stS
t. La
zaria
I.A
AL
HH
HH
A
60
Tabl
e 37
. Sea
bird
pop
ulat
ion
trend
sa for
all
avai
labl
e ye
ars (
“A”
colu
mns
), an
d th
e pa
st d
ecad
e (2
006-
2015
, “D
” co
lum
ns).
a Cod
es:
i a
nd re
d ce
ll co
lor i
ndic
ate
a ne
gativ
e po
pula
tion
trend
of ≥
3% p
er a
nnum
for t
his s
ite o
r reg
ion.
1 a
nd y
ello
w c
ell c
olor
indi
cate
no
popu
latio
n tre
nd.
h a
nd g
reen
cel
l col
or in
dica
te a
pos
itive
pop
ulat
ion
trend
of ≥
3% p
er a
nnum
for t
his s
ite o
r reg
ion.
“N
/A”
indi
cate
s tha
t the
re w
ere
insu
ffici
ent d
ata
to d
eter
min
e a
trend
.b N
OFU
=nor
ther
n fu
lmar
, FTS
P=fo
rk-ta
iled
stor
m-p
etre
l, ST
PE=u
nspe
cifie
d st
orm
-pet
rel,
RFC
O=r
ed-f
aced
cor
mor
ant,
PEC
O=p
elag
ic c
orm
oran
t, C
OM
U=c
omm
on m
urre
, TB
MU
=thi
ck-b
illed
m
urre
, UN
MU
=uns
peci
fied
mur
re, P
IGU
=pig
eon
guill
emot
, LEA
U=l
east
auk
let,
RH
AU
=rhi
noce
ros a
ukle
t, TU
PU=t
ufte
d pu
ffin,
BLK
I=bl
ack-
legg
ed k
ittiw
ake,
RLK
I=re
d-le
gged
kitt
iwak
e,
GW
GU
=gla
ucou
s-w
inge
d gu
ll.
NO
FUb
FTS
PS
TPE
RFC
OP
EC
OC
OM
UTB
MU
UN
MU
PIG
ULE
AU
RH
AU
TUP
UB
LKI
RLK
IG
WG
UR
egio
nS
iteA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
DA
D
N B
erin
g/C
hukc
hiC
. Lis
burn
e1
hh
hH
all I
.1
N/A
iN
/A1
N/A
1N
/Ai
N/A
SE
Ber
ing
St.
Pau
l I.
1h
1i
1h
11
11
ih
St.
Geo
rge
I.1
h1
h1
h1
11
h1
11
1C
. Pei
rce
11
1i
1h
Rou
nd I.
1i
11
Aik
tak
I.1
1i
i1
11
iS
W B
erin
gB
uldi
r I.
hh
1h
1h
N G
ulf o
f A
lask
a
Cho
wie
t I.
11
1i
11
1i
11
Pua
le B
ayh
N/A
1N
/A
E. A
mat
uli I
.1
1i
iP.
Will
iam
Snd
.i
11
1S
outh
east
St.
Laza
ria I.
11
hh
11
11
hh
11
hh
61
Acknowledgments
The data summarized in this report were gathered by many people, most of whom are cited in the references section. We appreciate their efforts. We thank Ed Weiss (Alaska Dept. Fish and Game), and David Irons (USFWS Migr. Birds) for the unpublished data they kindly provided. We would like to extend our thanks to the staff of the Alaska Maritime NWR for their assistance during both the data collection and writing phases of this project. All photographs used in this report are Fish and Wildlife Service pictures except those of the fork-tailed storm-petrel, parakeet auklet, least auklet, tufted puffin, and horned puffin which were taken by Ian Jones, and the ancient murrelet taken by Fiona Hunter; all used with permission. Cover art by Susan Steinacher.
References
Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge (AMNWR). 2015. Standardized protocols for annual seabird monitoring camps at Aiktak, Buldir, Chowiet, St. George, St. Lazaria and St. Paul islands, and Cape Lisburne in the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge in 2015. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2015/08. Homer, Alaska.
Byrd, G. V. 2007. Seabird monitoring on Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. Pp. 33-39 in Community-based coastal observing in Alaska: Aleutian life forum 2006, R. Brewer, Ed. Alaska Sea Grant College Program Report No. 07-03. University of Alaska Fairbanks.
_____, and D. E. Dragoo. 1997. Breeding success and population trends of selected seabirds in Alaska in 1996. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 97/11. Homer, Alaska.
_____, and D. B. Irons. 1998. Breeding status and population trends of seabirds in Alaska in 1997. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 98/02. Homer, Alaska.
_____. 1999. Breeding status and population trends of seabirds in Alaska in 1998. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 99/02. Homer, Alaska.
Dragoo, D. E., G. V. Byrd, and D. B. Irons. 2000. Breeding status and population trends of seabirds in Alaska in 1999. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2000/02. Homer, Alaska.
_____. 2001. Breeding status, population trends and diets of seabirds in Alaska, 2000. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 01/07. Homer, Alaska.
_____. 2003. Breeding status, population trends and diets of seabirds in Alaska, 2001. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 03/05. Homer, Alaska.
62
_____. 2004. Breeding status, population trends and diets of seabirds in Alaska, 2002. U. S Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 04/15. Homer, Alaska.
_____. 2006. Breeding status, population trends and diets of seabirds in Alaska, 2003. U. S Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 06/13. Homer, Alaska.
_____. 2007. Breeding status, population trends and diets of seabirds in Alaska, 2004. U. S Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 07/17. Homer, Alaska.
_____. 2008. Breeding status, population trends and diets of seabirds in Alaska, 2005. U. S Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 08/03. Homer, Alaska.
_____. 2009. Breeding status, population trends and diets of seabirds in Alaska, 2006. U. S Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 09/05. Homer, Alaska.
_____. 2010. Breeding status, population trends and diets of seabirds in Alaska, 2007. U. S Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2010/08. Homer, Alaska.
_____. 2011. Breeding status, population trends and diets of seabirds in Alaska, 2008. U. S Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2011/07. Homer, Alaska.
Dragoo, D. E., H. M. Renner, and David B. Irons. 2012. Breeding status, population trends and diets of seabirds in Alaska, 2009. U. S Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2012/01. Homer, Alaska.
_____. 2013. Breeding status and population trends of seabirds in Alaska, 2012. U. S Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2013/05. Homer, Alaska.
_____. 2014. Breeding status and population trends of seabirds in Alaska, 2013. U. S Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2014/03. Homer, Alaska.
_____. 2015. Breeding status and population trends of seabirds in Alaska, 2014. U. S Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2015/03. Homer, Alaska.
Evans, S. A., and L. Slater. 2016. Biological monitoring at Saint Lazaria Island, Alaska, in 2015. U. S Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2016/02. Homer, Alaska.
Hatch, S. A. 2015. Middleton Island seabird research and monitoring, 2015 field report. Institute for Seabird Research and Conservation. Anchorage, Alaska.
Irons, D. Migratory Bird Management, USFWS, Unpubl. Data 2015. Anchorage, Alaska.
Mudge, M. L., K. W. Pietrzak. 2015. Biological monitoring at Buldir Island, Alaska, in 2015. U. S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Rep., AMNWR 2015/11. Homer, Alaska.
63
Pollom, E. L, J. P. Gorey, and N. A. Rojek. 2015. Biological monitoring at Chowiet Island, Alaska in 2015. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2015/13. Homer, Alaska.
Tappa, J. D., B. A. Drummond, and M. D. Romano. 2015. Biological monitoring at St. George Island, Alaska, in 2015. U. S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Rep., AMNWR 2015/14. Homer, Alaska.
Thomson, G., B. A. Drummond, and M. D. Romano. 2015. Biological monitoring at St. Paul Island, Alaska in 2015. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2015/15. Homer, Alaska.
Weiss, E., Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Unpublished Data 2014. Anchorage, Alaska
Youngren, S. M., D. C. Rapp, and B. A. Drummond. 2015. Biological monitoring at Aiktak Island, Alaska in 2015. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2015/12. Homer, Alaska.