Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T05:44:50.043Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors Affecting Distribution of Gulls (Larus spp.) on Two New Jersey Coastal Bays

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

Joanna Burger  and
Joan Galli
Joanna Burger
Affiliation:
Professor, Bureau of Biological Research and Department of Biological Sciences, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey 08854, USA
Joan Galli
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resources, State of Minnesota, 500 Lafayette Road, St Paul, Minnesota 55146, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The distribution and abundance of gulls were examined on Raritan and Delaware Bays from 20 April to 26 October 1982. Gull numbers were affected by seasonal, tidal, weather-related, and human disturbance, factors on both Bays. Gulls comprised from about 40 to 60% of the avifauna on the census areas, and shorebirds accounted for most of the other individuals. Peak numbers of gulls were present on Delaware Bay from May through July, and on Raritan Bay in September. Laughing Gulls (Larus atricilla) were the dominant species on both Raritan (90%) and Delaware (70%) Bays, with Herring Gulls (L. argentatus) second in abundance.

Type
Main Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , Spring 1987 , pp. 59 - 65
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barr, A.J., Goodnight, J.H., Sall, J.H. & Helwig, J.Y. (1976). A User's Guide to Basics. Sparks Press, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA: 921 pp.Google Scholar
Bongiorno, S.F. (1970). Nest-site selection by adult Laughing Gulls (Larus atricilla). Anim. Behav., 18, pp. 434–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovino, R.R. & Burtt, E.H. Jun. (1979). Weather-dependent foraging of Great Blue Herons (Ardea herodias). Auk, 96, pp. 628–30.Google Scholar
Burger, J. (1979). Competition and predation: Herring Gulls versus Laughing Gulls. Condor, 81, pp. 269–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burger, J. (1981 a). Effects of human disturbance on colonial species, particularly gulls. Colonial Waterbirds, 4, pp. 28–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burger, J. (1981 b). The effect of human activity on birds at a coastal bay. Biol. Cons., 21, pp. 231–41, map.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burger, J. (1983). Jamaica Bay Studies, III: Abiotic determinants of distribution and abundance of gulls (Larus). Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 16, pp. 191–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burger, J. (1984). Abiotic factors affecting migrating shorebirds. Pp. 1–72 in Behavior of Marine Animals VI: Shorebirds: Migration and Feeding Behavior (Eds Burger, J. & Olla, B.). Plenum Press, New York, NY, USA: xiv + 329 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Burger, J. (1986). The effect of human activity on shorebirds in two coastal bays in northeastern United States. Environmental Conservation, 13(2), pp. 123–30, 11 figs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burger, J. & Lesser, F. (1980). Nest site selection in an expanding population of Herring Gulls. J. Field Ornithol., 51, pp. 270–80.Google Scholar
Dunn, E.K. (1973). Changes in fishing ability of terns associated with windspeed and sea surface conditions. Nature (London), 244, pp. 520–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunne, P., Sibley, D., Sutton, C. & Wander, W. (1982). Aerial surveys in Delaware Bay: confirming an enormous spring staging area for shorebirds. Wader Study Group Bull, 35, pp. 32–3, map.Google Scholar
Evans, P.R. (1976). Energy balance and optimal foraging strategies in shorebirds: some implications for their distribution and movements in the non-breeding season. Ardea, 64, pp. 117–39.Google Scholar
Galli, J. & Kane, R. (1979). Colonial waterbird populations of New Jersey. (Occ. Pap. No. 139.) Records of N.J. Birds, 7, pp. 38–42.Google Scholar
Grubb, T.C. (1977). Weather-dependent foraging in Ospreys. Auk, 94, pp. 146–9.Google Scholar
Hamilton, W.D. (1971). Geometry for the selfish herd. J. Theoret. Biol., 31, pp. 295–311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, R. A. (1979). Notes on Charadriiformes of the south coast of Peru. Pp. 49–53 in Studies in Avian Biology, No. 2 (Ed. Pitelka, F.A.). Cooper Ornithological Society, Allen Press, Lawrence, Kansas, USA: vii + 261 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Jehl, J. Jun., Rumboll, M.A.E. & Winter, J.P. (1973). Winter bird populations of Golfo San José, Argentina. Bull. Br. Ornithol. Club, 93, pp. 56–63.Google Scholar
Kane, R. & Farrer, R.B. (1976). 1975 Coastal colonial bird survey of New Jersey. Occ. Pap. No. 125, N.J. Audubon, 2, pp. 8–14.Google Scholar
Kane, R. & Farrer, R.B. (1977). 1977 Coastal colonial bird survey of New Jersey. Occ. Pap. No. 131, N.J. Audubon, 3, pp. 188–94.Google Scholar
Kruuk, H. (1964). Predators and antipredator behavior of the Black-headed Gull (Larus ridibundus L.). Behaviour Suppl., 11, pp. 1–129.Google Scholar
McLachlan, G.R., Woldridge, T., Schramm, M. & Kuhn, M. (1980). Seasonal abundance, biomass and feeding of shorebirds on sandy beaches on the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Ostrich, 51, pp. 44–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manuwal, D.A. (1978). Effect of man on marine birds: a review. Pp. 140–60 in Wildlife and People. Purdue University Press. West Lafayette, Indiana, USA: 436 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Montevecchi, W. (1978). Nest site selection and its survival value among Laughing Gulls. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 4, pp. 148–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Post, P.W. (1980). Laughing Gulls colonize Jamaica Bay. Kingbird, 30, pp. 11–3.Google Scholar
Powers, K. (1982). A comparison of two methods of counting birds at sea. J. Field Ornithol., 53, pp. 209–22.Google Scholar
Prater, A.J. (1981). Estuary Birds of Britain and Ireland. T. & A.D. Poyser, Calton, England, UK: 440 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Southern, L.K. & Southern, W.E. (1979). Absence of nocturnal predator defense mechanisms in breeding Proc. Colonial Waterbird Group, 2, pp. 157–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar