Widespread use of artificial habitats by shorebirds in Australia

ABSTRACT

Shorebirds in the East Asian-Australasian Flyway have experienced population declines linked to loss of coastal wetlands. Despite this vulnerability to habitat loss, shorebirds regularly use artificial habitats, especially for high-tide roosting. Understanding the distribution of shorebirds in artificial versus natural roosts could inform habitat management strategies aimed at population recovery. We analysed time-series of high-tide shorebird monitoring data from five developed regions of Australia where artificial habitat use has previously been documented and made three key discoveries. First, artificial habitat use was generally high across the regions, with >50% of the average proportion of the regional population of 39 of 75 species-region combinations (52%) using artificial habitats at high tide. Second, in 84% of species-region combinations the average proportion of birds that used artificial habitats from the time of their establishment onward did not show a significant temporal trend. Third, migratory and coastal specialist species showed lower proportional artificial habitat use than non-migratory and generalist/inland specialist species. These findings showing consistent, widespread use of artificial habitats by large shorebird aggregations at high tide suggest that a framework for high-tide habitat management that includes artificial habitats alongside preservation of remaining natural habitats could make a significant contribution to shorebird conservation in Australia.

KEYWORDS:

• Coastal development
• wader
• East-Asian-Australasian flyway
• migration
• non-breeding ecology

Acknowledgements

This analysis has only been made possible by the efforts of hundreds of volunteers throughout Australia who have surveyed shorebirds over many years. Count data used in this publication were supplied by BirdLife Australia’s National Shorebird Monitoring Program (formerly Shorebirds 2020); the Queensland Wader Study Group (a special interest group of the Queensland Ornithological Society Incorporated); and, the Hunter Bird Observer’s Club and we thank the committees, members and counters from these organisations. We also thank Tom Clarke and Ann Lindsey for comments on the manuscript and assistance with count data. Authors AL, STG and MM are supported through the National Environment Science Program’s Threatened Species Recovery Hub.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.