7 Potential actions in response to climate change: Auks (Alcidae) |

7.1 Impact: Increase in mammal predation

Summary:
Invasive mammals are a major threat to many seabird populations, and as such there is a well-established literature on mammal exclusion, management and eradication detailing effective methods and case studies. However, there are more limited options when the mammalian predator in question is itself a conservation target, or is not easily managed. Nevertheless, for many situations there are several, well-researched, actions available that can benefit seabird populations effectively.

Intervention	Evidence of effectiveness	R	S	T
Manage/eradicate mammalian predators	There are numerous examples of benefits to seabirds, including auks, following mammal eradication, though this depends on the effectiveness of the methods used and the species in question. Control of rodents and mustelids are particularly well studied.	3	5	3
Physically protect nests with barriers or enclosures	Has been successfully trialled in numerous ground-nesting seabird species. However, we found no studies that look at effectiveness for any auk species.	2	4	4
Reduce predation by translocating predators	Few trials on seabirds, and only one on auks (Synthliboramphus hypoleucus). Existing evidence suggests this action can be beneficial and reduce egg/chick predation, and could be a possible action if other forms of predator management are not viable	2	4	3
Repel predators with acoustic, chemical or visual deterrents	This is a hypothetical action. We found no published studies assessing this action’s effectiveness	NA	NA	NA
Use supplementary feeding to reduce predation	Very few trials on seabirds, and none on auks. No studies have shown this action is effective	1	4	3

Green = Likely to be beneficial. Red = Unlikely to be beneficial, may have negative impact. Orange = contradicting or uncertain evidence. Grey = Limited evidence.
R = relevance rating. S = strength rating. T = transparency rating. All ratings on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is the highest.

Detail:

Manage/eradicate mammalian predators
Relevance (R): 6 studies in the evidence base focus on auks, 40 on other seabirds and 3 on other birds. Strength (S): The evidence base was comprised of 52 studies. Of these 44 were considered to have a good sample size, and 34 had a clear metric for effectiveness. Transparency (T): 52 studies included were published and peer-reviewed, of which 5 were literature reviews or meta-analyses, 0 were from the grey literature, and 0 were anecdotal. Of the studies included, 24 had a published methodology, and 28 justified their rationale.

Physically protect nests with barriers or enclosures
Relevance (R): 0 studies in the evidence base focus on auks, 12 on other seabirds and 6 on other birds. Strength (S): The evidence base was comprised of 18 studies. Of these 16 were considered to have a good sample size, and 12 had a clear metric for effectiveness. Transparency (T): 17 studies included were published and peer-reviewed, 0 were from the grey literature, and 0 were anecdotal. Of the studies included, 11 had a published methodology, and 12 justified their rationale.

Reduce predation by translocating predators
Relevance (R): 1 study in the evidence base focus on auks, 1 on other seabirds and 2 on other birds. Strength (S): The evidence base was comprised of 4 studies. Of these 4 were considered to have a good sample size, and 3 had a clear metric for effectiveness. Transparency (T): 4 studies included were published and peer-reviewed, 0 were from the grey literature, and 0 were anecdotal. Of the studies included, 2 had a published methodology, and 3 justified their rationale.

Use supplementary feeding to reduce predation
Relevance (R): 0 studies in the evidence base focus on auks, 1 on other seabirds and 3 on other birds. Strength (S): The evidence base was comprised of 4 studies. Of these 4 were considered to have a good sample size, and 4 had a clear metric for effectiveness. Transparency (T): 4 studies included were published and peer-reviewed, 0 were from the grey literature, and 0 were anecdotal. Of the studies included, 1 had a published methodology, and 4 justified their rationale.

7.2 Impact: Increased frequency/severity of storms (including wind, rain and wave action) increases foraging difficulty and/or mortality

Summary:
Several local actions may be possible to limit mortality or increase recovery on a small scale, but for larger populations effective local action is difficult. Supporting the population in more general ways (increasing adult survival, limiting chick mortality) may be the most effective method.

Intervention	Evidence of effectiveness	R	S	T
Provide supplementary food during the breeding season	If storms affect foraging during the breeding season, it may be possible to support populations with additional food. Alternatively it may counteract the poor condition of adults after a harsh winter. Trialled on many seabird species. Limited evidence for effectiveness in auks, and all known studies are on F. arctica. Typically very labour intensive and difficult given the remote and inaccessible breeding colonies of auks. Likely only plausible for small populations.	3	4	3
Provide supplementary food during the non-breeding season	This is a hypothetical action. We found no published studies assessing this action’s effectiveness. It is likely to be very difficult or even impossible, especially for pelagic species.	NA	NA	NA
Treat sick or injured birds affected by storms	This is a hypothetical action. We found no published studies assessing this action’s effectiveness. Action could possibly be combined with a monitoring and early-warning system to alert conservation groups to potential wrecks.	NA	NA	NA

Green = Likely to be beneficial. Red = Unlikely to be beneficial, may have negative impact. Orange = contradicting or uncertain evidence. Grey = Limited evidence.
R = relevance rating. S = strength rating. T = transparency rating. All ratings on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is the highest.

Detail:

Provide supplementary food during the breeding season
Relevance (R): 5 studies in the evidence base focus on auks, 11 on other seabirds and 0 on other birds. Strength (S): The evidence base was comprised of 16 studies. Of these 10 were considered to have a good sample size, and 14 had a clear metric for effectiveness. Transparency (T): 16 studies included were published and peer-reviewed, 0 were from the grey literature, and 0 were anecdotal. Of the studies included, 13 had a published methodology, and 4 justified their rationale.

7.3 Impact: Increased frequency/severity of storms (including wind, rain and wave action) causes nest destruction

Summary:
While there are several local actions that may prevent or mitigate local nest destruction, they have not been trialled widely and wide-spread evidence to support their use is currently lacking. If changes in extreme weather threatens the viability of a population, then several actions are available to encourage translocation of populations to safer areas.

Intervention	Evidence of effectiveness	R	S	T
Alter habitat to encourage birds to leave an area	Few trials on seabirds and none on auks. Several trials of this action have been successful and encouraged terns to shift breeding sites. However, this action is likely more viable for species with lower site fidelity and areas with other available breeding habitat nearby.	2	2	3
Artificially incubate or hand-rear chicks to support population	Known to be effective for some seabirds, though labour intensive and usually only appropriate for small populations. Limited evidence in auks, though captive F. arctica and F. cirrhata have been successully hand-reared.	2	2	3
Install barriers to prevent flooding	While likely to prevent flooding there is currently no evidence available on this action’s effectiveness in relation to seabird conservation	NA	NA	NA
Make new colonies more attractive to encourage birds to translocate	Several actions have been trialled across auk (and other seabird) species to encourage colonisation, with variable success, including the use of decoys, acoustic cues, smells and improved habitat. The most notable success has been to use decoys to encourage F. arctica to colonise new areas, other actions have had variable success depending on context and species.	2	4	3
Manually relocate nests	This has been reported by practitioners as an effective action to assist seabirds on low-lying beaches in the Baltic, including auks. However, to our knowledge there are no broad-scale studies or reviews of this action’s effectiveness.	NA	NA	NA
Provide additional shelter or protection from extreme weather (flooding)	In some seabird species additional protection has reduced flooding, but evidence is limited. We found no published trials on auk species.	1	3	5
Provide artificial nesting sites	Tried extensively on many seabird species with notable success in many cases. Few trials for auk species, but some limited evidence for success in F. arctica, S. antiquus and C. monocerata	3	5	3
Repair/support nests to support breeding	Very limited evidence for effectiveness, but at least one case study has used this action to increase U. aalge breeding success.	3	2	3
Translocate the population to a more suitable breeding area	Known to be beneficial in other seabird groups, but evidence for auks is limited. At least one successful translocation of F. arctica has been carried out, but whether it is generally advisable is uncertain.	3	4	4

Green = Likely to be beneficial. Red = Unlikely to be beneficial, may have negative impact. Orange = contradicting or uncertain evidence. Grey = Limited evidence.
R = relevance rating. S = strength rating. T = transparency rating. All ratings on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is the highest.

Detail:

Alter habitat to encourage birds to leave an area
Relevance (R): 0 studies in the evidence base focus on auks, 2 on other seabirds and 0 on other birds. Strength (S): The evidence base was comprised of 2 studies. Of these 2 were considered to have a good sample size, and 0 had a clear metric for effectiveness. Transparency (T): 2 studies included were published and peer-reviewed, 0 were from the grey literature, and 0 were anecdotal. Of the studies included, 2 had a published methodology, and 1 justified their rationale.

Artificially incubate or hand-rear chicks to support population
Relevance (R): 6 studies in the evidence base focus on auks, 34 on other seabirds and 0 on other birds. Strength (S): The evidence base was comprised of 40 studies. Of these 9 were considered to have a good sample size, and 19 had a clear metric for effectiveness. Transparency (T): 26 studies included were published and peer-reviewed, 0 were from the grey literature, and 0 were anecdotal. Of the studies included, 17 had a published methodology, and 4 justified their rationale.

Make new colonies more attractive to encourage birds to translocate
Relevance (R): 1 study in the evidence base focus on auks, 37 on other seabirds and 6 on other birds. Strength (S): The evidence base was comprised of 44 studies. Of these 31 were considered to have a good sample size, and 18 had a clear metric for effectiveness. Transparency (T): 44 studies included were published and peer-reviewed, of which 1 were literature reviews or meta-analyses, 0 were from the grey literature, and 0 were anecdotal. Of the studies included, 30 had a published methodology, and 22 justified their rationale.

Provide additional shelter or protection from extreme weather (flooding)
Relevance (R): 0 studies in the evidence base focus on auks, 0 on other seabirds and 1 on other birds. Strength (S): The evidence base was comprised of 3 studies. Of these 1 was considered to have a good sample size, and 2 had a clear metric for effectiveness. Transparency (T): 3 studies included were published and peer-reviewed, 0 were from the grey literature, and 0 were anecdotal. Of the studies included, 3 had a published methodology, and 3 justified their rationale.

Provide artificial nesting sites
Relevance (R): 4 studies in the evidence base focus on auks, 48 on other seabirds and 1 on other birds. Strength (S): The evidence base was comprised of 54 studies. Of these 50 were considered to have a good sample size, and 33 had a clear metric for effectiveness. Transparency (T): 53 studies included were published and peer-reviewed, of which 2 were literature reviews or meta-analyses, 0 were from the grey literature, and 0 were anecdotal. Of the studies included, 33 had a published methodology, and 27 justified their rationale.

Repair/support nests to support breeding
Relevance (R): 1 study in the evidence base focus on auks, 1 on other seabirds and 1 on other birds. Strength (S): The evidence base was comprised of 3 studies. Of these 1 was considered to have a good sample size, and 1 had a clear metric for effectiveness. Transparency (T): 3 studies included were published and peer-reviewed, 0 were from the grey literature, and 0 were anecdotal. Of the studies included, 1 had a published methodology, and 3 justified their rationale.

Translocate the population to a more suitable breeding area
Relevance (R): 1 study in the evidence base focus on auks, 14 on other seabirds and 0 on other birds. Strength (S): The evidence base was comprised of 15 studies. Of these 13 were considered to have a good sample size, and 9 had a clear metric for effectiveness. Transparency (T): 14 studies included were published and peer-reviewed, of which 1 were literature reviews or meta-analyses, 0 were from the grey literature, and 0 were anecdotal. Of the studies included, 11 had a published methodology, and 9 justified their rationale.

7.4 Impact: Increased thermal stress

Summary:
There are currently no well-researched methods to directly assist seabirds with thermal stress, and more information is needed on how thermal stress can impact seabirds and how local conservation action can mitigate these impacts. If thermal stress becomes so common or extreme that it threatens the viability of a population, then several actions are available to encourage translocation of populations to safer areas.

Intervention	Evidence of effectiveness	R	S	T
Make new colonies more attractive to encourage birds to translocate	Several actions have been trialled across auk (and other seabird) species to encourage colonisation, with variable success, including the use of decoys, acoustic cues, smells and improved habitat . The most notable success has been to use decoys to encourage F. arctica to colonise new areas, other actions have had variable success depending on context and species.	2	4	3
Provide additional resources to help seabirds thermoregulate (e.g. artificial pools)	This is a hypothetical action. We found no published studies assessing this action’s effectiveness.	NA	NA	NA
Provide additional shelter or protection from extreme weather (heatwaves)	Few trials on seabirds and none on auks. Additional shelter has been shown to protect cormorants from heatwaves, but more research is needed before this action can be generally recommended	2	3	3
Translocate the population to a more suitable breeding area	Known to be beneficial in other seabird groups, but evidence for auks is limited. At least one successful translocation of F. arctica has been carried out, but whether it is generally advisable is uncertain.	3	4	4

Green = Likely to be beneficial. Red = Unlikely to be beneficial, may have negative impact. Orange = contradicting or uncertain evidence. Grey = Limited evidence.
R = relevance rating. S = strength rating. T = transparency rating. All ratings on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is the highest.

Detail:

Make new colonies more attractive to encourage birds to translocate
Relevance (R): 1 study in the evidence base focus on auks, 37 on other seabirds and 6 on other birds. Strength (S): The evidence base was comprised of 44 studies. Of these 31 were considered to have a good sample size, and 18 had a clear metric for effectiveness. Transparency (T): 44 studies included were published and peer-reviewed, of which 1 were literature reviews or meta-analyses, 0 were from the grey literature, and 0 were anecdotal. Of the studies included, 30 had a published methodology, and 22 justified their rationale.

Provide additional shelter or protection from extreme weather (heatwaves)
Relevance (R): 0 studies in the evidence base focus on auks, 1 on other seabirds and 0 on other birds. Strength (S): The evidence base was comprised of 1 study. Of these 1 was considered to have a good sample size, and 1 had a clear metric for effectiveness. Transparency (T): 1 study included were published and peer-reviewed, 0 were from the grey literature, and 0 were anecdotal. Of the studies included, 0 had a published methodology, and 1 justified their rationale.

Translocate the population to a more suitable breeding area
Relevance (R): 1 study in the evidence base focus on auks, 14 on other seabirds and 0 on other birds. Strength (S): The evidence base was comprised of 15 studies. Of these 13 were considered to have a good sample size, and 9 had a clear metric for effectiveness. Transparency (T): 14 studies included were published and peer-reviewed, of which 1 were literature reviews or meta-analyses, 0 were from the grey literature, and 0 were anecdotal. Of the studies included, 11 had a published methodology, and 9 justified their rationale.

7.5 Impact: Negative changes in vegetation

Summary:
While there are limited trials on seabirds, there are several concrete examples where local management has increased productivitiy even in relatively large breeding populations.

Intervention	Evidence of effectiveness	R	S	T
Remove problematic vegetation	Removing vegetation has been shown to benefit several seabird species, but the amount of evidence is limited in auks. Removal of problematic vegetation has resulted in an increase in F. arctica breeding success at several sites in Scotland.	2	4	4

Green = Likely to be beneficial. Red = Unlikely to be beneficial, may have negative impact. Orange = contradicting or uncertain evidence. Grey = Limited evidence.
R = relevance rating. S = strength rating. T = transparency rating. All ratings on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is the highest.

Detail:

Remove problematic vegetation
Relevance (R): 2 studies in the evidence base focus on auks, 9 on other seabirds and 5 on other birds. Strength (S): The evidence base was comprised of 16 studies. Of these 12 were considered to have a good sample size, and 9 had a clear metric for effectiveness. Transparency (T): 16 studies included were published and peer-reviewed, of which 1 were literature reviews or meta-analyses, 0 were from the grey literature, and 0 were anecdotal. Of the studies included, 13 had a published methodology, and 13 justified their rationale.

7.6 Impact: Reduced prey availability during breeding season

Summary:
Several local actions may assist breeding populations on a small scale, but direct intervention on a large scale is likely to be extremely difficult. General conservation actions to protect fish stocks and local marine areas may be the most effective method. If a population is likely to suffer major losses, even with conservation help, then translocations could be considered

Intervention	Evidence of effectiveness	R	S	T
Artificially incubate or hand-rear chicks to support population	Known to be effective for some seabirds, though labour intensive and usually only appropriate for small populations. Limited evidence in auks, though captive F. arctica and F. cirrhata have been successully hand-reared.	2	2	3
Make new colonies more attractive to encourage birds to translocate	Several actions have been trialled across auk (and other seabird) species to encourage colonisation, with variable success, including the use of decoys, acoustic cues, smells and improved habitat . The most notable success has been to use decoys to encourage F. arctica to colonise new areas, other actions have had variable success depending on context and species.	2	4	3
Provide supplementary food during the breeding season	Trialled on many seabird species. Limited evidence for effectiveness in auks, and all known studies are on F. arctica. Typically very labour intensive and difficult given the remote and inaccessible breeding colonies of auks. Likely only plausible for small populations.	3	4	3
Translocate the population to a more suitable breeding area	Known to be beneficial in other seabird groups, but evidence for auks is limited. At least one successful translocation of F. arctica has been carried out, but whether it is generally advisable is uncertain.	3	4	4

Green = Likely to be beneficial. Red = Unlikely to be beneficial, may have negative impact. Orange = contradicting or uncertain evidence. Grey = Limited evidence.
R = relevance rating. S = strength rating. T = transparency rating. All ratings on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is the highest.

Detail:

Artificially incubate or hand-rear chicks to support population
Relevance (R): 6 studies in the evidence base focus on auks, 34 on other seabirds and 0 on other birds. Strength (S): The evidence base was comprised of 40 studies. Of these 9 were considered to have a good sample size, and 19 had a clear metric for effectiveness. Transparency (T): 26 studies included were published and peer-reviewed, 0 were from the grey literature, and 0 were anecdotal. Of the studies included, 17 had a published methodology, and 4 justified their rationale.

Make new colonies more attractive to encourage birds to translocate
Relevance (R): 1 study in the evidence base focus on auks, 37 on other seabirds and 6 on other birds. Strength (S): The evidence base was comprised of 44 studies. Of these 31 were considered to have a good sample size, and 18 had a clear metric for effectiveness. Transparency (T): 44 studies included were published and peer-reviewed, of which 1 were literature reviews or meta-analyses, 0 were from the grey literature, and 0 were anecdotal. Of the studies included, 30 had a published methodology, and 22 justified their rationale.

Provide supplementary food during the breeding season
Relevance (R): 5 studies in the evidence base focus on auks, 11 on other seabirds and 0 on other birds. Strength (S): The evidence base was comprised of 16 studies. Of these 10 were considered to have a good sample size, and 14 had a clear metric for effectiveness. Transparency (T): 16 studies included were published and peer-reviewed, 0 were from the grey literature, and 0 were anecdotal. Of the studies included, 13 had a published methodology, and 4 justified their rationale.

Translocate the population to a more suitable breeding area
Relevance (R): 1 study in the evidence base focus on auks, 14 on other seabirds and 0 on other birds. Strength (S): The evidence base was comprised of 15 studies. Of these 13 were considered to have a good sample size, and 9 had a clear metric for effectiveness. Transparency (T): 14 studies included were published and peer-reviewed, of which 1 were literature reviews or meta-analyses, 0 were from the grey literature, and 0 were anecdotal. Of the studies included, 11 had a published methodology, and 9 justified their rationale.

7.7 Impact: Reduced prey availability during non-breeding season

Summary:
In pelagic species, local intervention to assist populations is likely to be difficult or impossible. General conservation actions to preserve fish stocks and protect marine areas are likely the most effective conservation actions available.

Intervention	Evidence of effectiveness	R	S	T
Further protections at sea to preserve food stocks	Additional protection to support prey stocks can indirectly benefit many seabird species, and limit the impact of climate change.	1	3	3

Green = Likely to be beneficial. Red = Unlikely to be beneficial, may have negative impact. Orange = contradicting or uncertain evidence. Grey = Limited evidence.
R = relevance rating. S = strength rating. T = transparency rating. All ratings on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is the highest.

Detail:

Further protections at sea to preserve food stocks
Relevance (R): 0 studies in the evidence base focus on auks, 1 on other seabirds and 8 on other birds. Strength (S): The evidence base was comprised of 9 studies. Of these 7 were considered to have a good sample size, and 3 had a clear metric for effectiveness. Transparency (T): 9 studies included were published and peer-reviewed, of which 2 were literature reviews or meta-analyses, 0 were from the grey literature, and 0 were anecdotal. Of the studies included, 3 had a published methodology, and 6 justified their rationale.