Tourism and little penguins: a comparative study of survival and reproductive parameters
Abstract
Context Tourism operations that provide the opportunity for wildlife viewing can support conservation management through public education, habitat protection, population management, research activities and revenue generation. However, alongside these potential benefits there can be negative effects on the species that include the possibility of reduced breeding success, survival and, subsequently, population growth. Aim We sought to establish whether a tourism operation affected little penguins Eudyptula minor by comparing reproductive and survival parameters of two managed populations in Oamaru, New Zealand. One population was the focus of a tourism operation, whereas the other (located nearby) did not provide any public access. The tourism operation implemented strategies to reduce human disturbance, including the reduction of noise, light and movement from visitors during viewing, and by ensuring that visitors were restricted to designated viewing areas. Methods Nesting boxes were installed at both colonies that facilitated weekly monitoring of the populations. The monitoring program (1993–2017) included weekly checks of every nesting box in the colony for the presence of eggs, chicks and adults. Chicks were weighed before fledging, and both fledglings and breeding adults were individually marked. Key results Lay dates, breeding success, chick fledge mass and survival rates were not measurably different between the two populations, indicating that there was little evidence…
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 lack of detrimental effect at Oamaru was likely the result of the tourism operation implementing strategies to regulate human disturbances such as reduced noise, light and movement from visitors and restricted visitor viewing areas.
“This was likely the result of the tourism operation at the Oamaru Blue Penguin Colony implementing strategies to regulate human disturbances such as reduced noise, light and movement from visitors and restricted visitor viewing areas; effects that are consistent with past research (Dann 1992;Rogers et al. 1995;Shaughnessy and Briggs 2009;Wiebkin 2011;Agnew and Houston 2020).”
From Effects of the presence of zoo visitors on zoo‐housed little penguins ( <i>Eudyptula minor</i> ) (2022) · cites this paper as Agnew and Houston 2020
No detrimental effect of human disturbances was found on the reproductive success of the Oamaru Blue Penguin Colony compared to the Oamaru Creek Penguin Refuge.
“No detrimental effect of human disturbances was found on the reproductive success of the Oamaru Blue Penguin Colony which was exposed to tourists compared to the Oamaru Creek Penguin Refuge that had no public access (Agnew and Houston 2020).”
From Effects of the presence of zoo visitors on zoo‐housed little penguins ( <i>Eudyptula minor</i> ) (2022) · cites this paper as Agnew and Houston 2020
Cites
Effects of human activity on Adelie penguin Pygoscelis adeliae breeding success
Giese, M. (1996) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/0006-3207(95)00060-7 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
McClung, M. R., Seddon, P. J., Massaro, M., & Setiawan, A. N. (2004) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2003.11.012 · Cited by 156 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Effects of the presence of zoo visitors on zoo‐housed little penguins ( <i>Eudyptula minor</i> )
Chiew, S. J., Butler, K. L., Fanson, K. V., Eyre, S., Coleman, G. J., Sherwen, S. L., Melfi, V., & Hemsworth, P. H. (2022) · New Zealand Journal of Zoology · doi:10.1080/03014223.2021.1896560 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
- Authors
- Agnew, P., & Houston, D. M.
- Affiliations
- AOamaru Blue Penguin Colony, 2 Waterfront Road, Oamaru 9400, New Zealand.
- Department of Conservation (NZ)
- Corresponding author
- Agnew, Philippa
- Venue
- Wildlife Research
- Publisher
- CSIRO Publishing
- Published
- 2020-06-03
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 349-358
- ISSN
- 1035-3712 (ISSN-L)
- 1448-5494
- OpenAlex
- W3033479306
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 0.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Wildlife Research (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Avian ecology and behavior
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
- Keywords
- little penguin, Eudyptula minor, wildlife tourism, human disturbance, breeding success, survival rate, laying date, nest boxes, population monitoring, Oamaru, visitor management, environmental degradation
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