breeding status and population trends of seabirds in … · 2019. 5. 23. · ii table b. regional...

BREEDING STATUS

AND POPULATION

TRENDS OF SEABIRDS

IN ALASKA, 2017

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

AMNWR 2018/02

BREEDING STATUS AND POPULATION TRENDS OF SEABIRDS IN ALASKA, 2017

Compiled By:

Donald E. Dragoo, Heather M. Renner and Robb S. A. Kalera

Key words: Aethia, Alaska, Aleutian Islands, ancient murrelet, Bering Sea, black-legged kittiwake, Cepphus, Cerorhinca, Chukchi Sea, common murre, crested auklet, fork-tailed storm-petrel, Fratercula, Fulmarus, glaucous-winged gull, Gulf of Alaska, hatching chronology, horned puffin, Larus, Leach’s storm-petrel, least auklet, long-term monitoring, northern fulmar, Oceanodroma, parakeet auklet, pelagic cormorant, Phalacrocorax, pigeon guillemot, Prince William Sound, productivity, red-faced cormorant, red-legged kittiwake, rhinoceros auklet, Rissa, seabirds, Synthliboramphus, thick-billed murre, tufted puffin, Uria, whiskered auklet.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge Migratory Bird Management 95 Sterling Highway, Suite 1 1011 East Tudor Road Homer, Alaska, USA 99603 Anchorage, Alaska USA 99503

February 2018

Cite as: Dragoo, D. E., H. M. Renner, and R. S. A. Kaler. 2018. Breeding status and population trends of seabirds in Alaska, 2017. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2018/02. Homer, Alaska.aDragoo ([email protected]) and Renner ([email protected]), Alaska Maritime NWR, Homer; Kaler ([email protected]), U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management, Anchorage.

When using information from this report, data, results, or conclusions specific to a location(s) should not be used in other publications without first obtaining permission from the original contributor(s). Results and conclusions general to large geographic areas may be cited without permission. This report updates previous reports.

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the Department of the Interior.

i

Executive Summary

Data are collected annually for selected species of marine birds at breeding colonies on the far-flung Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), and at other areas in Alaska, to monitor the condition of the marine ecosystem and to evaluate the conservation status of species under the trust of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The strategy for colony monitoring includes estimating timing of nesting events, rates of reproductive success, and population trends of representative species of various foraging guilds (e.g., offshore diving fish-feeders, diving plankton-feeders) at geographically dispersed breeding sites. This information enables managers to better understand ecosystem processes and respond appropriately to resource issues. It also provides a basis for researchers to test hypotheses about ecosystem change. The value of the marine bird monitoring program is enhanced by having sufficiently long time-series to describe patterns for these long-lived species.

During the summer of 2017, seabird data were gathered at seven of the eight annual monitoring sites on the Alaska Maritime NWR. Birds were not monitored at St. Lazaria Island due to inadequate funding. The species monitored were murres, pigeon guillemots, ancient murrelets, auklets, puffins, kittiwakes, glaucous-winged gulls, northern fulmars, storm-petrels, and cormorants. In addition, data were gathered at five other locations which are visited intermittently, or were part of a research or monitoring program outside the refuge.

Timing of breeding (Table A)

l Statewide, in 2017 mean hatch date was early in 43%, average in 36%, and late in 21% of monitored species. Three of the four monitored auklets exhibited early timing in 2017, whereas murres and black-legged kittiwakes were later than average.

l Murre and kittiwake eggs failed to hatch on study plots at several monitored colonies in 2017 (e. g., common and thick-billed murres at Aiktak Island; black-legged kittiwakes at St. Paul Island; red-legged kittiwakes at all three monitored colonies--St. Paul, St. George, and Buldir islands), probably due to nest depredation and/or nest abandonment by adults.

Table A. Regional and statewide seabird breeding chronologya compared to averages for past years within regions and the state of Alaska as a whole. Only regions for which there were data from 2017 are included.

Productivity (Table B)

l Statewide, 2017 productivity was average in 47% of monitored species and below average in 53%. No monitored species had above average productivity statewide in 2017.

l In 2017, murres, tufted puffins, and kittiwakes exhibited widespread breeding failures, although the failures were not as prevalent for murres as they were in 2016, following an extensive 2015-2016 wintertime die off event.

Region COMUb TBMU ANMU PAAU LEAU WHAU CRAU HOPU TUPU BLKI GWGU FTSP LHSP RFCO

SE Bering L L E E E A E E A ESW Bering L E E E E A L LN. GOAc A L A E A L AAlaska L L E A E E E A A L A E A E

aCodes:“E” and red cell color indicate hatching chronology was > 3 days earlier than the average for sites in this region.“A” and yellow cell color indicate hatching chronology was within 3 days of average.“L” and green cell color indicate hatching chronology was > 3 days later than the average for sites in this region.

bCOMU=common murre, TBMU=thick-billed murre, ANMU=ancient murrelet, PAAU=parakeet auklet, LEAU=least auklet, WHAU=whiskered auklet, CRAU=crested auklet, HOPU=horned puffin, TUPU=tufted puffin, BLKI=black-legged kittiwake, GWGU=glaucous-winged gull, FTSP=fork-tailed storm-petrel, LHSP=Leach’s storm-petrel, RFCO=red-faced cormorant.

cGOA=Gulf of Alaska.

ii

Table B. Regional and statewide seabird breeding productivity levelsa compared to averages for past years within regions and the state of Alaska as a whole. Only regions for which there were data from 2017 are included.

Population trends during 2008-2017 (Table C)

l Statewide, 19% of species showed increasing population trends, 37% were stable, and 44% declined between 2008 and 2017.

l Low colony attendance in recent years following the 2015-2016 winter die off may be a consequence of poor localized habitat conditions, and may or may not reflect true changes in population size. Birds not attending the cliffs frequently form large rafts in nearby waters.

l In some cases, the 2017 counts were a small fraction of prior years’ counts. For example, the 2017 murre count at Aiktak Island was about 6% of the 2016 count there. Future counts will be needed to determine whether there was mortality, whether breeding birds emigrated out of the area, or whether they simply didn’t breed in 2017.Table C. Regional and statewide seabird population trendsa between 2008 and 2017 within regions and the state of Alaska as a whole. Only sites for which there were data from at least two years (at least 5 years apart) within the target decade are included.

Regionb COMUc TBMU ANMU PAAU LEAU WHAU CRAU RHAU HOPU TUPU BLKI RLKI GWGU FTSP LHSP RFCO PECO

N. BS/CS HSE Bering L L A L A L L L A A A L LSW Bering L A A A A H L L L L L AN. GOA H H A A L L L H HAlaska L L A A L A A A A L L L A L A L L

aCodes:“L” and red cell color indicate productivity was > 20% below the average for the region.“A” and yellow cell color indicate productivity was within 20% of average.“H” and green cell color indicate productivity was > 20% above the average for the region.

bBS=Bering Sea, CS=Chukchi Sea, GOA=Gulf of Alaska.cCOMU=common murre, TBMU=thick-billed murre, ANMU=ancient murrelet, PAAU=parakeet auklet, LEAU=least auklet, WHAU=whiskered

auklet, CRAU=crested auklet, RHAU=rhinoceros auklet, HOPU=horned puffin, TUPU=tufted puffin, BLKI=black-legged kittiwake, RLKI=red-legged kittiwake, GWGU=glaucous-winged gull, FTSP=fork-tailed storm-petrel, LHSP=Leach’s storm-petrel, RFCO=red-faced cormorant, PECO=pelagic cormorant.

Regionb COMUc TBMU UNMU PIGU LEAU RHAU TUPU BLKI RLKI GWGU NOFU FTSP STPE RFCO PECO UNCO

N. BS/CS h hSE Bering i 1 i i 1 i 1 i h h i i iSW Bering 1 h h i 1N. GOA i h 1 i i 1 1 1Southeast 1 1 1 h 1 hAlaska i 1 i 1 i 1 i 1 h 1 h 1 h i i i

aCodes: i and red cell color indicate a negative population trend of ≥3% per annum for this site or region.1 and yellow cell color indicate that per annum change was within 3% of the site average. h and green cell color indicate a positive population trend of ≥3% per annum for this site or region.

bBS=Bering Sea, CS=Chukchi Sea, GOA=Gulf of Alaska.cCOMU=common murre, TBMU=thick-billed murre, UNMU=unspecified murre, PIGU=pigeon guillemot, LEAU=least auklet, RHAU=rhinoceros auklet,

TUPU=tufted puffin, BLKI=black-legged kittiwake, RLKI=red-legged kittiwake, GWGU=glaucous-winged gull, NOFU=northern fulmar, FTSP=fork-tailed storm-petrel, STPE=unspecified storm-petrel, RFCO=red-faced cormorant, PECO=pelagic cormorant, UNCO=unspecified cormorant.

l However, there were exceptions, with some species exhibiting above average productivity at certain colonies in 2017 (e.g., black-legged kittiwakes at Cape Lisburne; red-faced cormorants at St. Paul Island; common and thick-billed murres, glaucous-winged gulls, and pelagic cormorants at Chowiet Island).

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................iTable of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... iii Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................1Methods ........................................................................................................................................................1Results ............................................................................................................................................................4 Common murre (Uria aalge) ............................................................................................................4 Breeding chronology ...........................................................................................................4 Productivity ..........................................................................................................................4 Populations ..........................................................................................................................7 Thick-billed murre (Uria lomvia) ...................................................................................................10 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................10 Productivity ........................................................................................................................10 Populations ..........................................................................................................................7 Pigeon guillemot (Cepphus columba) .............................................................................................13 Populations ........................................................................................................................13 Ancient murrelet (Synthliboramphus antiquus) ..............................................................................14 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................14 Productivity ........................................................................................................................14 Parakeet auklet (Aethia psittacula) .................................................................................................15 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................15 Productivity ........................................................................................................................15 Least auklet (Aethia pusilla) ...........................................................................................................18 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................18 Productivity ........................................................................................................................18 Populations ........................................................................................................................18 Whiskered auklet (Aethia pygmaea) ...............................................................................................21 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................21 Productivity ........................................................................................................................21 Crested auklet (Aethia cristatella) ..................................................................................................22 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................22 Productivity ........................................................................................................................22 Rhinoceros auklet (Cerorhinca monocerata) .................................................................................23 Productivity ........................................................................................................................23 Populations ........................................................................................................................23 Horned puffin (Fratercula corniculata) ..........................................................................................25 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................25 Productivity ........................................................................................................................25 Tufted puffin (Fratercula cirrhata) ................................................................................................28 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................28 Productivity ........................................................................................................................28 Populations ........................................................................................................................31

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page

Black-legged kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla) ......................................................................................32 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................32 Productivity ........................................................................................................................32 Populations ........................................................................................................................35 Red-legged kittiwake (Rissa brevirostris) ......................................................................................37 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................37 Productivity ........................................................................................................................37 Populations ........................................................................................................................40 Glaucous-winged gull (Larus glaucescens) ....................................................................................41 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................41 Productivity ........................................................................................................................41 Populations ........................................................................................................................44 Northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis) ............................................................................................45 Populations ........................................................................................................................45 Fork-tailed storm-petrel (Oceanodroma furcata) ...........................................................................46 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................46 Productivity ........................................................................................................................46 Populations ........................................................................................................................49 Leach’s storm-petrel (Oceanodroma leucorhoa) ............................................................................50 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................50 Productivity ........................................................................................................................50 Populations ........................................................................................................................49 Red-faced cormorant (Phalacrocorax urile)...................................................................................53 Breeding chronology .........................................................................................................53 Productivity ........................................................................................................................53 Populations ........................................................................................................................55 Pelagic cormorant (Phalacrocorax pelagicus) ...............................................................................57 Productivity ........................................................................................................................57 Populations ........................................................................................................................55Summary tables ............................................................................................................................................59Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................62References ...................................................................................................................................................62

1

Introduction

This report is the latest in a series of annual reports summarizing the results of seabird monitoring efforts at breeding colonies on the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and elsewhere in Alaska (see Byrd and Dragoo 1997, Byrd et al. 1998 and 1999, Dragoo et al. 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004 and 2006-2017 for compilations of previous years’ data). The seabird monitoring program in Alaska is designed to keep track of selected species of marine birds that indicate changes in the ocean environment. Furthermore, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has the responsibility to conserve seabirds, and monitoring data are used to identify conservation problems. The objective is to provide long-term, time-series data from which biologically significant changes may be detected and from which hypotheses about causes of changes may be tested. The Alaska Maritime NWR was established specifically to conserve marine bird populations and habitats in their natural diversity and the marine resources upon which they rely, and to provide for an international program for research on marine resources (Alaska National Interests Land Conservation Act of 1982). The monitoring program is an integral part of the management of this refuge and provides data that can be used to define “normal” variability in demographic parameters and identify patterns that fall outside norms and thereby constitute potential conservation issues. Although approximately 80% of the seabird nesting colonies in Alaska occur on the Alaska Maritime NWR, marine bird nesting colonies occur on other public lands (e.g., national and state refuges) and on private lands as well. The strategy for colony monitoring includes estimating timing of nesting events, reproductive success, population trends, and prey used by representative species of various foraging guilds (e.g., murres are offshore diving fish-feeders, kittiwakes are surface-feeding fish-feeders, auklets are diving plankton-feeders, etc.) at geographically dispersed breeding sites along the entire coastline of Alaska (Figure 1). A total of eight sites on the Alaska Maritime NWR, located roughly 300-500 km apart, are scheduled for annual surveys (Byrd 2007). During the summer of 2017, seabird data were gathered at seven of the eight annual monitoring sites on the Alaska Maritime NWR. Birds were not monitored at St. Lazaria Island due to inadequate funding. Furthermore, data are recorded annually or semiannually at other sites in Alaska (e.g., Cape Peirce, Togiak NWR; Puale Bay, Alaska Peninsula/Becharof NWR; Round and Middleton islands; Prince William Sound). In addition, colonies near the annual sites are identified for less frequent surveys to “calibrate” the information at the annual sites. Data provided from other research projects (e.g., those associated with evaluating the impacts of invasive rodents on marine birds) also supplement the monitoring database. In this report, we summarize information from 2017 for each species; i.e., tables with estimates of average hatch dates and reproductive success, and maps with symbols indicating the relative timing of hatching and reproductive success at various sites. In addition, historical patterns of hatching chronology and productivity are illustrated for those sites for which we have sufficient data. Population trend information is included for sites where adequate data are available.

Methods

Data collection methods followed standardized protocols (e.g., AMNWR 2017). Timing of nesting events and productivity usually were based on periodic checks of samples of nests (usually in plots) throughout the breeding season, but a few estimates of productivity were based on single visits to colonies late in the breeding season (as noted in the tables). Hatch dates were used to describe nesting chronology. Productivity typically was expressed as chicks fledged per egg, but occasionally other variables were used (Table 1). Population surveys were conducted for ledge-nesting species at times of the day and breeding season when variability in attendance was reduced. Most burrow-nester counts were made early in the season before vegetation obscured burrow entrances. Deviations from standard methods are indicated in reports from individual sites which are referenced herein.

2

Figure 1. Map of Alaska showing the locations of seabird monitoring sites summarized in this report. Text color indicates geographic regions.

500

KM

N

Cape

Lisb

urne

Cape

Peir

ceSt

. Pau

l I.

St. G

eorg

e I.

Buldi

r I.

Aikta

k I.

Roun

d I.

Chow

iet I.

E. A

matul

i I.Midd

leton

I.Princ

e Willi

am S

ound

St. L

azar

ia I.

Nor

ther

n B

erin

g/C

hukc

hiS

outh

east

ern

Ber

ing

Nor

ther

n G

ulf o

f Ala

ska

Sou

thw

este

rn B

erin

g

Sou

thea

st A

lask

a

Hall I

.

Puale

Bay

Ulak

I.

3

Table 1. Productivity parameters used in this report (see AMNWR 2017).Species Productivity Value Murres Chicks Fledged/Nest Site (Total chicks fledged/Total sites where egg was laid)Ancient murrelet Chicks Fledged/Egg (Total chicks fledged/Total eggs)Auklets (except RHAU) Chicks Fledged/Nest Site (Total chicks fledged/Total sites where egg was laid)Rhinoceros auklet Overall Residency Index (Late apparent occupancy/Early apparent occupancy)Horned puffin Chicks Fledged/Egg (Total chicks fledged/Total eggs)Tufted puffin Overall Residency Index (Late apparent occupancy/Early apparent occupancy)Kittiwakes Chicks Fledged/Nest (Total chicks fledged/Total nests)Glaucous-winged gull Hatching Success (Total chicks/Total eggs)Storm-petrels Chicks Fledged/Egg (Total chicks fledged/Total eggs) Cormorants Chicks Fledged/Nest (Total chicks fledged/Total nests)

This report summarizes monitoring data for 2017, and compares 2017 results with previous years. For sites with at least two years of data prior to 2017, site averages were used for comparisons. For chronology, we considered dates within 3 days of the long-term average to be “normal”; larger deviations represented relatively early or late dates. For productivity, we defined significant deviations from “normal” as any that differed by more than 20% from the site average. Population trends were analyzed using linear regression models on log-transformed data (ln) to calculate the slope of the line. The resultant slope is equivalent to the annual rate of population change. A trend was defined as any change greater than or equal to a three percent per annum increase or decline (≥3% p.a.). Population counts were analyzed using two time frames: 1) data from all available years, and 2) data from the last decade (2008-2017 for this report). A percent per annum change was calculated for each data set during both time periods, if sufficient data were available. We also summarized seabird phenology and productivity, as well as recent population trends (from 2008-2017), by region and for the entire state. Chronology was calculated for each species in a region using data from all colonies. Each colony was weighted equally within each region. The chronology was averaged for all sites within each region resulting in a value for each species, thus producing one statewide value for each species. Productivity was calculated for each species in a region using data from all colonies. Each colony was weighted equally within each region. The productivity was averaged for all sites within each region resulting in a value for each species. Species productivities were then averaged to calculate a statewide value for each species. Population trends were calculated for each species in a region using data from all colonies. Each colony was weighted equally within each region. Trends (line slopes) were averaged for all sites within each region resulting in a regional value for each species. Only sites for which there were data from at least two years (at least 5 years apart) between 2008 and 2017 were included.

4

Results

Common murre (Uria aalge)

Table 2. Hatching chronology of common murres at Alaskan sites monitored in 2017. Long-termSite Mean Average ReferenceSt. Paul I. 14 Aug (3)a 3 Aug (29)a Mong and Romano 2017St. George I. 8 Aug (9) 3 Aug (32) Pollom et al. 2018Chowiet I. 20 Jul (124) 23 Jul (20) Evans et al. 2017

aSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate the mean hatch date and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not included in long-term average.

Table 3. Reproductive performance of common murres at Alaskan sites monitored in 2017. Chicks Fledged/ No. of Long-termSite Nest Sitea Plots Average ReferenceSt. Paul I. 0.02 3 (48)b 0.49 (30)b Mong and Romano 2017St. George I. 0.33 4 (39) 0.48 (33) Pollom et al. 2018Round I. 0.00 3 (36) 0.18 (16) E. Weiss Unpubl. DataAiktak I. 0.00 NAc (0) 0.23 (20) N. Rojek Unpubl. DataChowiet I. 0.66 11 (233) 0.49 (22) Evans et al. 2017E. Amatuli I. 0.15 4 (26) 0.54 (19) A. Kettle Unpubl. Data

aSince murres do not build nests, nest sites were defined as sites where eggs were laid.bSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate productivity and the

number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.cNot applicable or not reported.

5

Figure 2. Hatching chronology of common murres at Alaskan sites. Graphs indicate the departure in days (if any) from the site mean (value in parentheses; current year not included). Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >3 days early, black is within 3 days and green is >3 days later than the site mean). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.

Aver

age

=La

te+-E

arly

NN

o H

atch

2017

CO

MU

Hat

chin

gC

hron

olog

y

St. P

aul (

3 Au

g)

St. G

eorg

e (3

Aug

)

Cho

wie

t (23

Jul

)

E. A

mat

uli (

17Au

g)St

. Laz

aria

(13

Aug)

Aikt

ak (1

3 Au

g)Pu

ale

Bay

(21

Aug)

+

N

00

-20

-1001020

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

0

-20-1001020

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

0

-20

-1001020

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

000

00

-20

-1001020

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

+

-20

-1001020

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

=

-20

-1001020

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

-20

-1001020

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

6

Figure 3. Productivity of common murres (chicks fledged/nest site) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (value in parentheses; current year not included). Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.

N

0.76

- 1.

00

0.51

- 0.

75

0.26

- 0.

50

0.01

- 0.

25

<0.0

1

2017

CO

MU

Pro

duct

ivity

St.

Pau

l (0.

49)

St.

Geo

rge

(0.4

8)

Rou

nd (0

.18)

Bul

dir (

0.42

)A

ikta

k (0

.23)

Cho

wie

t (0.

49)

St.

Laza

ria (0

.47)

Pua

le B

ay (0

.51)

0.00.25.50.751.0

0

7681

8691

9601

0611

16

00

.00

.25

.50

.75

1.00

7681

8691

9601

0611

16

0.0

0

.25

.50

.75

1.00

7681

8691

9601

0611

16

0.00.25.50.751.0

0

7681

8691

9601

0611

16

0.0

0

.25

.50

.75

1.00

7681

8691

9601

0611

16

00

00.0

0

.25

.50

.75

1.00

7681

8691

9601

0611

16

N

N

000

000

0000

00

.00

.25

.50

.75

1.00

7681

8691

9601

0611

16

.00

.25

.50

.75

1.00

7681

8691

9601

0611

16

7

Figure 4. Trends in populations of murres at Alaskan sites. Error bars (90% confidence intervals) are shown for years with multiple counts. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2008-2017, in parentheses). “NA” indicates that insufficient data were available.

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(26

58 b

irds

)

0

100

Murres, Cape Lisburne+3.1% p.a. (+5.1% p.a.)

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(38

75 b

irds

)

0

100

Common murre, Hall I.-1.8% p.a. (N/A)

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(30

14 b

irds

)

0

100

Thick-billed murre, Hall I.-2.6% p.a. (N/A)

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(39

03 b

irds

)

0

100

Common murre, St. Paul I.-3.6% p.a. (-9.1% p.a.)

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(10

,223

bir

ds)

0

100

Thick-billed murre, St. Paul I.-1.5% p.a. (-2.1% p.a.)

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(32

39 b

irds

)

0

100

Common murre, St. George I.-2.0% p.a. (-15.1% p.a.)

8

Figure 4 (continued). Trends in populations of murres at Alaskan sites. Error bars (90% confidence intervals) are shown for years with multiple counts. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2008-2017, in parentheses).

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

0Perc

ent o

f M

axim

um (

3203

bir

ds) 100

Murres, Buldir I.+8.6% p.a. (+8.7% p.a.)

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

0Perc

ent o

f M

axim

um (

3771

bir

ds) 100

Murres, Ulak I.-0.3% p.a. (-6.3% p.a.)

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(23

,890

bir

ds)

0

100

Thick-billed murre, St. George I.+0.6% p.a. (+0.5% p.a.)

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(14

32 b

irds

)

0

100

Common murre, Round I.-5.4% p.a. (-22.0% p.a.)

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

0Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(31

01 b

irds

) 100

Murres, Aiktak I.-8.9% p.a. (-30.6% p.a.)

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(44

90 b

irds

)

0

100

Common murre, Cape Peirce-7.1% p.a. (-41.0% p.a.)

9

Figure 4 (continued). Trends in populations of murres at Alaskan sites. Error bars (90% confidence intervals) are shown for years with multiple counts. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2008-2017, in parentheses). “NA” indicates that insufficient data were available.

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(42

83 b

irds

)

0

100

Murres, Chowiet I.-0.8% p.a. (-21.6 p.a.)

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(97

5 bi

rds)

0

100

Murres, St. Lazaria I.-0.7% p.a. (-0.2% p.a.)

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(22

95 b

irds

)

0

100

Murres, Puale Bay-2.2% p.a. (-13.4% p.a.)

10

Thick-billed murre (Uria lomvia)

Table 4. Hatching chronology of thick-billed murres at Alaskan sites monitored in 2017. Long-termSite Mean Average ReferenceSt. Paul I. 11 Aug (18)a 6 Aug (32)a Mong and Romano 2017St. George I. 8 Aug (74) 1 Aug (35) Pollom et al. 2018Buldir I. 27 Jul (117) 19 Jul (29) Pietrzak et al. 2017Chowiet I. 25 Jul (59) 21 Jul (19) Evans et al. 2017


Table 5. Reproductive performance of thick-billed murres at Alaskan sites monitored in 2017. Chicks Fledged/ No. of Long-termSite Nest Sitea Plots Average ReferenceSt. Paul I. 0.07 12 (243)b 0.45 (32)b Mong and Romano 2017St. George I. 0.15 16 (392) 0.50 (36) Pollom et al. 2018Buldir I. 0.46 9 (271) 0.66 (29) Pietrzak et al. 2017Aiktak I. 0.00 NAc (0) 0.27 (16) N. Rojek Unpubl. DataChowiet I. 0.53 5 (124) 0.40 (22) Evans et al. 2017

aSince murres do not build nests, nest sites were defined as sites where eggs were laid.bSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate productivity and the

number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.cNot applicable or not reported.

11

Figure 5. Hatching chronology of thick-billed murres at Alaskan sites. Graphs indicate the departure in days (if any) from the site mean (value in parentheses; current year not included). Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >3 days early, black is within 3 days and green is >3 days later than the site mean). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.

Aver

age

=La

te+-E

arly

NN

o H

atch

2017

TBM

UH

atch

ing

Chr

onol

ogy

St.

Pau

l (6

Aug

)

St.

Geo

rge

(1 A

ug)

Bul

dir (

19 J

ul)

Cho

wie

t (21

Jul

)

St.

Laza

ria (1

1 A

ug)

+

Aik

tak

(8 A

ug)

Pua

le B

ay (2

0 A

ug)

++

-1

-15-80815

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

0

-15-80815

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

00

-15-80815

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

-15-80815

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

00

-15-80815

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

+

-15-80815

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

N

-15-80815

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

12

Figure 6. Productivity of thick-billed murres (chicks fledged/nest site) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (value in parentheses; current year not included). Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.

N

0.76

- 1.

00

0.51

- 0.

75

0.26

- 0.

50

0.01

- 0.

25

<0.0

1

2017

TBM

UP

rodu

ctiv

ity

St.

Pau

l (0.

45)

St.

Geo

rge

(0.5

0)

Bul

dir (

0.66

)A

ikta

k (0

.27)

Cho

wie

t (0.

40)

St.

Laza

ria (0

.44)

Pua

le B

ay (0

.48)

.00.30.60.90

7681

8691

9601

0611

16

.00.30.60.90

7681

8691

9601

0611

16

0.00.30.60.90

7681

8691

9601

0611

16

0.00.30.60.90

7681

8691

9601

0611

16

0.00.30.60.90

7681

8691

9601

0611

16

N

000

000

0.00.30.60.90

7681

8691

9601

0611

16

.00.30.60.90

7681

8691

9601

0611

16

13

Pigeon guillemot (Cepphus columba)

Figure 7. Trends in populations of pigeon guillemots at Alaskan sites. Error bars (90% confidence intervals) are shown for years with multiple counts. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2008-2017, in parentheses).

Year1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(18

71 b

irds

)

0

100

Pigeon guillemot, Pr. William Snd.-9.0% p.a. (+6.7% p.a.)

Year1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(13

4 bi

rds)

0

100

Pigeon guillemot, St. Lazaria I.-0.7% p.a. (-2.8% p.a.)

14

Ancient murrelet (Synthliboramphus antiquus)

Table 6. Hatching chronology of ancient murrelets at Alaskan sites monitored in 2017. Long-term Site Mean Average ReferenceAiktak I. 27 Jun (89)a 3 Jul (20)a N. Rojek Unpubl. Data


Table 7. Reproductive performance of ancient murrelets at Alaskan sites monitored in 2017. Chicks No. of Long-termSite Fledged/Egga Plots Average ReferenceAiktak I. 0.87 NAb (192)c 0.79 (20)c N. Rojek Unpubl. Data

aTotal chicks fledged/Total eggs.bNot applicable or not reported.cSample size in parentheses represents the number of eggs used to calculate productivity and the number

of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.

15

Parakeet auklet (Aethia psittacula)

Table 8. Hatching chronology of parakeet auklets at Alaskan sites monitored in 2017. Long-termSite Mean Average ReferenceBuldir I. 29 Jun (12)a 4 Jul (25)a Pietrzak et al. 2017Chowiet I. 3 Jul (41) 4 Jul (12) Evans et al. 2017


Table 9. Reproductive performance of parakeet auklets at Alaskan sites monitored in 2017. Chicks Fledged/ No. of Long-termSite Nest Sitea Plots Average ReferenceBuldir I. 0.48 NAb (66)c 0.53 (25)c Pietrzak et al. 2017Chowiet I. 0.46 NA (71) 0.40 (12) Evans et al. 2017

aNest site is defined as a site where an egg was laid.bNot applicable or not reported.cSample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate productivity and the

number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.

16

Figure 8. Hatching chronology of parakeet auklets at Alaskan sites. Graphs indicate the departure in days (if any) from the site mean (value in parentheses; current year not included). Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >3 days early, black is within 3 days and green is >3 days later than the site mean). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.

Aver

age

=La

te+-E

arly

NN

o H

atch

2017

PAA

UH

atch

ing

Chr

onol

ogy

Bul

dir (

4 Ju

l)

Cho

wie

t (4

Jul)=

-0

-15-80815

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

00

0

-15-80815

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

17

Figure 9. Productivity of parakeet auklets (chicks fledged/nest site) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (value in parentheses; current year not included). Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean).

N

0.76

- 1.

00

0.51

- 0.

75

0.26

- 0.

50

0.01

- 0.

25

<0.0

1

2017

PAA

UP

rodu

ctiv

ity

Bul

dir (

0.53

)

Cho

wie

t (0.

40)

0.0

0

.20

.40

.60

.80

1.0

0

91

96

01

06

11

16

.00

.20

.40

.60

.80

1.00

9196

0106

1116

18

Least auklet (Aethia pusilla)

Table 10. Hatching chronology of least auklets at Alaskan sites monitored in 2017. Long-termSite Mean Average ReferenceSt. George I. 29 Jun (43)a 13 Jul (9)a Pollom et al. 2018Buldir I. 23 Jun (19) 27 Jun (27) Pietrzak et al. 2017


Table 11. Reproductive performance of least auklets at Alaskan sites monitored in 2017. Chicks Fledged/ No. of Long-termSite Nest Sitea Plots Average ReferenceSt. George I. 0.33 NAb (75)c 0.61 (9)c Pollom et al. 2018Buldir I. 0.58 NA (77) 0.58 (28) Pietrzak et al. 2017s



Figure 10. Trends in populations of least auklets at Alaskan sites. Error bars (90% confidence intervals) are shown for years with multiple counts. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2008-2017, in parentheses).

Year1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

0

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(14

82 b

irds

) 100

Least auklet, St. George I.-0.5% p.a. (-9.2% p.a.)

19

Figure 11. Hatching chronology of least auklets at Alaskan sites. Graphs indicate the departure in days (if any) from the site mean (value in parentheses; current year not included). Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >3 days early, black is within 3 days and green is >3 days later than the site mean). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.

Aver

age

=La

te+-E

arly

NN

o H

atch

2017

LEA

UH

atch

ing

Chr

onol

ogy

Bul

dir (

27 J

un)

St.

Geo

rge

(13

Jul)

-

00

00

-15-80815

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

-15-80815

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

-

20

Figure 12. Productivity of least auklets (chicks fledged/nest site) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (value in parentheses; current year not included). Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean).

N

0.76

- 1.

00

0.51

- 0.

75

0.26

- 0.

50

0.01

- 0.

25

<0.0

1

2017

LEA

UP

rodu

ctiv

ity

Bul

dir (

0.58

)St.

Geo

rge

(0.6

1)

.00

.30

.60

.90

8893

9803

0813

.00

.30

.60

.90

8893

9803

0813

21

Whiskered auklet (Aethia pygmaea)

Table 12. Hatching chronology of whiskered auklets at Alaskan sites monitored in 2017. Long-termSite Mean Average ReferenceBuldir I. 12 Jun (23)a 22 Jun (26)a Pietrzak et al. 2017

a Sample size in parentheses represents the number of nest sites used to calculate the mean hatch date and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not included in long-term average.

Table 13. Reproductive performance of whiskered auklets at Alaskan sites monitored in 2017. Chicks Fledged/ No. of Long-termSite Nest Sitea Plots Average ReferenceBuldir I. 0.78 NAb (74)c 0.65 (27)c Pietrzak et al. 2017



22

Crested auklet (Aethia cristatella)

Table 14. Hatching chronology of crested auklets at Alaskan sites monitored in 2017. Long-termSite Mean Average ReferenceBuldir I. 23 Jun (39)a 28 Jun (27)a Pietrzak et al. 2017


Table 15. Reproductive performance of crested auklets at Alaskan sites monitored in 2017. Chicks Fledged/ No. of Long-termSite Nest Sitea Plots Average ReferenceBuldir I. 0.67 NAb (103)c 0.65 (28)c Pietrzak et al. 2017



23

Rhinoceros auklet (Cerorhinca monocerata)

Table 16. Reproductive performance of rhinoceros auklets at Alaskan sites monitored in 2017. Chicks No. of Long-termSite Fledged/Egg Plots Average ReferenceChowiet I. 0.59 NAa (46)b 0.62 (5)b Evans et al. 2017Middleton I. 0.52 NA (62) 0.69 (17) ISRC 2017

aNot applicable or not reported.bSample size in parentheses represents the number of burrows used to calculate productivity and the


Figure 13. Trends in populations of rhinoceros auklets at Alaskan sites. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2008-2017, in parentheses).

Year1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Perc

ent o

f M

axim

um (

Den

sity

0.3

1)

0

100

Rhinoceros auklet, Chowiet I.-0.5% p.a. (-0.5% p.a.)

Year1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Perc

ent o

f M

axim

um (

Den

sity

1.0

7)

0

100

Rhinoceros auklet, St. Lazaria I.+4.0% p.a. (+2.4% p.a.)

24

Figure 14. Productivity of rhinoceros auklets (chicks fledged/nest site) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (value in parentheses; current year not included). Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean).

N

0.76

- 1.

00

0.51

- 0.

75

0.26

- 0.

50

0.01

- 0.

25

<0.0

1

2017

RH

AUPr

oduc

tivity

St. L

azar

ia (0

.65)

Cho

wie

t (0.

62)

Mid

dlet

on (0

.69)

.00

.25

.50

.75

1.00

9499

0409

14

.00

.30

.60

.90

9498

0206

1014

.00

.25

.50

.75

1.00

9498

0206

1014

25

Horned puffin (Fratercula corniculata)

Table 17. Hatching chronology of horned puffins at Alaskan sites monitored in 2017. Long-termSite Mean Average ReferenceBuldir I. 27 Jul (38)a 25 Jul (27)a Pietrzak et al. 2017Aiktak I. 26 Jul (3) 31 Jul (12) N. Rojek Unpubl. DataChowiet I. 26 Jul (71) 30 Jul (13) Evans et al. 2017


Table 18. Reproductive performance of horned puffins at Alaskan sites monitored in 2017. Chicks No. of Long-termSite Fledged/Egg Plots Average ReferenceBuldir I. 0.68 NAa (44)b 0.47 (29)b Pietrzak et al. 2017Aiktak I. 0.55 NA (11) 0.58 (15) N. Rojek Unpubl. DataChowiet I. 0.06 NA (118) 0.38 (12) Evans et al. 2017

aNot applicable or not reported.bSample size in parentheses represents the number of eggs used to calculate productivity and the number


26

Figure 15. Hatching chronology of horned puffins at Alaskan sites. Graphs indicate the departure in days (if any) from the site mean (value in parentheses; current year not included). Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >3 days early, black is within 3 days and green is >3 days later than the site mean). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.

Aver

age

=La

te+-E

arly

NN

o H

atch

2017

HO

PU

Hat

chin

gC

hron

olog

y

Bul

dir (

25 J

ul)

Aik

tak

(31

Jul)

Cho

wie

t (30

Jul

)

-=

00

-15-80815

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

0

-15-80815

7580

8590

9500

0510

15-1

5-80815

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

-

27

Figure 16. Productivity of horned puffins (chicks fledged/egg) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (value in parentheses; current year not included). Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean).

N

0.76

- 1.

00

0.51

- 0.

75

0.26

- 0.

50

0.01

- 0.

25

<0.0

1

2017

HO

PU

Pro

duct

ivity

Bul

dir (

0.47

)

Cho

wie

t (0.

38)

Aik

tak

(0.5

8)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

8893

9803

0813

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

8893

9803

0813

0.00.20.40.60.8

8893

9803

0813

28

Tufted puffin (Fratercula cirrhata)

Table 19. Hatching chronology of tufted puffins at Alaskan sites monitored in 2017. Long-term Site Mean Average ReferenceAiktak I. 30 Jul (4)a 31 Jul (20)a N. Rojek Unpubl. DataChowiet I. 27 Jul (31) 24 Jul (12) Evans et al. 2017


Table 20. Reproductive performance of tufted puffins at Alaskan sites monitored in 2017. Chicks No. of Long-term Site Fledgeda/Egg Plots Average ReferenceBuldir I. 0.06 NAb (17)c 0.40 (29)c Pietrzak et al. 2017Aiktak I. 0.13 NA (82) 0.56 (21) N. Rojek Unpubl. DataChowiet I. 0.02 NA (63) 0.40 (11) Evans et al. 2017Middleton I. 0.17 NA (71) 0.41 (12) ISRC 2017

aFledged chick defined as being still alive at last check in August or September.bNot applicable or not reported.cSample size in parentheses represents the number of burrows used to calculate productivity and the


29

Figure 17. Hatching chronology of tufted puffins at Alaskan sites. Graphs indicate the departure in days (if any) from the site mean (value in parentheses; current year not included). Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >3 days early, black is within 3 days and green is >3 days later than the site mean). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.

Aver

age

=La

te+-E

arly

NN

o H

atch

2017

TUP

UH

atch

ing

Chr

onol

ogy

Bul

dir (

13 J

ul)

Aik

tak

(31

Jul)

Cho

wie

t (24

Jul

)

=

00

-15-80815

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

-15-80815

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

0

-15-80815

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

=

30

Figure 18. Productivity of tufted puffins (chicks fledged/egg) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (value in parentheses; current year not included). Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean).

N

0.76

- 1.

00

0.51

- 0.

75

0.26

- 0.

50

0.01

- 0.

25

<0.0

1

2017

TUP

UP

rodu

ctiv

ity

Bul

dir (

0.40

)

Aik

tak

(0.5

6)

Cho

wie

t (0.

40)

Mid

dlet

on (0

.41)

St.

Laza

ria (0

.53)

0.0

0

.25

.50

.75

1.00

8893

9803

0813

0.0

0

.25

.50

.75

1.00

8893

9803

0813

.00

.25

.50

.75

1.00

8893

9803

0813

0.0

0

.25

.50

.75

1.00

8893

9803

0813

.00.25.50.751.00

8893

9803

0813

31

Figure 19. Trends in populations of tufted puffins at Alaskan sites. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2008-2017, in parentheses).

Year1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(19

9 bu

rrow

s)

0

100

Tufted puffin, E. Amatuli I.-4.2% p.a. (-7.1% p.a.)

Year1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

0

100

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(D

ensi

ty 0

.62)

Tufted puffin, Aiktak I.0.0% p.a. (-0.6% p.a.)

32

Black-legged kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla)

Table 21. Hatching chronology of black-legged kittiwakes at Alaskan sites monitored in 2017. Long-term Site Mean Average ReferenceBuldir I. 20 Jul (14)a 7 Jul (29)a Pietrzak et al. 2017Chowiet I. 16 Jul (101) 17 Jul (20) Evans et al. 2017E. Amatuli I. 24 Jul (14) 14 Jul (19) A. Kettle Unpubl. Data


Table 22. Reproductive performance of black-legged kittiwakes at Alaskan sites monitored in 2017. Chicks No. of Long-termSite Fledgeda/Nest Plots Average ReferenceC. Lisburne 0.79b 2 (92)c 0.57 (33)c Dragoo et al. 2017St. Paul I. 0.00 10 (202) 0.27 (37) Mong and Romano 2017St. George I. 0.01 7 (198) 0.20 (41) Pollom et al. 2018C. Peirce 0.00 6 (147) 0.21 (32) K. Hilwig Unpubl. DataRound I. 0.00 2 (29) 0.19 (20) E. Weiss Unpubl. DataBuldir I. 0.01 7 (212) 0.16 (29) Pietrzak et al. 2017Chowiet I. 0.22 11 (328) 0.19 (21) Evans et al. 2017E. Amatuli I. 0.17 4 (96) 0.36 (25) A. Kettle Unpubl. DataPr. Will. Snd. 0.20b NAd (19,350) 0.22 (31) D. Irons Unpubl. DataMiddleton I. 0.22 NA (104) 0.36 (37) ISRC 2017

aTotal chicks fledged/Total nests.bShort visit.cSample size in parentheses represents the number of nests used to calculate productivity and the number

of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.dNot applicable or not reported.

33

Figure 20. Hatching chronology of black-legged kittiwakes at Alaskan sites. Graphs indicate the departure in days (if any) from the site mean (value in parentheses; current year not included). Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >3 days early, black is within 3 days and green is >3 days later than the site mean). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.

Aver

age

=La

te+-E

arly

NN

o H

atch

2017

BLK

IH

atch

ing

Chr

onol

ogy

St.

Pau

l (17

Jul

)

St.

Geo

rge

(16

Jul)

Bul

dir (

7 Ju

l)

Cho

wie

t (17

Jul

)

E. A

mat

uli (

14 J

ul)

+=

N

-20

-1001020

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

0

-20

-1001020

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

00

-20

-1001020

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

-20

-1001020

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

-20

-1001020

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

+

34

Figure 21. Productivity of black-legged kittiwakes (chicks fledged/nest) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (value in parentheses; current year not included). Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.

C. L

isbu

rne

(0.5

7)

St.

Pau

l (0.

27)

St.

Geo

rge

(0.2

0)

C. P

eirc

e (0

.21)

Rou

nd (0

.19)

Bul

dir (

0.16

)

Mid

dlet

on(0

.36)

Cho

wie

t (0.

19)

Pr.

Will

iam

Snd

. (0.

22)

E. A

mat

uli (

0.36

)

N

0.76

- 1.

00

0.51

- 0.

75

0.26

- 0.

50

0.01

- 0.

25

<0.0

1

2017

BLK

IP

rodu

ctiv

ity1.

01 -

1.25

N

00

0.0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

1.8

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

00

00

0.00.30.60.91.21.51.8

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

00.00.30.60.91.21.51.8

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

00

00

0

0.0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

1.8

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

000

0000

00.

00.

30.

60.

91.

21.

51.

8

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

00

00

00

0.00.30.60.91.21.51.8

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

000

00

00

0.0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

1.8

7580

8590

9500

0510

1500

00

000

0 0

0.00.30.60.91.21.51.8

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

00

00.00.30.60.91.21.51.8

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

0.0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

1.8

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

NN

35

Figure 22. Trends in populations of black-legged kittiwakes at Alaskan sites. Error bars (90% confidence intervals) are shown for years with multiple counts. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2008-2017, in parentheses). “NA” indicates that insufficient data were available.

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(17

6 bi

rds)

0

100

Black-legged kittiwake, Cape Lisburne+15.3% p.a. (+14.6% p.a.)

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(37

4 bi

rds)

0

100

Black-legged kittiwake, Hall I.-5.8% p.a. (N/A.)

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(29

39 b

irds

)

0

100

Black-legged kittiwake, St. Paul I.-1.4% p.a. (-3.5% p.a.)

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(18

82 b

irds

)

0

100

Black-legged kittiwake, St. George I.+0.2% p.a. (-2.4% p.a.)

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Perc

ent o

f M

axim

um (

445

bird

s)

0

100

Black-legged kittiwake, Round I.-3.5% p.a. (-7.7% p.a.)

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(19

06 b

irds

)

0

100

Black-legged kittiwake, Cape Peirce-3.5% p.a (-11.8% p.a.)

36

Figure 22 (continued). Trends in populations of black-legged kittiwakes at Alaskan sites. Error bars (90% confidence intervals) are shown for years with multiple counts. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2008-2017, in parentheses). “NA” indicates that insufficient data were available.

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(41

00 n

ests

)

0

100

Black-legged kittiwake, Buldir I.+3.0% p.a. (+7.9% p.a.)

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(48

5 bi

rds)

0

100

Black-legged kittiwake, Chowiet I.-0.6% p.a. (-4.3% p.a.)

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(32

,501

nes

ts)

0

100

Black-legged kittiwake, Pr. William Snd.+0.8% p.a. (-7.8% p.a.)

Year1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(13

26 b

irds

)

0

100

Black-legged kittiwake, Puale Bay-0.7% p.a. (N/A)

37

Red-legged kittiwake (Rissa brevirostris)

Table 23. Reproductive performance of red-legged kittiwakes at Alaskan sites monitored in 2017. Chicks No. of Long-termSite Fledgeda/Nest Plots Average ReferenceSt. Paul I. 0.00 4 (12)b 0.25 (34)b Mong and Romano 2017St. George I. 0.00 8 (153) 0.24 (41) Pollom et al. 2018Buldir I. 0.00 6 (41) 0.19 (29) Pietrzak et al. 2017

aTotal chicks fledged/Total nests.bSample size in parentheses represents the number of nests used to calculate productivity and the number


38

Figure 23. Hatching chronology of red-legged kittiwakes at Alaskan sites. Graphs indicate the departure in days (if any) from the site mean (value in parentheses; current year not included). Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >3 days early, black is within 3 days and green is >3 days later than the site mean). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.

Aver

age

=La

te+-E

arly

NN

o H

atch

2017

R

LKI

Hat

chin

gC

hron

olog

y

St.

Pau

l (18

Jul

)

St.

Geo

rge

(15

Jul)

Bul

dir (

10 J

ul)

N

N

-25

-1301325

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

00

-25

-1301325

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

00

00

0

-25

-1301325

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

N

39

Figure 24. Productivity of red-legged kittiwakes (chicks fledged/nest) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (value in parentheses; current year not included). Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.

N

0.76

- 1.

00

0.51

- 0.

75

0.26

- 0.

50

0.01

- 0.

25

<0.0

1

2017

RLK

IP

rodu

ctiv

ity

St.

Pau

l (0.

25)

St.

Geo

rge

(0.2

4)

Bul

dir (

0.19

)

N

N

00

00

00 0

0.00.25.50.75

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

00

.00.25.50.75

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

000

.00

.25

.50

.75

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

N

40

Figure 25. Trends in populations of red-legged kittiwakes at Alaskan sites. Error bars (90% confidence intervals) are shown for years with multiple counts. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2008-2017, in parentheses).

Year1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(18

0 bi

rds)

0

100

Red-legged kittiwake, St. Paul I.-4.1% p.a. (+2.0% p.a.)

Year1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

0

100

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(10

95 n

ests

)

Red-legged kittiwake, Buldir I.+2.3% p.a. (+12.3% p.a.)

Year1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(44

84 b

irds

)

0

100

Red-legged kittiwake, St. George I.+0.3% p.a. (-4.7% p.a.)

41

Glaucous-winged gull (Larus glaucescens)

Table 24. Hatching chronology of glaucous-winged gulls at Alaskan sites monitored in 2017. Long-termSite Mean Average ReferenceBuldir I. 28 Jun (6)a 24 Jun (16)a Pietrzak et al. 2017Aiktak I. 4 Jul (77) 11 Jul (22) N. Rojek Unpubl. DataChowiet I. 2 Jul (32) 2 Jul (11) Evans et al. 2017


Table 25. Reproductive performance of glaucous-winged gulls at Alaskan sites monitored in 2017. Hatching No. of Long-termSite Successa Plots Average ReferenceBuldir I. 0.38 NAb (45)c 0.48 (19)c Pietrzak et al. 2017Aiktak I. 0.53 4 (278) 0.54 (22) N. Rojek Unpubl. DataChowiet I. 0.81 3 (78) 0.61 (10) Evans et al. 2017

aTotal chicks/Total eggs.bNot applicable or not reported.cSample size in parentheses represents the number of eggs used to calculate hatching success and the


42

Figure 26. Hatching chronology of glaucous-winged gulls at Alaskan sites. Graphs indicate the departure in days (if any) from the site mean (value in parentheses; current year not included). Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >3 days early, black is within 3 days and green is >3 days later than the site mean). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.

Aver

age

=La

te+-E

arly

NN

o H

atch

2017

GW

GU

Hat

chin

gC

hron

olog

y

Aik

tak

(11

Jul)

St.

Laza

ria (5

Jul

)

Cho

wie

t (2

Jul)

Bul

dir (

24 J

un)

-+

=

00

0

-20

-100102030

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

-20

-1001020

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

0

-20

-1001020

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

0

-20

-1001020

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

43

Figure 27. Productivity of glaucous-winged gulls (hatching success) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (value in parentheses; current year not included). Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.

N

0.76

- 1.

00

0.51

- 0.

75

0.26

- 0.

50

0.01

- 0.

25

<0.0

1

2017

GW

GU

Pro

duct

ivity

Bul

dir (

0.48

)

Aik

tak

(0.5

4)C

how

iet (

0.61

)

St.

Laza

ria (0

.53)

.00

.25

.50

.75

1.00

9296

0004

0812

16

.00

.25

.50

.75

1.00

9296

0004

0812

16

.00

.25

.50

.75

1.00

9296

0004

0812

16

.00

.25

.50

.75

1.00

9296

0004

0812

16

44

Figure 28. Trends in populations of glaucous-winged gulls at Alaskan sites. Error bars (90% confidence intervals) are shown for years with multiple counts. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2008-2017, in parentheses).

Year1994 1999 2004 2009 2014

0

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(22

4 ne

sts)

100

Glaucous-winged gull, Chowiet I.-0.4% p.a. (+0.1% p.a.)

Year1994 1999 2004 2009 2014

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(17

6 ne

sts)

0

100

Glaucous-winged gull, St. Lazaria I.+8.4% p.a. (+7.0% p.a.)

Year1994 1999 2004 2009 2014

0

100

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(44

68 b

irds

)Glaucous-winged gull, Aiktak I.

-0.1% p.a. (-8.2% p.a.)

45

Figure 29. Trends in populations of northern fulmars at Alaskan sites. Error bars (90% confidence intervals) are shown for years with multiple counts. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2008-2017, in parentheses). “N/A” indicates that insufficient data were available.

Northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis)

Year1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

Perc

ent o

f M

axim

um (

487

bird

s)

0

100

Northern fulmar, Hall I. +0.2% p.a. (N/A)

Year1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(19

8 bi

rds)

0

100

Northern fulmar, St. Paul I. +1.4% p.a. (+2.9% p.a.)

Year1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

Per

cent

of

max

imum

(62

3 bi

rds)

0

100

Northern fulmar, Chowiet I. -1.0% p.a. (0.0% p.a.)

Year1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(23

50 b

irds

)

0

100

Northern fulmar, St. George I. -1.0% p.a. (+7.9% p.a.)

46

Fork-tailed storm-petrel (Oceanodroma furcata)

Table 26. Hatching chronology of fork-tailed storm-petrels at Alaskan sites monitored in 2017. Long-term Site Mean Average ReferenceBuldir I. 17 Jul (13)a NAb Pietrzak et al. 2017Aiktak I. 11 Jul (44) 15 Jul (20)a N. Rojek Unpubl. Data


bNot applicable or not reported.

Table 27. Reproductive performance of fork-tailed storm-petrels at Alaskan sites monitored in 2017. Chicks No. of Long-termSite Fledgeda/Egg Plots Average ReferenceBuldir I. 0.18 5 (34)b 0.73 (30)b Pietrzak et al. 2017Aiktak I. 0.84 13 (79) 0.80 (17) N. Rojek Unpubl. Data

aFledged chick defined as being alive at last check in August or September.bSample size in parentheses represents the number of eggs used to calculate productivity and the number


47

Figure 30. Hatching chronology of fork-tailed storm-petrels at Alaskan sites. Graphs indicate the departure in days (if any) from the site mean (value in parentheses; current year not included). Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >3 days early, black is within 3 days and green is >3 days later than the site mean). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.

Aik

tak

(15

Jul)

St.

Laza

ria (1

4 Ju

l)

Aver

age

=La

te+-E

arly

NN

o H

atch

2017

FTS

PH

atch

ing

Chr

onol

ogy

0

-20

-1001020

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

-

0

-20

-1001020

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

48

Figure 31. Productivity of fork-tailed storm-petrels (chicks fledged/egg) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (value in parentheses; current year not included). Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.

N

0.76

- 1.

00

0.51

- 0.

75

0.26

- 0.

50

0.01

- 0.

25

<0.0

1

2017

FTS

PP

rodu

ctiv

ity

Bul

dir (

0.73

)

Aik

tak

(0.8

0)

St.

Laza

ria (0

.68)

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

7479

8489

9499

0409

14

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

7479

8489

9499

0409

14

Ula

k (0

.64)

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

7479

8489

9499

0409

14

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

7479

8489

9499

0409

14

49

Figure 32. Trends in populations of storm-petrels at Alaskan sites. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2008-2017, in parentheses).

Year1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(D

ensi

ty 2

.86)

0

100

Storm-petrels, St. Lazaria I. +1.0% p.a. (+2.4% p.a.)

Year1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(61

5 bu

rrow

s)

0

100

Fork-tailed storm-petrel, E. Amatuli I. -0.3% p.a. (-2.6% p.a.)

Year1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(D

ensi

ty 0

.22)

0

100

Storm-petrels, Aiktak I. +2.7% p.a. (+4.0% p.a.)

50

Leach’s storm-petrel (Oceanodroma leucorhoa)

Table 28. Hatching chronology of Leach’s storm-petrels at Alaskan sites monitored in 2017. Long-term Site Mean Average ReferenceBuldir I. 29 Jul (20)a NAb Pietrzak et al. 2017Aiktak I. 30 Jul (49) 30 Jul (20)a N. Rojek Unpubl. Data



Table 29. Reproductive performance of Leach’s storm-petrels at Alaskan sites monitored in 2017. Chicks No. of Long-term Site Fledgeda/Egg Plots Average ReferenceBuldir I. 0.81 5 (32)b 0.75 (30)b Pietrzak et al. 2017Aiktak I. 0.88 12 (117) 0.84 (17) N. Rojek Unpubl. Data

aFledged chick defined as being alive at last check in August or September.bSample size in parentheses represents the number of eggs used to calculate productivity and the number


51

Figure 33. Hatching chronology of Leach’s storm-petrels at Alaskan sites. Graphs indicate the departure in days (if any) from the site mean (value in parentheses; current year not included). Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >3 days early, black is within 3 days and green is >3 days later than the site mean). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.

Aver

age

=La

te+-E

arly

NN

o H

atch

2017

LHS

PH

atch

ing

Chr

onol

ogy

Aik

tak

(30

Jul)

St.

Laza

ria (3

0 Ju

l)

00

-20

-1001020

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

00

-20

-1001020

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

=

52

Figure 34. Productivity of Leach’s storm-petrels (chicks fledged/egg) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (value in parentheses; current year not included). Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.

N

0.76

- 1.

00

0.51

- 0.

75

0.26

- 0.

50

0.01

- 0.

25

<0.0

1

2017

LHSP

Prod

uctiv

ityBu

ldir

(0.7

5)

Aikt

ak (0

.84)

St. L

azar

ia (0

.71)

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

7479

8489

9499

0409

14

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

7479

8489

9499

0409

14

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

7479

8489

9499

0409

14

53

Red-faced cormorant (Phalacrocorax urile)

Table 30. Hatching chronology of red-faced cormorants at Alaskan sites monitored in 2017. Long-term Site Mean Average Reference St. Paul I. 22 Jun (55)a 29 Jun (27)a Mong and Romano 2017


Table 31. Reproductive performance of red-faced cormorants at Alaskan sites monitored in 2017. Chicks No. of Long-termSite Fledged/Nest Plots Average ReferenceSt. Paul I. 1.65 4 (89)a 1.30 (32)a Mong and Romano 2017St. George I. 0.96 3 (45) 1.14 (17) Pollom et al. 2018Aiktak I. 0.00 NAb (174) 0.85 (11) N. Rojek Unpubl. Data

aSample size in parentheses represents the number of nests used to calculate productivity and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.


54

Figure 35. Productivity of red-faced cormorants (chicks fledged/nest) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (value in parentheses; current year not included). Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean). Error bars represent ± 1 standard deviation.

N

1.51

- 2.

00

1.01

- 1.

50

0.51

- 1.

00

0.01

- 0.

50

<0.0

1

2.01

- 2.

50

2.51

- 3.

00

2017

RFC

OP

rodu

ctiv

ity

St.

Pau

l (1.

30)

St.

Geo

rge

(1.1

4)

Aik

tak

(0.8

5)B

uldi

r (1.

19)

Cho

wie

t (0.

17)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

00.

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

00.

00.

51.

01.

52.

02.

53.

03.

5

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

00

00.

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

7580

8590

9500

0510

15

N

55

Figure 36. Trends in populations of cormorants at Alaskan sites. Error bars (90% confidence intervals) are shown for years with multiple counts. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2008-2017, in parentheses). “NA” indicates that insufficient data were available.

Year1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(61

bir

ds)

0

100

Pelagic cormorant, Hall I. -3.6% p.a. (N/A)

Year1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(34

5 bi

rds)

0

100

Red-faced cormorant, St. Paul I. -1.6% p.a. (-16.9% p.a.)

Year1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(14

9 bi

rds)

0

100

Pelagic cormorant, Cape Peirce -1.9% p.a. (-11.5% p.a.)

Year1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014

0

100

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(92

nes

ts)

Pelagic cormorant, Buldir I. +1.9% p.a. (-17.0% p.a.)

Year1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(19

5 bi

rds)

0

100

Red-faced cormorant, St. George I. -1.2% p.a. (+6.4% p.a.)

Year1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(17

9 ne

sts)

0

100

Cormorants, Ulak I. -5.8% p.a. (-2.5% p.a.)

56

Figure 36 (continued). Trends in populations of cormorants at Alaskan sites. Error bars (90% confidence intervals) are shown for years with multiple counts. Percent per annum (p.a.) changes are indicated for all years and for just the last decade (2008-2017, in parentheses).

Year1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(29

7 ne

sts)

0

100

Pelagic cormorant, St. Lazaria I.+5.5% p.a. (+16.7% p.a.)

Year1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014

0

Per

cent

of

Max

imum

(34

5 bi

rds)

50

100

Cormorants, Aiktak I. +1.6% p.a. (-6.8% p.a.)

57

Pelagic cormorant (Phalacrocorax pelagicus)

Table 32. Reproductive performance of pelagic cormorants at Alaskan sites monitored in 2017. Chicks No. of Long-termSite Fledged/Nest Plots Average ReferenceC. Peirce 0.00 1 (6)a 1.16 (29)a K. Hilwig Unpubl. DataRound I. 0.16 3 (31) 1.21 (17) E. Weiss Unpubl. DataAiktak I. 0.00 NAb (51) 1.00 (14) N. Rojek Unpubl. DataMiddleton I. 1.60 NA (69) 0.84 (34) ISRC 2017

aSample size in parentheses represents the number of nests used to calculate productivity and the number of years used to calculate the long-term average. Current year not used in long-term average.


58

Figure 37. Productivity of pelagic cormorants (chicks fledged/nest) at Alaskan sites. Lack of bars indicates that no data were gathered in those years. Blue line is the mean productivity at the site (value in parentheses; current year not included). Color of graph bar and map symbol indicates how current year’s success compared to the site mean (red is >20% below, black is within 20% and green is >20% above site mean).

1.51

- 2.

00

1.01

- 1.

50

0.51

- 1.

00

0.01

- 0.

50

<0.0

1

2.01

- 2.

50

2.51

- 3.

00

N

2017

PE

CO

Pro

duct

ivity

C. P

eirc

e (1

.16)

Rou

nd (1

.21)

Bul

dir (

0.98

)A

ikta

k (1

.00)

St.

Laza

ria (0

.68)

Mid

dlet

on (0

.84)

Cho

wie

t (0.

64)

N

00.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5

7479

8489

9499

0409

14

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5

7479

8489

9499

0409

14

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5

7479

8489

9499

0409

14

000

00.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5

7479

8489

9499

0409

14

00.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5

7479

8489

9499

0409

14

000

00.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5

7479

8489

9499

0409

14

00

00

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5

7479

8489

9499

0409

14

N

59

Tabl

e 33

. Sea

bird

rela

tive

bree

ding

chr

onol

ogya c

ompa

red

to a

vera

ges f

or p

ast y

ears

. Onl

y si

tes f

or w

hich

ther

e w

ere

data

from

201

7 ar

e in

clud

ed.

Reg

ion

Site

CO

MU

bTB

MU

AN

MU

PAA

ULE

AU

WH

AU

CR

AU

HO

PU

TUP

UB

LKI

GW

GU

FTS

PLH

SP

RFC

O

SE

Ber

ing

St.

Pau

l I.

LL

ES

t. G

eorg

e I.

LL

EA

ikta

k I.

EE

AE

EA

SW

Ber

ing

Bul

dir I

.L

EE

EE

AL

L

N G

ulf o

f AK

Cho

wie

t I.

AL

AE

AA

AE

. Am

atul

i I.

La C

odes

:“E

” an

d re

d ce

ll co

lor i

ndic

ate

hatc

hing

chr

onol

ogy

was

> 3

day

s ear

lier t

han

the

aver

age

for s

ites i

n th

is re

gion

.“A

” an

d ye

llow

cel

l col

or in

dica

te h

atch

ing

chro

nolo

gy w

as w

ithin

3 d

ays o

f ave

rage

.“L

” an

d gr

een

cell

colo

r ind

icat

e ha

tchi

ng c

hron

olog

y w

as >

3 d

ays l

ater

than

the

aver

age

for s

ites i

n th

is re

gion

.b C

OM

U=c

omm

on m

urre

, TB

MU

=thi

ck-b

illed

mur

re, A

NM

U=a

ncie

nt m

urre

let,

PAA

U=p

arak

eet a

ukle

t, LE

AU

=lea

st a

ukle

t, W

HA

U=w

hisk

ered

auk

let,

CR

AU

=cre

sted

auk

let,

HO

PU=h

orne

d pu

ffin,

TU

PU=t

ufte

d pu

ffin,

BLK

I=bl

ack-

legg

ed k

ittiw

ake,

GW

GU

=gla

ucou

s-w

inge

d gu

ll, F

TSP=

fork

-taile

d st

orm

-pet

rel,

LHSP

=Lea

ch’s

stor

m-p

etre

l, R

FCO

=red

-fac

ed c

orm

oran

t.

60

Tabl

e 34

. Sea

bird

rela

tive

prod

uctiv

ity le

vels

a com

pare

d to

ave

rage

s for

pas

t yea

rs. O

nly

site

s for

whi

ch th

ere

wer

e da

ta fr

om 2

017

are

incl

uded

.R

egio

nS

iteC

OM

Ub

TBM

UA

NM

UPA

AU

LEA

UW

HA

UC

RA

UR

HA

UH

OP

UTU

PU

BLK

IR

LKI

GW

GU

FTS

PLH

SP

RFC

OP

EC

ON

. Ber

./Chu

kchi

C. L

isbu

rne

H

SE

Ber

ing

St.

Pau

l I.

LL

LL

HS

t. G

eorg

e I.

LL

LL

LA

C. P

eirc

eL

LR

ound

I.L

LL

Aik

tak

I.L

LA

AL

AA

AL

LS

W B

erin

gB

uldi

r I.

LA

AA

AH

LL

LL

LA

N. G

ulf o

f A

lask

a

Cho

wie

t I.

HH

AA

LL

AH

E. A

mat

uli I

.L

Pr.

Will

. Snd

.A

Mid

dlet

on I.

LL

LH

a Cod

es:

“L”

and

red

cell

colo

r ind

icat

e pr

oduc

tivity

was

> 2

0% b

elow

the

aver

age

for t

he re

gion

.“A

” a

nd y

ello

w c

ell c

olor

indi

cate

pro

duct

ivity

was

with

in 2

0% o

f ave

rage

.“H

” an

d gr

een

cell

colo

r ind

icat

e pr

oduc

tivity

was

> 2

0% a

bove

the

aver

age

for t

he re

gion

.b C

OM

U=c

omm

on m

urre

, TB

MU

=thi

ck-b

illed

mur

re, A

NM

U=a

ncie

nt m

urre

let,

PAA

U=p

arak

eet a

ukle

t, LE

AU

=lea

st au

klet

, WH

AU

=whi

sker

ed au

klet

, CR

AU

=cre

sted

aukl

et, R

HA

U=r

hino

cero

s au

klet

, HO

PU=h

orne

d pu

ffin,

TU

PU=t

ufte

d pu

ffin,

BLK

I=bl

ack-

legg

ed k

ittiw

ake,

RLK

I=re

d-le

gged

kitt

iwak

e, G

WG

U=g

lauc

ous-

win

ged

gull,

FTS

P=fo

rk-ta

iled

stor

m-p

etre

l, LH

SP=L

each

’s st

orm

-pe

trel,

RFC

O=r

ed-f

aced

cor

mor

ant,

PEC

O=p

elag

ic c

orm

oran

t.

61

Tabl

e 35

. Sea

bird

pop

ulat

ion

trend

sa for

all

avai

labl

e ye

ars (

“A”

colu

mns

), an

d th

e pa

st d

ecad

e (2

008-

2017

, “D

” co

lum

ns).

CO

MU

bTB

MU

UN

MU

PIG

ULE

AU

RH

AU

TUP

UB

LKI

RLK

IG

WG

UN

OFU

FTS

PS

TPE

RFC

OP

EC

OU

NC

OR

egio

nS

iteA

DA

DA

DA

DA

DA

DA

DA

DA

DA

DA

DA

DA

DA

DA

DA

D

N B

erin

g/C

hukc

hiC

. Lis

burn

eh

hh

hH

all I

.1

N/A

1N

/Ai

N/A

1N

/Ai

N/A

SE

Ber

ing

St.

Pau

l I.

ii

11

1i

i1

11

1i

St.

Geo

rge

I.1

i1

11

i1

11

i1

h1

hC

. Pei

rce

ii

ii

1i

Rou

nd I.

ii

ii

Aik

tak

I.i

i1

11

i1

h1

i

SW

Ber

ing

Bul

dir I

.h

hh

h1

h1

iU

lak

I.1

ii

1

N G

ulf o

f A

lask

a

Cho

wie

t I.

1i

11

1i

11

11

Pua

le B

ay1

i1

N/A

E. A

mat

uli I

.i

i1

1P.

Will

iam

Snd

.i

h1

iS

outh

east

St.

Laza

ria I.

11

11

h1

hh

11

hh

a Cod

es:

i a

nd re

d ce

ll co

lor i

ndic

ate

a ne

gativ

e po

pula

tion

trend

of ≥

3% p

er a

nnum

for t

his s

ite o

r reg

ion.

1 a

nd y

ello

w c

ell c

olor

indi

cate

that

per

ann

um c

hang

e w

as w

ithin

3%

of t

he si

te a

vera

ge.

h a

nd g

reen

cel

l col

or in

dica

te a

pos

itive

pop

ulat

ion

trend

of ≥

3% p

er a

nnum

for t

his s

ite o

r reg

ion.

“N

/A”

indi

cate

s tha

t the

re w

ere

insu

ffici

ent d

ata

to d

eter

min

e a

trend

.b C

OM

U=c

omm

on m

urre

, TB

MU

=thi

ck-b

illed

mur

re, U

NM

U=u

nspe

cifie

d m

urre

, PIG

U=p

igeo

n gu

illem

ot, L

EAU

=lea

st a

ukle

t, R

HA

U=r

hino

cero

s au

klet

, TU

PU=t

ufte

d pu

ffin,

BLK

I=bl

ack-

legg

ed k

ittiw

ake,

RLK

I=re

d-le

gged

kitt

iwak

e, G

WG

U=g

lauc

ous-

win

ged

gull,

NO

FU=n

orth

ern

fulm

ar, F

TSP=

fork

-taile

d st

orm

-pet

rel,

STPE

=uns

peci

fied

stor

m-p

etre

l, R

FCO

=red

-fac

ed c

orm

oran

t, PE

CO

=pel

agic

cor

mor

ant,

UN

CO

=uns

peci

fied

corm

oran

t.

62

Acknowledgments

The data summarized in this report were gathered by many people, most of whom are cited in the references section. We appreciate their efforts. We thank Melissa Cady (Alaska Peninsula/Becharof NWR), Kara Hilwig (Togiak NWR), David Irons (USFWS Migr. Birds, Ret.), Arthur Kettle (Alaska Maritime NWR), Nora Rojek (Alaska Maritime NWR), and Ed Weiss (Alaska Dept. Fish and Game) for the unpublished data they kindly provided. We would like to extend our thanks to the staff of the Alaska Maritime NWR for their assistance during both the data collection and writing phases of this project. All photographs used in this report are Fish and Wildlife Service pictures except those of the fork-tailed storm-petrel, parakeet auklet, least auklet, tufted puffin, and horned puffin which were taken by Ian Jones, and the ancient murrelet taken by Fiona Hunter; all used with permission. Cover art by Susan Steinacher.

References

Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge (AMNWR). 2017. Standardized protocols for annual seabird monitoring camps at Aiktak, Buldir, Chowiet, St. George, St. Lazaria and St. Paul islands, Cape Lisburne, and select intermittent sites in the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge in 2017. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2017/07. Homer, Alaska.

Byrd, G. V. 2007. Seabird monitoring on Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. Pp. 33-39 in Community-based coastal observing in Alaska: Aleutian life forum 2006, R. Brewer, Ed. Alaska Sea Grant College Program Report No. 07-03. University of Alaska Fairbanks.

_____, and D. E. Dragoo. 1997. Breeding success and population trends of selected seabirds in Alaska in 1996. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 97/11. Homer, Alaska.

_____, and D. B. Irons. 1998. Breeding status and population trends of seabirds in Alaska in 1997. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 98/02. Homer, Alaska.

_____. 1999. Breeding status and population trends of seabirds in Alaska in 1998. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 99/02. Homer, Alaska.

Dragoo, D. E., G. V. Byrd, and D. B. Irons. 2000. Breeding status and population trends of seabirds in Alaska in 1999. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2000/02. Homer, Alaska.

_____. 2001. Breeding status, population trends and diets of seabirds in Alaska, 2000. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 01/07. Homer, Alaska.

63









Dragoo, D. E., H. M. Renner, and David B. Irons. 2012. Breeding status, population trends and diets of seabirds in Alaska, 2009. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2012/01. Homer, Alaska.

_____. 2013. Breeding status and population trends of seabirds in Alaska, 2012. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2013/05. Homer, Alaska.



Dragoo, D. E., H. M. Renner, and R. S. A. Kaler. 2016. Breeding status and population trends of seabirds in Alaska, 2015. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2016/03. Homer, Alaska.

_____. 2017. Breeding status and population trends of seabirds in Alaska, 2016. U. S. Fish and

64

Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2017/06. Homer, Alaska.

Dragoo, D. E., G. Thomson, and M. D. Romano. 2017. Biological monitoring at Cape Lisburne, Alaska in 2017. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2017/15. Homer, Alaska.

Evans, S. A., D. J. Schultz, and N. A. Rojek. 2017. Biological monitoring at Chowiet Island, Alaska in 2017. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2017/18. Homer, Alaska.

Hilwig, K., Togiak NWR, USFWS. Unpublished Data, 2017. Dillingham, Alaska.

Irons, D., Migratory Bird Management, USFWS. Unpublished Data, 2017. Anchorage, Alaska.

ISRC. 2017. Middleton Island Seabird Research and Monitoring, 2017 Field Report. Institute for Seabird Research and Conservation Field Report. Anchorage Alaska.

Kettle, A., Alaska Maritime NWR, USFWS. Unpublished Data, 2017. Homer, Alaska.

Mong, R. N., and M. D. Romano. 2017. Biological monitoring at St. Paul Island, Alaska in 2017. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2017/16. Homer, Alaska.

Pietrzak, K. W. , M. L. Mudge, S. L. Walden, and N. A. Rojek. 2017. Biological monitoring at Buldir Island, Alaska in 2017. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2017/17. Homer, Alaska.

Pollom, E. L., J. P. Gorey, and M. D. Romano. 2018. Biological monitoring at St. George Island, Alaska in 2017. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report AMNWR 2018/01. Homer, Alaska.

Rojek, N., Alaska Maritime NWR, USFWS. Unpublished Data, 2017. Homer, Alaska.

Weiss, E., Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Unpublished Data, 2017. Anchorage, Alaska.

breeding status and population trends of seabirds in … · 2019. 5. 23. · ii table b. regional...

Documents