Translator Disclaimer
1 September 2011 Breeding success and breeding population trends of waterfowl: implications for monitoring
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

Traditional waterfowl monitoring includes only breeding or non-breeding population sizes, but the assessment of breeding success would provide valuable information for the interpretation of population trends, as well as for the early targeting of management measures and further studies. The relationship between breeding success and subsequent breeding population trends is not very well-known in particular for many waterfowl species. Using transfer function (TF) models, we analysed the relationship between breeding success measured as duckling numbers and post-breeding population sizes (i.e. the numbers of adults and ducklings in July), and subsequent breeding population trends for the mallard Anas platyrhynchos, common eider Somateria mollissima, common merganser Mergus merganser and goldeneye Bucephala clangula in Aasla, an island in southwestern Finland. In addition, we used data on the common eider in Söderskär, an island group in the Gulf of Finland, to analyse the extent to which fledgling numbers transform into recruitment and breeding population size. As a complement to the traditional methods of population monitoring, we present a simple and cost-effective method for the assessment of breeding success: the monitoring of post-breeding population sizes (including both adults and young). The breeding population sizes of the mallard, common eider and common merganser were positively related to their breeding success with a time lag corresponding to their recruitment age. For the common eider, the effect of the recruitment number on subsequent breeding population size seemed to last for up to three years after recruitment. There was a coupling between the post-breeding sizes and the subsequent breeding population sizes of the mallard, common eider and goldeneye with a lag corresponding to the recruitment age for the mallard and the common eider, but for goldeneye, one year later than the usual recruitment age. The chicks seem to recruit to the local breeding population to an extent that is sufficient for affecting local breeding population trends. Our results indicate that the annual breeding success of our target species can be assessed on the basis of their post-breeding population sizes. This easy and rapid monitoring method for breeding success is also suitable for voluntary bird watchers.

There is an urgent need for insights into the population processes and reproductive success of waterbirds as 44% of the waterbird populations, for which there are data, have declined or become extinct, 34% are stable and only 17% are increasing (Wetlands International 2006). Concerning European waterbirds, for instance the north European populations of mallard Anas platyrhynchos have been declining or stable, the Baltic breeding population of the common eider Somateria mollissima has decreased, the Baltic and Scandinavian populations of the common merganser Mergus merganser have probably decreased, and the populations of the goldeneye Bucephala clangula in northern and northwestern Europe have been stable (Wetlands International 2006).

Birds are considered useful biological and ecological indicators of e.g. ecosystem and ecological health, ecosystem changes, human-induced environmental effects and ecological risks (Bibby et al. 2000, Burger & Gochfeld 2001, Carignan & Villard 2002, Gregory et al. 2005, O'Connell et al. 2007). Coastal birds may have a potential as indicators of several aspects of the marine environment (Becker 1989, Oxynos et al. 1993, Furness & Camphuysen 1997, Diamond & Devlin 2003, Rönkä et al. 2005, Wanless et al. 2005, Boyd et al. 2006, Newman et al. 2007, Piatt et al. 2007, Wanless et al. 2007).

An early warning of environmental hazards is a prerequisite for identifying and implementing cost-effective management and conservation measures (Järvinen 1983). When bird population trends and demographic processes reflect environmental changes, bird monitoring can be used as a biological early-warning system of complex and unexpected environmental changes. The importance of monitoring the environment and investigating the reasons for population changes are widely recognised (Gregory et al. 2004, Sutherland et al. 2004, Gregory et al. 2005, Sutherland 2006, Hovestadt & Nowicki 2008). Recently, the focus, design and efficiency of monitoring programmes have invoked vivid discussion, and there has been an urge for targeted and adaptive monitoring frameworks and integration of monitoring programmes to conservation-oriented science and management (Nichols & Williams 2006, Lindenmayer & Likens 2009a, Wintle et al. 2010).

Birds are usually monitored by counting the number of pairs and densities of the breeding populations (e.g. O'Connor 1985). Waterbird population estimates can be derived from censuses made towards the end of the non-breeding season or from estimations of breeding pairs. Waterbird populations tend to be at their lowest and most stable sizes at these times (Wetlands International 2006). However, data on breeding population sizes and densities do not readily reveal the causes of population trends, neither do they help predicting future population changes (Elmberg et al. 2006), even though plausible causes can be inferred by using time series on population trends jointly with environmental variables (e.g. Rönkä et al. 2005).

Breeding success is often a more rapid and direct indicator of environmental changes than is breeding population size. Many waterfowl species are relatively long-lived (Holmes et al. 2001). For instance, common eiders may become > 14 years (Öst & Steele 2010) and even 22 years old (Coulson 2010), and tufted ducks Aythya fuligula and pochards Aythya ferina may reach 14 years of age (Blums et al. 1996). In addition, many waterfowl species exhibit high site tenacity or philopatry (Grenquist 1965, Batt et al. 1992, Blums et al. 2002, Baldassarre & Bolen 2006), and some species have delayed recruitment (Batt et al. 1992, Holmes et al. 2001). For instance, common eiders usually recruit at 3-4 years of age (Hario & Selin 1987) and many other diving ducks at two years of age (Baldassarre & Bolen 2006).

Changes in breeding success may provide clues of the factors affecting breeding populations. It should be known, however, how breeding success affects the local recruit and breeding population trends. Furthermore, the interpretation of for instance human-induced environmental effects on breeding success requires knowledge on its natural variation. Breeding success can vary considerably owing to the weather (Hildén et al. 1982) and other factors not related to human activities (Batt et al. 1992), and may only reflect local and transient conditions.

The monitoring of breeding success would provide valuable information for the early targeting of management and conservation measures, as well as for further studies (Sutherland et al. 2004, Sutherland 2006). In particular, there is a need for reliable data on the recruitment and mortality of migratory European duck species, which are important quarry species in several countries (Elmberg et al. 2006).

Breeding success of waterfowl is already covered by monitoring programmes in e.g. Norway (Anker-Nilssen et al. 2007), Great Britain, Denmark and Finland (Oja & Pöysä 2007). Examples of the monitoring of the breeding success of other species groups of birds are for instance wildlife triangle censuses used for the monitoring of game species (Kangas & Kurki 2000, Ludwig et al. 2006) and the Constant Effort Sites (CES) ringing programme for passerines (Peach et al. 1998, Peakall 2000). In North America, a parallel to the CES programme is the Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) programme (DeSante et al. 1995). An alert system for trends in population size and breeding success has been developed by e.g. the British Trust for Ornithology (Baillie et al. 2010).

Some monitoring schemes, such as the North American Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat survey (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010) and the Atlantic Flyway Breeding Waterfowl Survey (Heusmann & Sauer 2000, Costanzo & Hindman 2007), build on data collected by professional biologists. However, bird monitoring data are for the most part collected by voluntary bird watchers. Such schemes, including e.g. the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), can be extremely useful (see e.g. Costanzo & Hindman 2007), but the data may also include noise and biases (Keller & Scallan 1999).

Simple and rapid one-visit methods that do not require extensive experience or special equipment are approachable for a wider range of bird watchers conducting monitoring than more labourious methods (Koskimies & Pöysä 1989). The availability of such undemanding methods is the prerequisite of cost-effective wide-scale monitoring that produces representative high-quality data (Greenwood 2007); a wide scale also makes the data less prone to noise and bias. Traditional methods for the monitoring of fledgling production are labourious and time-consuming and thus apply best to short-term studies.

In our study, we assess the relationship between breeding success and breeding population trends of waterfowl in two long-term bird monitoring areas on the Finnish coast of the Baltic Sea. We analyse the relationship between breeding success measured as either chick numbers or individual numbers in July (post-breeding population size including both adults and chicks) and breeding population trends for the mallard, common eider, goldeneye and common merganser in Aasla, an island in the Archipelago Sea, southwestern Finland. In addition, we address the relationship between recruitment number and subsequent breeding population size of the common eider in Söderskär, an island group in the Gulf of Finland. As a complement to the traditional methods of breeding population monitoring, we present a cost-effective method for the monitoring of breeding success comprising counts of fledging young and adults in July.

Our aims were to: 1) assess the relationship between different measures of breeding success (chick numbers, post-breeding population size and recruitment numbers) and subsequent breeding population trends, and 2) test the simple and cost-effective monitoring method of post-breeding population size.

Material and methods

Study areas

Aasla

The island of Aasla is situated on the fringe of the inner archipelago in Rymättylä in the Archipelago Sea, southwestern Finland (60°18′N, 21°57′E; Fig. 1). There were 20 study sites, which included bays, sounds and sea areas along the shore of the island, as well as small lakes. We used data from the whole area, because in this fine-scaled landscape, fledgling production on the lakes affects the pair numbers of several species in the sea areas. In addition, broods of many species move between lakes and the sea. The censused sea area totalled 24.4 km2 and the land area of Aasla is 16 km2.

Söderskär

Söderskär is a group of 27 islets in Porvoo in the central Gulf of Finland (60°07′N, 25°25′E; see Fig. 1). Söderskär is situated in the outer archipelago and is exposed to wind and waves, even though the area is relatively closed. The islands of Söderskär are mainly treeless rocky islets, but there are some larger, wooded islands. The total land area covers 0.5 km2, and the water area is 13.3 km2 (Hario & Selin 1986). The island group is a bird sanctuary. The area is popular for recreational boating, but during 1 May-15 August, landing is prohibited.

Bird census data

Aasla

The waterfowl censuses in Aasla were conducted by L. Saari during 1975-2007. The census method was developed by L. Saari, and it corresponded to the methods presented by Linkola (1959) and Koskimies & Väisänen (1991). The method was a combination of point and round counts; the sea areas and lakes were censused from the shores on a standard route with fixed stopping sites. The route was chosen so that all breeding birds in the whole study area could be counted, and the stopping points were located so that there was a good visibility over each section. One of the sites was censused by boat. The route and the points stayed approximately the same each year, at least in terms of visual coverage. All birds in the open water were thus recorded. Some individuals staying in reed beds were probably not observed, but this bias was probably nearly constant over years.

The census of the breeding populations was repeated three times during spring: at the turn of April-May, in the middle of May and at the turn of May-June. The pair numbers of each species were based on the census that best suited its breeding phenology as recommended by Linkola (1959) for inland waters at the same latitude. For the study species in this paper, the pair numbers were based on the census at the turn of April-May. We took the annual phenology into account in the timing of the censuses. Censuses were only conducted in relatively calm and rainless weather with good visibility.

We based the size of the breeding population (i.e. pair numbers) on the number of adults (or equivalents, see Koskimies & Väisänen 1991), because searching for nests was impractical due to the habitat structure. We converted the numbers of individuals into pair numbers according to Linkola (1959). For the study species in this paper, the male numbers were used as the pair number. In these species, the sex ratio is close to 1:1, and as some females have already started incubating at the time of the census, pair numbers can be estimated most accurately using male numbers.

The breeding success (i.e. chick numbers) and the age classes of chicks were assessed on the basis of brood counts in July. We estimated the age class of the chicks according to the classification given by Pirkola & Högmander (1974) for anatids. We used data on chicks in the age classes II-III (including small half-grown to almost fully-grown). The mortality of ducklings is largely concentrated into their first weeks (Hildén 1964, Hario & Selin 1991, Paasivaara & Pöysä 2007). The ducklings in the classes II-III have passed the most critical phases of development as to e.g. cold-sensitivity and predation (Koskimies & Lahti 1964, Hario & Selin 1989, Mikola et al. 1994, Paasivaara & Pöysä 2004).

In addition to the chick numbers, we collected data on the number of individuals in July (i.e. the post-breeding population size). We collected the data as described for the pair numbers and covered all the observed adults and juveniles. We chose to use the post-breeding population size of July, because later, the birds are less likely to belong to the local population due to post-breeding movements.

Our waterfowl censuses and brood counts covered all waterfowl species nesting in Aasla. Our four target species were chosen, because they are relatively abundant in the area, so that there were sufficient data on both population trends and breeding success.

Söderskär

For Söderskär, we used data on the common eider, which has been intensively studied in the area. The common eider censuses were conducted by M. Hario, R. Komu, J.T. Lehtonen, P. Muuronen, H. Selin and K. Selin during 1967-2007.

As pair numbers, we used the female numbers obtained in nest counts at the end of the brooding period in May and June. We searched the islands for the nests systematically according to the instructions of Koskimies & Väisänen (1991) for archipelago bird censuses. During the same period, we captured and ringed, or recaptured female common eiders on their nests, using a long-handled dip-net (Hario & Selin 1987, 2002). Females were caught no earlier than on the 20th day of the incubation period of the population (median date) to avoid nest desertion. We scored females captured for the first time (unringed) as recruits, and their share of the total catch was used as the annual recruitment rate. We then used the annual recruitment rate in the catchable part of the population to calculate the total recruit number in the whole population.

Once recruited, females exhibited a high degree of breeding site fidelity. Only three out of 255 ringed females that had nested previously on Söderskär were captured on the adjacent archipelagos within a distance of 10-20 km, and there are no recoveries of established females from Söderskär breeding in the two other major colonies in the Gulf of Finland, 60 km (Rönnskär) and 125 km (Tvärminne) west of Söderskär (M. Hario & K. Selin, unpubl. data). There is no evidence of large-scale movements of recruits either. Of the 6,576 female nestlings ringed at Söderskär during 1977-2001, 236 recruited at Söderskär and only one outside Söderskär. The low rate of dispersal may be partly due to the detached location of the Söderskär archipelago, with 5-10 km open sea stretches to closest islands and 15-25 km to mainland peninsulas. The overall low recovery rate of recruits (3.6%) is due to heavy duckling mortality, a common feature in common eider studies (reviewed in Hario & Rintala 2006, 2009).

During 1965-2007, an average of 52.9% of incubating females (median: 53.3%) were captured, with the range of annual variation being comparatively small (SE = 1.8; 95% of capture proportions within 49.2-56.6%). Not all females are equally catchable at nest. Hario et al. (2009) reported a constant difference in capture probability across years for individuals encountered the previous year and not encountered the previous year. This dichotomy stems from the different catchability of females, some being more difficult to trap at nest than others and thus more liable to remain undetected for longer periods. Yet, with our fairly constant catching effort in the entire population (we did not sample ‘quotas’), we could not detect any change in the observed dichotomy across years. Therefore, we are confident that the catchable part of the population was representative of the whole population in terms of the recruitment rate.

We used the total fledgling number obtained in the brood count that was made 70 days after the median hatching date of the population, which is the average fledging time of common eider chicks (Hario & Selin 1989). We made our brood counts by censusing the feeding areas by boat in early morning (Hario & Selin 1989). We took the yearly timing of breeding into account in the timing of the brood counts. We imputed four annual missing fledgling number values by counting the average of two neighbouring values before and after the missing values.

Statistical methods

We modelled the relations between breeding success and population trends using transfer function (TF) models, also called dynamic regressions (Box & Jenkins 1976, Yaffee & McGee 2000, Hänninen et al. 2003, Liu 2009).

As time series on bird populations and breeding success have an autocorrelated structure, standard regression or any other parametric analysis, may result in type II error, i.e. an increase in the test statistic and a risk to accept a false null hypothesis, and thus in ineffectual or incorrect models (Box & Newbold 1971). We introduced autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models to account for the autocorrelated structure of time series data (e.g. Box & Jenkins 1976). TF models merge the concepts of general regression models with those of ARIMA models (Box & Jenkins 1976, Yaffee & McGee 2000, Liu 2009).

Transfer functions are able to connect a time series with its own past values and with past and present values of other time series. The models can also include time lags between the modelled time series and the originator time series. The univariate ARIMA models are useful for the analysis of a single time series. In such a case, modelling is limited to the information contained in the series' own past.

The ARIMA time series analyses comprise an iterative procedure for modelling, encompassing three phases: identification of a time series, parameter estimation and diagnostic checking. Once an appropriate model is determined, it can be used to form a TF model, where the response of one time series is related to other time series.

The general form of the TF model is:

i0909-6396-17-3-225-e01.gif

where Yt = output variable, Xt = input variable(s) and C = a constant term, which indicates a possible trend in the series. The parameter ω(B) = TF between Yt and Xt, either in a linear form when δ(B) = 1, or as a rational form when δ(B) ≠ 1. The value B represents the delay of the response.

The ω values (ω = ω0, ω1, ω2, …) are the TF weights for the input series Xt (Box & Jenkins 1976) and indicate how the input series affects the output series. Thus, the weight ω0 is a measure of how the current response is affected by the current value of the input series, whereas ω1 is a measure of how the current response is affected by the value of the input series one period (in our case one year) ago. A negative value for the weighting factors is produced when the relationship between parameters is inverse. The sum of all weights (i.e. the steady-state gain) represents the total change in the mean level of the response variable. The software chooses weighting factors by minimising the deviations between estimated and observed values. The weighting factors' values and ranges depend on the features of the series (e.g. range of variation and existence of trends), and whether transformations have been used to produce stationarity. Therefore, the weighting factors only relate to the respective series and cannot be compared between models.

The variable Nt is a disturbance term, which is assumed not to be ‘white noise’, and is modelled as an ARIMA process. ARIMA modelling gives approximations that are more reasonable for Nt, resulting in more efficient estimates of the TF weights. At the beginning of modelling, the disturbance term is given a first-order autoregressive, AR(1), approximation, i.e.

i0909-6396-17-3-225-e02.gif

when there is no seasonality, as in our data. Here, at represents a sequence of random errors that are independently and identically distributed with normal distribution. B represents the backshift (or lag) operator, which refers to previous values in the data. The parameter Φ indicates the autoregressive (AR) operator in non-seasonal series. The disturbance term can also have a moving average (MA) operator, represented by θ in non-seasonal series. MA operator(s) are always placed in the denominator of the formula.

The TF test statistic for significance of the parameters is:

i0909-6396-17-3-225-e03.gif

where the t-value is associated with a one-sample t-test of the null hypothesis that ‘parameter = 0‘. This statistic is compared with a critical value of the t distribution with n - p degrees of freedom (n = number of observations, p = number of parameters estimated). Only significant parameters are included into the TF models, except for adjacent autoregressive (AR) operators, all of which are included.

We conducted the analyses using the ARIMA and TF models of the Scientific Computing Associates (SCA) Statistical System, release 8.0 (Liu 2009). For the target species in Aasla, we used the breeding pair numbers as the response (output) variable, and either chick numbers or post-breeding population sizes as the explanatory (input) variable in TF modelling. For the common eider in Söderskär, we built TF models with 1) the breeding pair number as the response variable and either the number of fledglings or recruits as the explanatory variable, and 2) the recruit number as the response variable and the fledgling number as the explanatory variable. We first built univariate ARIMA models for every series acting later as either output or input variables, which then were connected in TF models.

We evaluated the TF models on the basis of their coefficients of determination (r2), residual standard errors and parsimony (for details, see Hänninen et al. 2003). We present the models showing 1) r2 > 0.5, 2) the highest proportional decrease in error term when the TF model residual standard error was compared with those of the univariate ARIMA model of the same response variable (the decrease in error term was seen as due to the inclusion of convenient exploratory variables into the model) and 3) the lowest number of parameters.

A principal assumption concerning TF models is that the input series affects the output variable but not vice versa. There may be feedback from our output variable to our input variable, e.g. in the case of density dependence in breeding success (Nummi & Saari 2003). However, Liu & Hudak (1992) stated that although the assumption of a unidirectional relationship may not be strictly true, TF models can be used effectively. In the cases where the TF models fitted our data well, we are thus confident that possible violations against this assumption did not bias our results.

Results

In Aasla, the pair numbers of the mallard correlated with the chick numbers (N = 29, estimate = 1.83, P = 0.006; Table 1 and Fig. 2A) and the post-breeding population sizes (N = 29, estimate = 0.83, P < 0.001; see Table 1 and Fig. 2B) with a lag of one year. The pair numbers of the common eider correlated with the chick numbers (N = 24, estimate = 0.14, P = 0.006; see Table 1 and Fig. 2C) and the post-breeding population sizes (N = 24, estimate = 0.10, P = 0.003; see Table 1 and Fig. 2D) with a time lag of 2-5 years.

The pair numbers of goldeneye correlated with the post-breeding population sizes with a lag of three years (N = 29, estimate = 0.31, P = 0.003; see Table 1 and Fig. 2E). The pair numbers of the common merganser correlated with the chick numbers with a lag of two years (N = 30, estimate = 1.41, P = 0.001; see Table 1 and Fig. 2F). We did not find an interpretable relationship between neither the post-breeding population sizes and the pair numbers for common merganser nor between the chick numbers and the pair numbers of goldeneye.

In Söderskär, the pair number of the common eider correlated with the number of recruits with a lag of 0-3 years (N = 34, estimate = 0.56, P < 0.001; Table 2 and see Fig. 2G). We did not find an interpretable relationship between fledgling and recruit numbers, and neither between fledgling and pair numbers.

Discussion

Relationship between reproductive success, recruit and breeding population trends

Our results imply that the chicks recruit to the local breeding population to an extent sufficient for affecting the local population trend. Among our target species in Aasla, the breeding populations of mallard, common merganser and common eider followed their chick numbers with a time lag that corresponds well with their recruitment age, which is one year for mallard, two years for common merganser and on the average 3-4 years for common eider (Cramp & Simmons 1977, Hario & Selin 1987). The effect of breeding success on population trends is even more pronounced when fledgling production is correlated over larger areas which seems to be the case for instance on the Finnish coast (Desholm et al. 2002).

The relationship between post-breeding and subsequent breeding population sizes was for mallard and common eider similar to the relationship between chick numbers and subsequent breeding population sizes, with time lags that correspond to their recruitment ages. In contrast, we did not find a coupling between post-breeding and subsequent breeding population sizes of common merganser, and for goldeneye there was a coupling between post-breeding and subsequent breeding population sizes but not between chick numbers and breeding population sizes. The breeding population size of goldeneye followed its post-breeding population size with a lag of three years, whereas its recruitment age usually is two years (Cramp & Simmons 1977).

The effect of the recruitment number on the pair numbers of common eider in Söderskär probably reflects the importance of the recruitment to the breeding population size in the year of recruitment, lasting to the three following years.

The relationship between reproductive success and breeding population trends depends on juvenile mortality, natal dispersal and recruitment age, and is thus affected by events in both breeding and wintering grounds as well as by events along the migration route. The post-breeding population size reflects the current breeding success and the breeding population size, and is affected by reproductive success, natal dispersal of potential recruits and the number of adults staying in the breeding area after breeding (for many duck species mainly females). The local post-breeding population size may differ significantly from the population size in the early breeding period, depending on the movements of the birds into feeding, moulting and flocking areas (Hario & Selin 1989, Haig et al. 1998).

Different processes occurring in the duckling and recruitment phases may affect the relationship between breeding success and subsequent population size. For instance, in our results, the effects that were not ecologically interpretable (see section Results) may be due to anomalies in the variation of the breeding success, e.g. total breeding failures. The occurrence of second broods and replacement clutches might also bias the results. However, in our study area, second broods are very rare as are replacement clutches, because the breeding season is short and anatid males leave the breeding sites early.

In addition, the pre- and post-fledging movements of ducklings may affect the extent to which the ducklings observed in a given area recruit to the local population. Common eider broods stay in shallow waters close to their nest sites in the first days after leaving the nest but soon move to deeper waters (Hario & Selin 1989). The common merganser may also lead its brood long distances to rearing areas (Cramp & Simmons 1977). If ducklings move to a greater extent to and from the study area before the count in July, the relationship between local fledgling production and subsequent breeding population trends may become obscured. The effect of this factor probably does not differ between years and therefore does not bias our results, but its importance is likely to differ between species. In addition, as it seems probable that the fledgling production is correlated over larger areas in the Archipelago Sea and in the Gulf of Finland (Desholm et al. 2002), the breeding success in our study area is likely to reflect the breeding success in adjacent areas.

In the recruitment phase, the degree of natal philopatry is essential for the relationship between local fledgling production and subsequent population trends. Mallard, common merganser and common eider females show high site fidelity (Cramp & Simmons 1977, Batt et al. 1992, Baldassarre & Bolen 2006, Hario & Rintala 2006). Especially among anatids, females return to their birth areas and former nesting sites to breed, whereas males pair with any female in the common wintering grounds and follow the female to her breeding grounds next spring (Batt et al. 1992, Clarke et al. 1997). Therefore, the site choice of females may affect local breeding population trends more than the choice of males. However, a recent analysis has shown that, for instance, male mallards are more philopatric than previously thought (Doherty et al. 2002).

Concerning species showing lower site fidelity, juveniles may recruit into the population of their autumn area instead of the area of their natal site. In our study, this may at least partly explain the fact that we found a relationship between the post-breeding population sizes and subsequent breeding population sizes of the goldeneye but not between its chick numbers and subsequent breeding population sizes.

In local studies, the issue of scale and range has to be taken into account. In our study, this applies especially to the area of Aasla that may not be as closed as the area of Söderskär in terms of the recruitment of local fledglings. Concerning common eider, common merganser, goldeneye and mallard in Aasla, our study area does probably not cover the whole area to which the young recruit. This might have contributed to the fact that our models did not fit equally well for all studied species. Further research is needed to know the extent to which the chicks represent the local fledgling production. However, the ideal is spatially comprehensive monitoring of breeding success. In large monitoring areas, more fledglings are likely to stay within the target areas.

Our results indicate that the common eider breeding population in Söderskär is highly dependent on the yearly recruitment to the breeding population, which has also been found in earlier studies (Hario et al. 2005, Hario & Rintala 2006). The mortality of female common eiders in Söderskär has remained fairly constant (Hario & Selin 2002, Hario et al. 2009), but local fledgling production does not suffice to sustain the breeding population (Hario & Selin 1991). The breeding populations of Aasla and Söderskär may be in different phases of decline, where the population of Söderskär would need more immigration in order to subsist than the population of Aasla. The common eider breeding population started to decline in 1986-1987 in Söderskär (Hario et al. 2005, Hario & Rintala 2006), but not until the middle of the 1990s in Aasla (Rönkä et al. 2005). Earlier studies in Söderskär have shown a coupling between the fledgling number and recruitment with a time lag of three years (Hario et al. 2005, Hario & Rintala 2006).

Implications for monitoring

To detect bird population changes and to understand their causes, a coherent monitoring system is needed. The measurements of regional population dynamics should be as thorough as possible, covering the population processes that are affected by environmental change (Tiainen 1985). An ideal monitoring system would address breeding population size, reproductive success and mortality (Järvinen 1983, Kilpi 1985, O'Connor 1985, Tiainen 1985, Sutherland 2006). Monitoring methods should be as simple as possible but reliable and efficient (Koskimies & Pöysä 1989).

Our results indicate that breeding success is carried over to the post-breeding population size to an extent that allows the assessment of breeding success on the basis of post-breeding population size. Our method is systematic and cost-effective in the sense that the breeding success can be assessed with one count without extensive monitoring of the broods during the breeding season. In addition, in traditional brood counts, individual adults, individual chicks as well as adults with chicks are counted and recorded separately, and the chicks are aged (e.g. Koskimies & Väisänen 1991). This requires expertise and takes time during field work. In contrast, the method of counting all individual birds is simple and rapid, which makes it applicable to bird watchers.

The reliability and accuracy of the monitoring method that we present here requires further study in different surroundings and using different species. We had the privilege of using data collected by a constant set of monitors in relatively stable environments. In Aasla, the data were collected by a single monitor, and in the open Söderskär area, it is easy to find all common eider nests and observe broods. With multiple monitors and in changing habitats, however, detectability has to be considered (Royle & Dorazio 2008). This is an issue common to all monitoring and not specific to our method. However, when constant methods are used, censuses conducted during the breeding and fledgling periods produce abundance indices that are unlikely to host trends or other effects that would affect the usability of the data.

To ensure the spatial representativeness of the data, we need several monitoring areas. With multiple monitoring areas, the annual differences between the areas can be taken into account and used to identify factors that influence breeding population status and breeding performance (Sutherland et al. 2004). In addition, as for any one-visit census, annual differences in phenology have to be accounted for (Sutherland 2006). Furthermore, for quarry species, hunting pressure may differ between sexes (Merkel 2004, Guillemain et al. 2007, Mitchell et al. 2008) and vary between years, which is important to consider when planning waterfowl monitoring and interpreting monitoring results.

Waterfowl breeding areas may be too remote, unapproachable or extensive to be covered by bird watchers even using simple and rapid methods. Aerial surveys are used in the monitoring of some waterfowl breeding populations for instance in North America (e.g. Béchet et al. 2004). The method of monitoring post-breeding population sizes including both adults and young is more cost-effective and better suited for aerial monitoring than methods that include aging the birds and require multiple visits. It must be noted, though, that aerial monitoring is only applicable in open habitats and for conspicuous species.

In order to interpret monitoring results and infer causalities between environmental factors and bird populations, further studies are needed on the mortality of waterfowl species as well as their movements during and after the breeding season (Haig et al. 1998). Conditions, both in breeding areas, along the migration route and in wintering grounds should be taken into consideration. For migratory species, carry-over effects of conditions during the non-breeding period are increasingly recognised as crucial to consider (e.g. Faaborg et al. 2010). Programmes such as the North American Waterfowl Banding Program increase our knowledge on the migration pathways, annual harvest rates (Balkcom et al. 2010) and even annual survival rates (Pearce et al. 2005) of waterfowl and would be welcome on a wider scale around the world.

On the basis of the information on breeding success provided by the monitoring of post-breeding population sizes, it is possible to gain a better understanding of breeding population trends and the relationship between breeding success in a given year and the subsequent breeding populations. Furthermore, to improve our knowledge on bird population trends, integrated approaches can be created that combine long-term data sets (Wernham et al. 2002) or extract common signals from intercorrelated time series such as the productivity of several seabird species in a given area (Frederiksen et al. 2007).

Well-designed monitoring has been seen as a critical basis for research, management and decision making (Lindenmayer & Likens 2009a). There is a growing view that ecological monitoring should be hypothesis-driven and targeted to address management issues (Wintle et al. 2010). This kind of focused monitoring has been opposed to surveillance monitoring that is not guided by a priori hypotheses (Nichols & Williams 2006). Some long-term research and monitoring programmes can be criticised as inefficient, poorly planned and lacking focus (Nichols & Williams 2006, Lindenmayer & Likens 2009a,b).

Among waterfowl monitoring programmes, there are both targeted and surveillance approaches. One of the main applications of waterfowl monitoring is harvest management, and there are several programmes that serve this purpose, including e.g. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Adaptive Harvest Management Program (Nichols et al. 2007), the Wing Survey conducted by the National Environmental Research Institute in Denmark (Clausager 2003) and the duck wing collection conducted by the Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute (Alhainen et al. 2010). Even with no prior hypothesis or target, data on waterfowl population trends and breeding success can be used in designing nature reserve networks and species conservation measures, assessing the effects of management and conservation efforts, and prioritising measures in case of oil spills or other environmental hazards.

At its most valuable, monitoring data can serve as an early warning signal for unexpected change in environmental conditions and population status, and for long-lived species such as many waterfowl species, this requires information on breeding success. With too narrow monitoring schemes, we may not be able to respond to new information needs arising from unforeseen future management and conservation challenges (e.g. Wintle et al. 2010). As resources are limited, monitoring and conservation funds and effort should be used efficiently. The method presented in our paper is cost-efficient compared to multi-visit methods including aging the chicks, and it allows the participation of voluntary bird watchers as an important resource.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank A. Paasivaara for information about goldeneye and J. Niittylä for information about common merganser. Discussions with M. Ahola, K. Rainio, H. Tolvanen, M. von Numers and C. Arzel, as well as the comments by an anonymous reviewer, greatly helped us improve the manuscript. T. Allen kindly checked the language. Our study was financed by Kone Foundation, Alfred Kordelin Foundation and WWF Finland. Our study is also a contribution to the project Developing Chemometrics with the Tools of Information Sciences (CHESS) (MASI programme 658/31/06) financed by the Tekes (Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation) and to the project Regional sustainability, ecosystem services and environmental technology (REGSUS) (grant number 131893) funded by the Academy of Finland.

References

1.

M. Alhainen, V-M. Väänänen, H. Pöysä, and A. Ermala . 2010. Vesilintusaalis siipinäytteiden valossa. (In Finnish with an English summary: Duck hunting bag in Finland - what do wing samples tell us about the species composition and age structure in a bag?). Suomen Riista 56:40–47. Google Scholar

2.

T. Anker-Nilssen, R. T. Barrett, J. O. Bustnes, K. E. Erikstad, P. Fauchald, S-H. Lorentsen, H. Steen, H. Strøm, G. H. Systad, and T. Tveraa . 2007. SEAPOP studies in the Lofoten and Barents Sea area in 2006. - NINA Report 249 pp.  Google Scholar

3.

S. R. Baillie, J. H. Marchant, D. I. Leech, A. R. Renwick, A. C. Joys, D. G. Noble, C. Barimore, G. J. Conway, I. S. Downie, K. Risely, and R. A. Robinson . 2010. Breeding Birds in the Wider Countryside: their conservation status 2010. - BTO Research Report No. 565. BTO. Thetford, UK. Available at:  http://www.bto.org/birdtrends. (Last accessed on 18 July 2011).  Google Scholar

4.

G. A. Baldassarre and E. G. Bolen . 2006. Waterfowl Ecology and Management. 2nd edition. Krieger Publishing Company. Malabar, Florida, USA. pp.  Google Scholar

5.

G. D. Balkcom, P. R. Garrettson, and P. I. Padding . 2010. Predicting Wood Duck harvest rates in Eastern North America. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:1575–1579. Google Scholar

6.

B. D. J. Batt, A. D. Afton, M. G. Anderson, C. D. Ankney, D. H. Johnson, J. A. Kadlec, and G. L. Krapu . 1992. Ecology and Management of Breeding Waterfowl. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis and London. pp.  Google Scholar

7.

A. Béchet, A. Reed, N. Plante, J-F. Giroux, and G. Gauthier . 2004. Estimating the size of the Greater Snow Goose population. The Journal of Wildlife Management 68:639–649. Google Scholar

8.

P. H. Becker 1989. Seabirds as monitor organisms of contaminants along the German North Sea coast. Helgoländer Meeresuntersuchungen 43:395–403. Google Scholar

9.

C. J. Bibby, N. D. Burgess, D. A. Hill, and S. H. Mustoe . 2000. Bird Census Techniques. 2nd edition. Academic Press. London, UK. pp.  Google Scholar

10.

P. Blums, A. Mednis, I. Bauga, J. D. Nichols, and J. E. Hines . 1996. Age-specific survival and philopatry in three species of European ducks: A long-term study. The Condor 98:61–74. Google Scholar

11.

P. Blums, J. D. Nichols, J. E. Hines, and A. Mednis . 2002. Sources of variation in survival and breeding site fidelity in three species of European ducks. Journal of Animal Ecology 71:438–450. Google Scholar

12.

G. E. P. Box and G. M. Jenkins . 1976. Time series: analysis, forecasting and control. Holden-Day. San Francisco, USA. pp.  Google Scholar

13.

G. E. P. Box and P. Newbold . 1971. Some comments on a paper of Coen, Gomme and Kendall. Journal of Royal Statistical Society A 134:229–240. Google Scholar

14.

I. Boyd, S. Wanless, and C. J. Camphuysen . 2006. Top Predators in Marine Ecosystems - Their Role in Monitoring and Management. - Conservation Biology 12. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK. pp.  Google Scholar

15.

J. Burger and M. Gochfeld . 2001. On developing bioindicators for human and ecological health. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 66:23–46. Google Scholar

16.

V. Carignan and M. A. Villard . 2002. Selecting indicator species to monitor ecological integrity: a review. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 78:45–61. Google Scholar

17.

A. L. Clarke, B-E. Sæther, and E. Røskaft . 1997. Sex biases in avian dispersal: a reappraisal. Oikos 79:429–438. Google Scholar

18.

I. Clausager 2003. Vingeindsamling fra jagtsæsonen 2002/2003 i Danmark. (In Danish with an English summary: Wing Survey from the 2002/03 hunting season in Denmark). - Faglig rapport fra DMU nr. 452 pp.  Google Scholar

19.

G. R. Costanzo and L. J. Hindman . 2007. Chesapeake Bay breeding waterfowl populations. Waterbirds 30 (Special Issue 1):17–24. Google Scholar

20.

J. C. Coulson 2010. A long-term study of the population dynamics of Common Eiders Somateria mollissima: why do several parameters fluctuate markedly? Bird Study 57:1–18. Google Scholar

21.

S. Cramp and K. E. L. Simmons . 1977. Handbook of the Birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. - The Birds of the Western Palearctic. Volume I. Ostrich to Ducks. Oxford University Press. Oxford, UK. pp.  Google Scholar

22.

D. F. DeSante, K. M. Burton, J. F. Saracco, and B. L. Walker . 1995. Productivity indices and survival rate estimates from MAPS, a continent-wide programme of constant-effort mist netting in North America. Journal of Applied Statistics 22:935–947. Google Scholar

23.

M. Desholm, T. K. Christensen, G. Scheiffarth, M. Hario, Å Andersson, B. Ens, C. J. Camphuisen, L. Nilsson, C. M. Waltho, S-H. Lorentsen, A. Kuresoo, R. K. H. Kats, D. M. Fleet, and A. D. Fox . 2002. Status of the Baltic/Wadden Sea population of the Common Eider Somateria m. mollissima. Wildfowl 53:167–203. Google Scholar

24.

A. W. Diamond and C. M. Devlin . 2003. Seabirds as indicators of changes in marine ecosystems: ecological monitoring on Machias Seal Island. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 88:153–175. Google Scholar

25.

P. F. Doherty Jr., J. D. Nichols, J. Tautin, J. F. Voelzer, G. W. Smith, D. S. Benning, V. R. Bentley, J. K. Bidwell, K. S. Bollinger, A. R. Brazda, E. K. Buelna, J. R. Goldsberry, R. J. King, F. H. Roetker, J. W. Wolberg, P. P. Thorpe, and J. S. Wortham . 2002. Sources of variation in breeding-ground fidelity of mallards (Anas platyrhynchos). Behavioral Ecology 13:543–550. Google Scholar

26.

J. Elmberg, P. Nummi, H. Pöysä, K. Sjöberg, G. Gunnarsson, P. Clausen, M. Guillemain, D. Rodrigues, and V-M. Väänänen . 2006. The scientific basis for new and sustainable management of migratory European ducks. Wildlife Biology 12(2):121–127. Google Scholar

27.

J. Faaborg, R. T. Holmes, A. D. Anders, K. L. Bildstein, K. M. Dugger, S. A. Gauthreaux Jr., P. Heglund, K. A. Hobson, A. E. Jahn, D. H. Johnson, S. C. Latta, D. J. Levey, P. P. Marra, C. L. Merkord, E. Nol, S. I. Rothstein, T. W. Sherry, T. S. Sillett, F. R. Thompson III, and N. Warnock . 2010. Conserving migratory land birds in the New World: Do we know enough? Ecological Applications 20:398–418. Google Scholar

28.

M. Frederiksen, R. A. Mavor, and S. Wanless . 2007. Seabirds as environmental indicators: the advantages of combining data sets. Marine Ecology Progress Series 352:205–211. Google Scholar

29.

R. W. Furness and C. J. Camphuysen . 1997. Seabirds as monitors of the marine environment. ICES Journal of Marine Science 54:726–737. Google Scholar

30.

J. J. D. Greenwood 2007. Citizens, science and bird conservation. Journal of Ornithology 148 (Suppl.1):S77–S124. Google Scholar

31.

R. D. Gregory, D. G. Noble, and J. Custance . 2004. The state of play of farmland birds: population trends and conservation status of lowland farmland birds in the United Kingdom. Ibis 146 (Suppl. 2):1–13. Google Scholar

32.

R. D. Gregory, A. van Strien, P. Vorisek, A. W. Gmelig Meyling, D. G. Noble, R. P. B. Foppen, and D. W. Gibbons . 2005. Developing indicators for European birds. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B - Biological Sciences 360:269–288. Google Scholar

33.

P. Grenquist 1965. Changes in abundance of some duck and sea-bird populations off the coast of Finland 1949-1963. Finnish Game Research 27:1–114. Google Scholar

34.

M. Guillemain, O. Devineau, J-D. Lebreton, J-Y. Mondain-Monval, A. R. Johnson, and G. Simon . 2007. Lead shot and teal (Anas crecca) in the Camargue, Southern France: Effects of embedded and ingested pellets on survival. Biological Conservation 137:567–576. Google Scholar

35.

S. M. Haig, D. W. Mehlman, and L. W. Oring . 1998. Avian movements and wetland connectivity in landscape conservation. Conservation Biology 12:749–758. Google Scholar

36.

J. Hänninen, I. Vuorinen, and G. Kornilovs . 2003. Atlantic climatic factors control decadal dynamics of a Baltic Sea copepod Temora longicornis. Ecography 26:672–678. Google Scholar

37.

M. Hario, M. J. Mazerolle, and P. Saurola . 2009. Survival of female common eiders Somateria m. mollissima in a declining population of the northern Baltic Sea. Oecologia 159:747–756. Google Scholar

38.

M. Hario and J. Rintala . 2006. Fledgling production and population trends in Finnish common eiders (Somateria mollissima mollissima) - evidence for density dependence. Canadian Journal of Zoology 84:1038–1046. Google Scholar

39.

M. Hario and J. Rintala . 2009. Age of first breeding in the Common Eider Somateria m. mollissima population in the northern Baltic Sea. Ornis Fennica 86:81–88. Google Scholar

40.

M. Hario, J. Rintala, and K. Selin . 2005. Lentopoikastuotto haahkakannan säätelytekijänä. (In Finnish with an English summary: Fledgling production as the factor regulating the population of the common eider). Suomen Riista 51:16–26. Google Scholar

41.

M. Hario and K. Selin . 1986. Mitä pesinnän ajoittuminen kertoo haahkan menestymisestä Suomenlahdella. (In Finnish with an English summary: A 30 year change in the breeding time of the common eider in the Gulf of Finland). Suomen Riista 33:19–25. Google Scholar

42.

M. Hario and K. Selin . 1987. Ikäluokkien välisistä eroista haahkan pesye- ja munakoossa. (In Finnish with an English summary: The variation in clutch size and egg volume in different age classes of the common eider). Suomen Riista 34:59–65. Google Scholar

43.

M. Hario and K. Selin . 1989. Haahkapoikueiden menestymisestä ja lokkien aiheuttamista poikastappioista Suomenlahdella. (In Finnish with an English summary: Mortality in and the impact of gull predation on eider ducklings in the Gulf of Finland). Suomen Riista 35:17–25. Google Scholar

44.

M. Hario and K. Selin . 1991. Mihin haahkanpoikaset katoavat? (In Finnish with an English summary: Where have all the eider ducklings gone?). Suomen Riista 37:35–43. Google Scholar

45.

M. Hario and K. Selin . 2002. Cohort-specific differences in reproductive output in a declining common eider Somateria mollissima population. Danish Review of Game Biology 16:33–45. Google Scholar

46.

H. W. Heusmann and J. R. Sauer . 2000. The northeastern states' waterfowl breeding population survey. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:355–364. Google Scholar

47.

O. Hildén 1964. Ecology of duck populations in the island group of Valassaaret, Gulf of Bothnia. Annales Zoologici Fennici 1:153–279. Google Scholar

48.

O. Hildén, A. Järvinen, L. Lehtonen, and M. Soikkeli . 1982. Breeding success of Finnish birds in the bad summer of 1981. Ornis Fennica 59:20–31. Google Scholar

49.

D. J. Holmes, R. Flückiger, and S. N. Austad . 2001. Comparative biology of aging in birds: an update. Experimental Gerontology 36:869–883. Google Scholar

50.

T. Hovestadt and P. Nowicki . 2008. Process and measurement errors of population size: their mutual effects on precision and bias of estimates for demographic parameters. Biodiversity Conservation 17:3417–3429. Google Scholar

51.

O. Järvinen 1983. Kuinka linnuston seuranta tulisi Suomessa toteuttaa. (In Finnish with an English abstract: How should a Finnish monitoring system of bird populations be implemented?). Ornis Fennica 60:126–128. Google Scholar

52.

A. Kangas and S. Kurki . 2000. Predicting the future of Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) in Finland. Ecological Modelling 134:73–87. Google Scholar

53.

C. M. E. Keller and J. T. Scallan . 1999. Potential roadside biases due to habitat changes along breeding bird survey routes. The Condor 101:50–57. Google Scholar

54.

M. Kilpi 1985. Archipelago bird populations in Finland: monitoring and recent changes. Ornis Fennica 62:42–46. Google Scholar

55.

J. Koskimies and L. Lahti . 1964. Cold hardiness of the newly hatched young in relation to ecology and distribution in ten species of European ducks. Auk 81:281–307. Google Scholar

56.

P. Koskimies and H. Pöysä . 1989. Waterfowl censusing in environmental monitoring: a comparison between point and round counts. Annales Zoologici Fennici 26:201–206. Google Scholar

57.

P. Koskimies and R. A. Väisänen . 1991. Monitoring bird populations. Zoological Museum, Finnish Museum of Natural History. Helsinki, Finland. pp.  Google Scholar

58.

D. B. Lindenmayer and G. E. Likens . 2009a. Adaptive monitoring: a new paradigm for long-term research and monitoring. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24:482–486. Google Scholar

59.

D. B. Lindenmayer and G. E. Likens . 2009b. Improving ecological monitoring. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:200–201. Google Scholar

60.

P. Linkola 1959. Zur Methodik der quantitativen Vogelforschung in den Binnengewässern. Ornis Fennica 36:66–78. (In German).  Google Scholar

61.

L-M. Liu 2009. Time Series Analysis and Forecasting. 2nd edition. Scientific Computing Associates Corp.. Illinois, USA. pp.  Google Scholar

62.

L-M. Liu and G. B. Hudak . 1992. Forecasting and time series analysis using the SCA Statistical System. Volume 1. Scientific Computing Associates Corp.. Illinois, USA. pp.  Google Scholar

63.

G. X. Ludwig, R. V. Alatalo, P. Helle, H. Lindén, J. Lindström, and H. Siitari . 2006. Short- and long-term population dynamical consequences of asymmetric climate change in black grouse. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 273:2009–2016. Google Scholar

64.

F. R. Merkel 2004. Impact of hunting and gillnet fishery on wintering eiders in Nuuk, southwest Greenland. Waterbirds 27:469–479. Google Scholar

65.

J. Mikola, M. Miettinen, E. Lehikoinen, and K. Lehtilä . 1994. The effects of disturbance caused by boating on survival and behaviour of velvet scoter Melanitta fusca ducklings. Biological Conservation 67:119–124. Google Scholar

66.

C. Mitchell, A. D. Fox, J. Harradine, and I. Clausager . 2008. Measures of annual breeding success amongst Eurasian Wigeon Anas penelope. Bird Study 55:43–51. Google Scholar

67.

S. H. Newman, A. Chmura, K. Converse, A. M. Kilpatrick, N. Patel, E. Lammers, and P. Daszak . 2007. Aquatic bird disease and mortality as an indicator of changing ecosystem health. Marine Ecology Progress Series 352:299–309. Google Scholar

68.

J. D. Nichols, M. C. Runge, F. A. Johnson, and B. K. Williams . 2007. Adaptive harvest management of North American waterfowl populations: a brief history and future prospects. Journal of Ornithology 148 (Suppl. 2):343–349. Google Scholar

69.

J. D. Nichols and B. K. Williams . 2006. Monitoring for conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21:668–673. Google Scholar

70.

P. Nummi and L. Saari . 2003. Density-dependent decline of breeding success in an introduced, increasing mute swan Cygnus olor population. Journal of Avian Biology 34:105–111. Google Scholar

71.

T. J. O'Connell, J. A. Bishop, and R. P. Brooks . 2007. Sub-sampling data from the North American Breeding Bird Survey for application to the Bird Community Index, an indicator of ecological condition. Ecological Indicators 7:679–691. Google Scholar

72.

R. J. O'Connor 1985. Long-term monitoring of British bird populations. Ornis Fennica 62:73–79. Google Scholar

73.

H. Oja and H. Pöysä . 2007. Spring phenology, latitude, and the timing of breeding in two migratory ducks: implications of climate change impacts. Annales Zoologici Fennici 44:475–485. Google Scholar

74.

M. Öst and B. B. Steele . 2010. Age-specific nest-site preference and success in eiders. Oecologia 162:59–69. Google Scholar

75.

K. Oxynos, J. Schmitzer, and A. Kettrup . 1993. Herring gull eggs as bioindicators for chlorinated hydrocarbons (contribution to the German-Federal-Environmental-Specimen-Bank). Science of the Total Environment 139-140:387–398. Google Scholar

76.

A. Paasivaara and H. Pöysä . 2004. Mortality of common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula) broods in relation to predation risk by northern pike (Esox lucius). Annales Zoologici Fennici 41:513–523. Google Scholar

77.

A. Paasivaara and H. Pöysä . 2007. Survival of common goldeneye Bucephala clangula ducklings in relation to weather, timing of breeding, brood size, and female condition. Journal of Avian Biology 38:144–152. Google Scholar

78.

W. J. Peach, S. R. Baillie, and D. E. Balmer . 1998. Long-term changes in the abundance of passerines in Britain and Ireland as measured by constant effort mist-netting. Bird Study 45:257–275. Google Scholar

79.

D. B. Peakall 2000. Avian data bases and their use in environmental assessment. Ecotoxicology 9:239–253. Google Scholar

80.

J. M. Pearce, J. A. Reed, and P. L. Flint . 2005. Geographic variation in survival and migratory tendency among North American Common Mergansers. Journal of Field Ornithology 76:109–118. Google Scholar

81.

J. F. Piatt, W. J. Sydeman, and F. Wiese . 2007. Introduction: a modern role for seabirds as indicators. Marine Ecology Progress Series 352:199–204. Google Scholar

82.

M. K. Pirkola and J. Högmander . 1974. Sorsanpoikueiden iänmääritys. (In Finnish with an English summary: The age determination of duck broods in the field). Suomen Riista 25:50–55. Google Scholar

83.

M. Rönkä, L. Saari, E. Lehikoinen, J. Suomela, and K. Häkkilä . 2005. Environmental changes and population trends of breeding waterfowl in northern Baltic Sea. Annales Zoologici Fennici 42:587–602. Google Scholar

84.

J. Royle and R. Dorazio . 2008. Hierarchical Modeling and Inference in Ecology. Academic Press. London, UK. pp.  Google Scholar

85.

W. J. Sutherland 2006. Ecological Census Techniques, a Handbook. 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK. pp.  Google Scholar

86.

W. J. Sutherland, I. Newton, and R. E. Green . 2004. Bird Ecology and Conservation. A Handbook of Techniques. Oxford University Press. New York, USA. pp.  Google Scholar

87.

J. Tiainen 1985. Monitoring bird populations in Finland. Ornis Fennica 62:80–89. Google Scholar

88.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010. Waterfowl population status, 2010. U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C. USA. pp.  Google Scholar

89.

S. Wanless, M. Frederiksen, F. Daunt, B. E. Scott, and M. P. Harris . 2007. Black-legged kittiwakes as indicators of environmental change in the North Sea: Evidence from long-term studies. Progress in Oceanography 72:30–38. Google Scholar

90.

S. Wanless, M. P. Harris, P. Redman, and J. R. Speakman . 2005. Low energy values of fish as a probable cause of a major seabird breeding failure in the North Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 294:1–8. Google Scholar

91.

C. V. Wernham, M. P. Toms, J. H. Marchant, J. A. Clark, G. M. Siriwardena, and S. R. Baillie . 2002. The Migration Atlas: movements of the birds of Britain and Ireland. T. & A.D. Poyser. London, UK. pp.  Google Scholar

92.

Wetlands International 2006. Waterbird Population Estimates. 4th edition. Wetlands International. Wageningen, The Netherlands. pp.  Google Scholar

93.

B. A. Wintle, M. C. Runge, and S. A. Bekessy . 2010. Allocating monitoring effort in the face of unknown unknowns. Ecology Letters 13:1325–1337. Google Scholar

94.

R. A. Yaffee and M. McGee . 2000. Introduction to Time Series Analysis and Forecasting. With Applications of SAS® and SPSS®. Academic Press. San Diego, USA. pp.  Google Scholar

Notes

[1] Edited by Associate Editor: Vincent Bretagnolle

Figure 1.

The study areas on the Finnish coast showing the island of Aasla (A; the smallest lakes are not depicted) and the island group of Söderskär (B).

i0909-6396-17-3-225-f01.tif

Figure. 2.

The time series studied for each significant transfer function model. The left panels include model fit scatterplots (observed values on X-axis and estimated values on Y-axis). In the right panels, the observed (•) and modelled (○) changes in the time series are presented. The A-G refer to corresponding models in Table 1 (A-F) and Table 2 (G).

i0909-6396-17-3-225-f02.tif

Table 1.

Identified transfer function (TF) models for the target species in Aasla with initial estimates of the parameters with standard errors, t- and p-values. Models with statistically insignificant estimates were excluded. Coefficients of determination for the models are calculated using r2 = 1 - ((n - 1)/(n - p))((sum of squares resid.)/(sum of squares total)), where n = number of observations and p = number of estimated parameters. The variables are PAIRS = pair numbers, CHICK = chick numbers and INDIV = individual bird numbers in July (i.e. post-breeding population size). The ω values are the TF weights for the input series and C is a constant term, which indicates a trend in the series. The value B represents the delay of the response. The parameter ϕ indicates an autoregressive (AR) operator, and the parameter θ indicates a moving average (MA) operator. The input parameter is significant when |t| ≥ 1.96 (P < 0.05) and the disturbance term when |t| ≥ 1.64 (P < 0.06). All the time series comprise yearly values.

i0909-6396-17-3-225-t01.eps

Table 2.

Identified transfer function (TF) model for the common eider in Söderskär with initial estimates of the parameters with standard errors, t- and p-values. Only the significant model is presented. Coefficient of determination for the model is calculated using r2 = 1 - ((n-1)/(n-p))((sum of squares resid.)/(sum of squares total)), where n = number of observations and p = number of estimated parameters. The variables are PAIRS = pair number and RECR = recruit number. The ω values are the TF weights for the input series. The value B represents the delay of the response. The parameter ϕ indicates an autoregressive (AR) operator. The input parameter is significant when |t| ≥ 1.96 (P < 0.05) and the disturbance term when |t| ≥ 1.64 (P < 0.06). All the time series comprise yearly values.

i0909-6396-17-3-225-t02.eps
Mia Rönkä, Lennart Saari, Martti Hario, Jari Hänninen, and Esa Lehikoinen "Breeding success and breeding population trends of waterfowl: implications for monitoring," Wildlife Biology 17(3), 225-239, (1 September 2011). https://doi.org/10.2981/09-064
Received: 21 July 2009; Accepted: 1 March 2011; Published: 1 September 2011
JOURNAL ARTICLE
15 PAGES


SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
Back to Top