Cited by 25Avian ecology and behaviorAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesMarine animal studies overview

Population size, breeding habitat and nest site distribution of little penguins ( Eudyptula minor ) on Montague Island, New South Wales

Open access
Weerheim, Marieke S., Klomp, Nicholas I., Brunsting, Arend M. H., Komdeur, Jan·2003·Wildlife Research

Abstract

The distribution of little penguin nest sites on Montague Island, New South Wales, was examined in relation to vegetation type, distance to landing sites and local footpaths. Nest site density was negatively correlated with distance to landing sites and positively correlated with distance to footpaths. The latter may be related to disturbance. Comparisons with the transect data of previous years showed a significant shift in nest distribution away from areas dominated by dense kikuyu grass. In October 2000, the little penguin population on Montague Island was estimated at 5000 breeding pairs. However, repeat surveys in November and December showed that single counts underestimate the actual size of the breeding population. This study has demonstrated the value of line transects to examine the relationship between little penguins and their breeding habitat. Transect surveys on Montague Island should continue in future years to monitor the effects of ongoing vegetation changes on nest distribution and population size.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1071/wr02115

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Wild little penguins increase their avoidance of areas with high human traffic and footpaths when nesting.

    “with Klomp and colleagues [37] and Weerheim and colleagues [34] who found wild little penguins increased their avoidance of areas with high human traffic and footpaths when nesting.”

    From Effect of Covering a Visitor Viewing Area Window on the Behaviour of Zoo-Housed Little Penguins (Eudyptula minor) (2020) · cites this paper as [34]

    The Abstract reports that little penguin nest-site density on Montague Island increased with distance from footpaths, consistent with nesting farther from paths. It does not establish that penguins increasingly avoided those areas over time or measure high human traffic; disturbance is offered only as a possible explanation. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • 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 [34]

    The available passages contain bibliographic metadata (title and citation listing), not findings about disturbance. Searches for visitor footpaths, tourism, heart rates, and breeding success returned no substantive passage, so this copy does not establish the attributed effects. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Visual contact may be a key component of little penguin fear of visitors.

    “Although the effects of visual contact were not specifically examined in these studies, it can be surmised that visual contact may be a key component to little penguin fear of visitors.”

    From Effect of Covering a Visitor Viewing Area Window on the Behaviour of Zoo-Housed Little Penguins (Eudyptula minor) (2020) · cites this paper as [34]

    The available indexed passages contain the paper’s title and citation metadata, but no discussion of visual contact, visitors, or fear. Searches for those terms and for tourist disturbance found no relevant passage, so this copy cannot verify the attributed suggestion. (LLM, conf=0.68)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Wild little penguins prefer to nest further away from visitor paths or areas of high human disturbance.

    “Wild little penguins also prefer to nest further away from visitor paths or areas of high human disturbance [39,40].”

    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 [40]

    The available indexed passages identify a study of little-penguin nest-site distribution, but contain no findings about distance from visitor paths or human disturbance. Searches for visitor paths, walking tracks, and disturbance returned only bibliographic material, so the nesting preference cannot be verified from our copy. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • 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 Weerheim et al. 2003

    The available indexed passages identify a study of little penguin population size, breeding habitat, and nest sites on Montague Island, but do not address responses to visitors. Searches for visitor contact, tourism, and disturbance found no passage about comparable responses across locations. (LLM, conf=0.70)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 10 · Cited by 25

Authors
Weerheim, M. S., Klomp, N. I., Brunsting, A. M. H., & Komdeur, J.
Venue
Wildlife Research
Published
2003-06-24
Volume
30
Issue
2
Pages
151-157
ISSN
  • 1035-3712 (ISSN-L)
  • 1448-5494
OpenAlex
W2097276787
Cited by
25
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2
FWCI
0.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Wildlife Research (publishedVersion)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
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 › Marine animal studies overview
Keywords
little penguin, Eudyptula minor, Montague Island, population size estimation, breeding habitat, line transect survey, kikuyu grass, vegetation change, disturbance, footpaths, landing sites, seabird population monitoring

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