Search USGS⌕ Search

USGS · 70185227

Conservation of North Pacific shorebirds

Abstract

In his introduction to the 1979 Symposium proceedings entitled “Shorebirds in Marine Environments," Frank Pitelka stressed the need for studies and conservation programs that spanned the western hemisphere (Pitelka 1979). In the 15 years since Pitelka's call to arms, the locations of many important migratory and wintering sites for shorebirds have been identified in the Americas (Senner and Howe 1984, Morrison and Ross 1989, Morrison and Butler 1994) and in the East Asian-Australasian flyway (Lane and Parish 1991, Mundkur 1993, Watkins 1993). However, assessments for Central America, the Russian Far East and most of Oceania remain incomplete or lacking. The recognition that shorebird conservation required the protection of habitats throughout the birds' range (e.g., Morrison 1984, Davidson and Evans 1989 in Ens et al. 1990) prompted the establishment of the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN) in the Americas in 1985 (Joyce 1986). This program complemented the 1971 Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially for Waterbirds (Ramsar Convention, Smart 1987), recognized by more that 50 countries world-wide. Our purpose for writing this paper is to: (1) describe the distribution of North Pacific shorebirds throughout their annual cycle; (2) review the locations of and threats to important sites used by North Pacific shorebirds during the breeding, migration, and wintering periods, and (3) outline a program for international conservation of Pacific shorebirds.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Robert E. Gill, Robert W. Butler, Pavel S. Tomkovich, Taej Mundkur, Colleen M. Handel. 1994. Conservation of North Pacific shorebirds. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70185227

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Coherence between harvest and habitat management -- Joint venture perspectives

Introduction: In recent months, an ad hoc group of waterfowl scientists, representing the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA) Adaptive Harvest Management (ARM) Task Force and the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) Committee, have collaborated as a Joint Task Group (JTG) to assess options for unifying the population goals guiding waterfowl harvest management and habitat management. The JTG has been charged with bringing coherence to the population goals of the two programs. Characterizing the problem as one of coherence indicates value judgments exist regarding its significance or perhaps existence. For purposes of this paper, we characterize the lack of coherence as the absence of consistent population goals in the two related components of waterfowl conservation habitat and harvest management. Our purpose is to support continued dialogue on the respective goals of these programs and the possible implications of discordant goals to habitat joint ventures. Our objectives are two-fold: (1) illustrate how NAWMP habitat management goals and strategies have been interpreted and pursued in both breeding and wintering areas, and (2) provide perspectives on the linkages between regional habitat management programs and harvest management. The Lower Mississippi Valley and the Prairie Pothole joint ventures (LMVJV and PPJV, respectively) will be used as examples.

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Na↗

Avian vacuolar myelinopathy: a newly recognized fatal neurologic disease of eagles, waterfowl, and other birds

Wildlife biologists and health specialists have been frustrated by a long list of negative findings in their AVM investigations, however studies continue to provide pieces of information to aid the determination of the cause and its source. Available data indicated that AVM may have been present since at least 1990, occurs in at least five states, has been documented during October through April at sites of wintering populations of birds where the exposure apparently occurs, and has killed at least 90 bald eagles. Birds with AVM have difficulty or inability to fly, swim, walk, or perch, but there has been resolution of clinical signs in some affected coots. The list of affected species continues to grow, but remains confined to wild avians, including bald eagle, American coot, great horned owl, killdeer, Canada goose, mallard, ring-necked duck and bufflehead. The effects of the AVM agent on mammals, including human beings, are unknown. A neurotoxicant of manmade or natural origin is the suspected cause of AVM because no infectious disease agents, such as viruses, bacteria, parasites and prions, have been found, and the lesion and epizootiology of AVM resemble those of toxicoses. Additionally it is documented, experimentally, that exposure to raptors can occur through ingestion of infected coots. Collaborative studies will continue in the effort to identify the cause of AVM, its geographic distribution, and the range of species susceptibility. Hopefully, this information can be used to identify measures that might be taken to reduce the impact of AVM on the wildlife resource. Multiple agencies, institutions, and individuals must rely on each other's expertise in the multidisciplinary approach to this problem, persevere in their efforts and take advantage of serendipity that presents itself during investigations of this newly recognized cause of wild bird mortality.

Arkansas, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina↗