Replace nesting substrate following severe weather

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

8%
Certainty

10%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Many birds require specific substrates to nest on, and if flooding or heavy rains remove these then they may not nest. Replacing the substrate following removal may therefore help a colony to survive. Most studies describing the reconstruction of nesting habitats or the protection of nests from flooding are described in ‘Provide artificial nesting sites’.

Study locations

Key messages

Two before-and-after studies from Canada found that common tern Sterna hirundo populations increased at one colony where nesting substrates were replaced, but decreased at a second. Several other interventions were used at both sites, making it difficult to evaluate the effects of substrate replacement.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

Two before-and-after studies at two common tern Sterna hirundo colonies between 1977-89 in Ontario, Canada (Morris et al. 1992), found the nesting population increased at one colony but decreased at another following a combination of interventions, including the replacement of nesting substrate following flooding. Other interventions included: erecting signs highlighting the presence of nesting birds, vegetation control, preventing gulls Larus spp. from nesting, destroying gull nests and shooting particular ring-billed gulls L. delawarensis that were heavily predating tern eggs. Gulls were only culled at the site with population increase, whilst the authors attribute declines to continued high levels of disturbance, vegetation growth and mammalian predators.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Morris R.D., Blokpoel H. & Tessier G.D. (1992) Management efforts for the conservation of common tern Sterna hirundo colonies in the Great Lakes: two case histories. Biological Conservation, 60, 7-14.

Please cite as:

Williams, D.R., Child, M.F., Dicks, L.V., Ockendon, N., Pople, R.G., Showler, D.A., Walsh, J.C., zu Ermgassen, E.K.H.J. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Bird Conservation. Pages 137-281 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Bird Conservation

Related Actions

	Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
	Water nesting mounds to increase incubation success in malleefowl Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link
	Replace nesting substrate following severe weather Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link