Journal of Ecosystem & Ecography
Open Access

Seabirds; Bio indicators; Predators

Introduction

The management of marine protected areas (MPAs) based on top predator distributions can be highly efficient, resulting in increased biodiversity and ecosystem benefits. MPAs have been recognised as an important tool for the conservation and management of marine biodiversity, including seabirds, in recent decades. BirdLife International, for example, extended its Important Bird Area (IBA) Programme to the marine environment (Bird Life International, 2010) with the goal of designating MPAs areas based on seabird data. [1].

Methods

Index of seabird biodiversity

The Sea around Us project’s (www.seaaroundus.org) extensive historical database of at-sea locations corresponding to 19 different seabird species was used. The database spans 11 years and includes information about the foraging ranges of the seabird species considered during both breeding and non-breeding seasons (1990–2000). According to Coll et al. (2012), quantitative data on the distribution of seabird species was divided into two layers: one describing foraging ranges during the breeding season and another during the nonbreeding season. [2]

Despite the emphasis on the establishment of MPAs, their location and effectiveness have been called into question. Similarly, there are questions about whether MPAs can ensure species’ long-term survival in the face of changing ocean conditions, as well as whether they can help buffer marine communities from the effects of climate change. [3]

One of the main requirements for the designation of MPAs is a solid understanding of species-environment relationships, as well as the identification of priority areas using robust analysis of existing data. Species and biodiversity mapping is critical for both management and conservation strategies because it provides a clear picture of the distribution and extent of wildlife populations, making it easier to manage their environment. [4]

Variables in the Environment

Similarly, marine IBAs are defined by the presence of threatened seabird species on a regular basis, as well as congregations of more than 1% of global populations. Although the designation of marine IBAs is not legally binding, they may be used to designate protected areas under national legislation. Although not all marine IBAs are currently protected, they should be considered in spatial management plans due to their significant contribution to the conservation of seabirds and their habitats. [5]

Seabirds are a diverse group of birds that live in marine ecosystems. This group of species is among the most endangered in the world, owing to their vulnerability to human activities such as climate change, bycatch, invasive species, overfishing, and oil spills. They are top or mesopredators and their populations tend to reflect conditions over large spatial and long-term scales, making them valuable bio indicators of the health of marine ecosystems. [6, 7]

On land, seabirds breed in colonies. Knowing the distribution and size of breeding areas (i.e. colonies) allows us to improve coastal management as well as the seaward extension of breeding colonies. Important breeding areas for seabirds have been identified in recent years through terrestrial Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas.

Seabirds, on the other hand, are mobile; they can travel long distances for feeding or migration, congregating in specific marine areas (hot spots). While key seabird breeding sites are well known and mostly managed under various levels of protection, their habits at sea are frequently poorly understood.

Discussion

MPAs and marine IBAs appear to partially cover some of the presented hot spots, according to our findings. In particular, 47.96% and 83.13% of MPAs and marine IBAs, respectively (considering posterior predictive mean values greater than 0.50); and 22.78% and 10.97% of MPAs and marine IBAs, respectively (considering posterior predictive mean values greater than 0.75), overlap with the hot spots identified in our study. This is true for Spain’s east coast, the Balearic Islands, Sardinia’s north coast, the Tyrrhenian Sea, the Ionian Sea, the Adriatic Sea, and the Aegean Sea. It is worth noting that marine IBAs have a higher percentage of overlap. This could be because I our potential hot spots are primarily coastal areas such as the marine environment. Nonetheless, some of our potential hotspots are outside of current protected areas, which, if properly protected, could help mitigate current and future threats to Mediterranean seabird species [8, 9].

Conclusion

In this study, we use Bayesian Spatial Beta regression models to examine seabird biodiversity in the Mediterranean Sea. We discovered some hotspot areas that could benefit from protection and compared them to the already established MPAs and marine IBAs in the Mediterranean Sea. Overall, marine IBAs appear to be well-positioned for seabird conservation. We discovered that some of our new areas are extensions of existing MPAs and marine IBAs. However, our findings also highlight other areas where there is no figure of protection. This is true for Africa’s north coast (Algeria and Tunisian waters east of the Gulf of Gabés and south of the Levant Sea), as well as Turkey’s south and west coasts (Marmara and Aegean). This is true for Africa’s north coast (Algeria and Tunisian waters, east of the Gulf of Gabés and south of the Levant Sea), Turkey’s south and west coasts (Marmara and Aegean regions, and north of the Levant Sea), Sardinia, north of the Adriatic Sea, and Spain’s west coast (south of Valencia, Alicante and Murcia regions). Our findings are especially pertinent to developing spatially explicit management plans (e.g., Marine Spatial Planning, MPA, etc.) that take seabird species into account. Indeed, they demonstrate that, despite these species’ high mobility, some areas consistently provide favourable habitat and should be prioritised for conservation measures [10].

Acknowledgement

BS received a Margarita Salas fellowship from the Ministry of Universities at the University of Valencia (MS21-013).

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors affirm that they have no known financial or interpersonal conflicts that would have appeared to have an impact on the research presented in this study.

1. Asefa A, Girma M, Tolera S, Yosef M (2019) Local and Landscape-Level Effects of Land Use Change on Bird Diversity in Abiata-Shalla Lakes National Park, Ethiopia. Afr J Ecol 57: 51-58.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

2. Ayenew (2002) Recent Changes in the Level of Lake Abiyata, Central Main Ethiopian Rift. Hydrol Sci J 47: 493-503.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

3. Balliett JF (2011) Wetlands: Environmental Issues, Global Perspectives. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 6: 951-952.

Google Scholar

4. Bekele F, Estifanos S (2018) Challenges to National Park Conservation and Management in Ethiopia.
J Agric Sci 10: 52-62.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

5. Bhatta LD, Sunita CH, Anju P, Himlal B, Partha JD, et al. (2016) Ecosystem Service Changes and Livelihood Impacts in the Maguri-Motapung Wetlands of Assam, India. Land 5: 15.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

6. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Climate Change: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Google Scholar

7. Dechasa F, Feyera S, Dawit D (2019) Determinants of Household Wetland Resources Use and Management Behavior in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Environ Sustain 2: 355-368.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

8. Deka S, Om PT, Ashish P (2019) Perception-Based Assessment of Ecosystem Services of Ghagra Pahar Forest of Assam, Northeast India. Geol Ecol Landsc 3: 197-209.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

9. Elias E, Weldemariam S, Bereket T, Wondwosen G (2019) Impact of Land Use/Cover Changes on Lake Ecosystem of Ethiopia Central Rift Valley. Cogent Food Agric 5.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

10. McKay NP, Overpeck JT, Otto-Bliesner BL (2011) The Role of Ocean Thermal Expansion in Last Interglacial Sea Level Rise. Geophysical Research Letters. American Geophysical Union (AGU) 38:14.

Google Scholar, Crossref