Anthropogenic influence on an urban colony of the little penguin Eudyptula minor
Abstract
Native animals exploit resources in cities and inhabit anthropogenic structures worldwide. One example of this is the little penguin, Eudyptula minor, population nesting between boulders on the St Kilda breakwater in Melbourne. This population is attracted by safe hiding places, a lack of predators and the presence of prey. However, living close to urbanisation poses many threats to the colony, including boating, lighting, noise and human visitation. We investigated the effects of human disturbance by comparing the number of penguins and breeding sites in the publicly accessible region with those in the restricted region of the breakwater. Penguins and nest sites were not equally distributed along the breakwater, with the mean number of birds and nest sites present per 20-m section in the restricted region significantly greater (typically double) than the number in the publicly accessible region. Although the penguins show a clear preference to nest in the restricted region of the breakwater, their continued presence in the publicly accessible region when nest sites are not limiting indicates that human disturbance is not incompatible with some nesting activity. In a global context these results illustrate some of the benefits and costs to animals that use anthropogenically altered habitats and urban environments.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Adélie penguins, African penguins, and little penguins have consistently shown at various breeding sites that human disturbances such as human approach and unregulated tourism increase heart rates and avoidance of nesting near visitor footpaths and reduce breeding success.
“For example, Adélie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae) [26,27,28,29,30]; African penguins (Spheniscus demersus) [31,32,33], and little penguins [34,35,36,37] have consistently shown, at various breeding sites, that human disturbances such as human approach and unregulated tourism (i.e., visitor numbers, noise, behaviour and interactions with penguins were uncontrolled) increase heart rates and avoid”
From Effect of Covering a Visitor Viewing Area Window on the Behaviour of Zoo-Housed Little Penguins (Eudyptula minor) (2020) · cites this paper as [35]
When exposed to high levels of human visitation, wild little penguin populations in Australia increasingly avoid nesting areas.
“Furthermore, when exposed to high levels of human visitation, wild little penguin (Eudyptula minor) populations in Australia increasingly avoid nesting areas [9].”
From Effects of Regulating Visitor Viewing Proximity and the Intensity of Visitor Behaviour on Little Penguin (Eudyptula minor) Behaviour and Welfare (2019) · cites this paper as [9]
Little penguins found at different locations may respond to visitors in a similar manner if the nature of visitor contact is the same.
“Also, this research adds to the growing evidence that little penguins, found at different locations, may respond to visitors in a similar manner if the nature of visitor contact is the same (Klomp et al. 1991;Weerheim et al. 2003;Giling et al. 2008;Carroll et al. 2016).”
From Effects of the presence of zoo visitors on zoo‐housed little penguins ( <i>Eudyptula minor</i> ) (2022) · cites this paper as Giling et al. 2008
In the wild, little penguins avoid areas that visitors occupy such as visitor paths and areas of high human traffic.
“It has also been found that in the wild, little penguins avoid areas that visitors occupy such as visitor paths and areas of high human traffic (Weerheim et al. 2003;Giling et al. 2008;Shaughnessy and Briggs 2009).”
From Effects of the presence of zoo visitors on zoo‐housed little penguins ( <i>Eudyptula minor</i> ) (2022) · cites this paper as Giling et al. 2008
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 31 · Cited by 29
- Authors
- Giling, D., Reina, R. D., & Hogg, Z.
- Affiliations
- Monash University (AU)
- BEarthcare St Kilda, PO Box 287, Elwood, Vic. 3184, Australia.
- Corresponding author
- Reina, Richard D.
- Venue
- Marine and Freshwater Research
- Publisher
- CSIRO Publishing
- Published
- 2008-07-24
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 647-651
- ISSN
- 1323-1650 (ISSN-L)
- 1448-6059
- OpenAlex
- W1969498249
- Cited by
- 29
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 0.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Marine and Freshwater Research (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Parks Victoria
- Monash University
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Avian ecology and behavior
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Marine animal studies overview
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
- Keywords
- little penguin, Eudyptula minor, urban wildlife, human disturbance, nesting sites, colony distribution, anthropogenic habitats, artificial lighting, noise interference, human visitation, urbanization
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
