Artificial nests enhance the breeding productivity of African Penguins ( Spheniscus demersus ) on Robben Island, South Africa
Abstract
Loss of nesting habitat threatens many cavity nesting birds worldwide and has contributed to the decline of several species of burrow-nesting seabirds. Replacing lost habitat with artificial nesting structures is considered to be a useful conservation intervention. Here we report on an investigation into the effectiveness of such a strategy—providing artificial nests for the endangered African Penguin (Spheniscus demersus) at a colony on Robben Island, South Africa. The re-colonisation of Robben Island by breeding African Penguins in the 1980s was partly attributed to the availability of shaded nesting habitat under introduced vegetation. However, the suitability of this habitat had not been tested empirically. In addition, artificial nests have been present at Robben Island since 2001, but whether they were a viable means of providing improved nesting habitat was not known. The reproductive output of African Penguins was monitored on Robben Island from 2001 to 2010. Breeding success varied between years but, overall, was within the range of figures previously reported for the species. Relative to pairs in nests under vegetation, birds occupying artificial nests and nests in abandoned buildings had increased nesting survival during chick-rearing, with 9 and 13% more chicks fledged per egg hatched over the study period. These artificial structures seem to offer the advantages of shelter from the weather and protection from predators, without the risks of collapse associated wi…
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?
The abandoned chicks were generally underweight for their age.
“The abandoned chicks were generally underweight for their age [15] and many were not yet losing their down, indicating that they were at least 20 days from fledging [18].”
From Hand-Rearing, Release and Survival of African Penguin Chicks Abandoned Before Independence by Moulting Parents (2014) · cites this paper as [15]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 52 · Cited by 48
- Authors
- Sherley, R. B., Barham, B. J., Barham, P. J., Leshoro, T. M., & Underhill, L. G.
- Affiliations
- University of Cape Town (ZA)
- Penguin Datasystems, 2 Cotham Place, Trelawney Road, Bristol, BS6 6QS, UK.
- Robben Island Museum, Robben Island 7400, South Africa.
- Corresponding author
- Sherley, Richard B.
- Venue
- Emu - Austral Ornithology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2012-06
- Volume
- 112
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 97-106
- ISSN
- 0158-4197 (ISSN-L)
- 1448-5540
- OpenAlex
- W2125907524
- Cited by
- 48
- References
- 52
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 5.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Emu - Austral Ornithology (publishedVersion)
- Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Earthwatch Institute
- National Research Foundation
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Avian ecology and behavior
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Marine animal studies overview
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
- Keywords
- African penguin, Spheniscus demersus, artificial nests, nesting habitat, burrow-nesting seabirds, breeding success, chick survival, predator protection, habitat loss, seabird conservation, Robben Island, threatened species
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