Cited by 45Avian ecology and behaviorAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesWildlife Ecology and Conservation

Lessons from a failed translocation program with a seabird species: Determinants of success and conservation value

Oro, Daniel, Martínez-Abraín, Alejandro, Villuendas, Elena, Sarzo, Blanca, Mínguez, Eduardo, Carda, Josep, Genovart, Meritxell·2011·Biological Conservation

Abstract

Conservation diagnosis of ex situ techniques (e.g. releasing chicks by hacking) cannot be evaluated without quantitative assessment of the fate of individuals, mainly their survival and recruitment. Here we use a long-term monitoring at a large spatial scale of a hacking programme (i.e. chick translocations) for Audouin’s gulls in an uninhabited site so as to establish a new breeding patch and reinforce the metapopulation. The success of the programme relied on the assumption that birds tend to recruit to the site where they fledge (i.e. they were philopatric). Multi-state capture-recapture models applied to a large dataset (more than 43,500 resights at 30 colonies during 1999–2010) were used to evaluate the survival of released chicks and the probability of being philopatric. Adult survival was high, but juvenile survival was lower than that of wild gulls, suggesting that there was a cost associated with hacking only during their first year of life. As expected, most released birds returned to the hacking site, but very few (including immigrants from abroad) attempted to breed here. Dispersal was inversely correlated with distance from the hacking site and positively associated with the population size of the patch (i.e. conspecific attraction). Even though most hacking procedures met the ecological conditions to succeed, results clearly showed that the program failed to establish a new breeding site. The ability of prospecting and the attraction made by conspecifics at…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.11.018

Cites

81 of 81 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Oro, D., Martínez-Abraín, A., Villuendas, E., Sarzo, B., Mínguez, E., Carda, J., & Genovart, M.
Affiliations
  • Generalitat Valenciana (ES)
  • Universitat de Miguel Hernández d'Elx (ES)
  • Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (ES)
Venue
Biological Conservation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-02
Volume
144
Issue
2
Pages
851-858
ISSN
0006-3207 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2037212998
Cited by
44
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Biological Conservation (publishedVersion)
  • DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Generalitat Valenciana
  • Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Avian ecology and behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
Keywords
Audouin's gull, Gelochelidon nilotica, seabird conservation, philopatry, juvenile survival, dispersal, conspecific attraction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review