11 Potential actions in response to climate change: Ducks and Phalaropes (Anatidae and Scolopacidae)
In this section we list and assess possible local conservation actions that could be carried out in response to identified climate change impacts on ducks and phalaropes . This section is not grouped by species, but by identified impacts. If an impact or action is specific to one or a few species, this information is included in the action summary or in the footnotes.
11.1 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 | Strong evidence that predator management can assist seabird populations under heavy predation pressure, if carried out effectively. Various seaducks have been shown to benefit from predator control, especially targeting rodents and mustelids. Larger predators, such as bears and foxes, are more difficult to deter, and other actions are more likely to be viable and/or effective. | 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Physically protect nests with barriers or enclosures | Trialled extensively on many seabird groups, mostly with success, though this varies on the species and the design of the barrier. Some trials on ducks have shown limited benefits, but generally quite minor and for limited species. Given the remote, dispersed nature of many duck and phalarope nesting sites, it may be difficult to carry this out at scale. | 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Reduce predation by translocating predators | Few trials on seabirds, and none for ducks and phalaropes. 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 records of this action’s effectiveness | NA | NA | NA |
| Use supplementary feeding to reduce predation | Very few trials on seabirds, and none on ducks and phalaropes. 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): 1 study in the evidence base focus on ducks and phalaropes, 45 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 ducks and phalaropes, 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): 0 studies in the evidence base focus on ducks and phalaropes, 2 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 ducks and phalaropes, 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.
11.2 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 | Known to be beneficial for many seabird groups, but very limited evidence in ducks and phalaropes. Likely to be difficult and resource-intensive, so likely only viable for small populations. However, more research is needed to investigate whether this action is beneficial for ducks and phalaropes. | 2 | 4 | 3 |
| Provide supplementary food during the non-breeding season | This is a hypothetical action. We found no records of this action’s effectiveness | NA | NA | NA |
| Treat sick or injured birds affected by storms | This is a hypothetical action. We found no records of this action’s effectiveness | 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): 0 studies in the evidence base focus on ducks and phalaropes, 16 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.