Changes in Nesting Populations of Colonial Waterbirds in Coastal North Carolina 1900-1995

In the early 1900s, 13 species of gulls, terns, herons and egrets nested in the coastal zone of North Carolina. Four of these, Least Tern, Gull-billed Tern, Snowy Egret and Great Egret were uncommon or rare. By the time the first coast wide censuses of all species were completed in the 1970s, 23 spe...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Colonial waterbirds 1997-01, Vol.20 (3), p.458-469
Hauptverfasser: Parnell, James F., Golder, W. Walker, Shields, Mark A., Quay, Thomas L., Henson, Thomas M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 469
container_issue 3
container_start_page 458
container_title Colonial waterbirds
container_volume 20
creator Parnell, James F.
Golder, W. Walker
Shields, Mark A.
Quay, Thomas L.
Henson, Thomas M.
description In the early 1900s, 13 species of gulls, terns, herons and egrets nested in the coastal zone of North Carolina. Four of these, Least Tern, Gull-billed Tern, Snowy Egret and Great Egret were uncommon or rare. By the time the first coast wide censuses of all species were completed in the 1970s, 23 species were nesting, and populations of most appeared relatively stable or were increasing. No species is known to have been extirpated from the state. Prior to the initiation of dredging in the coastal sounds, all colonies of gulls and terns were on natural beaches or islands while most heronries were in coastal swamps. By the 1970s, most nesting sites for gulls, terns and waders were in the estuarine zone and nearly 50 percent of all sites were on man-made or man-modified substrate. In the early 1900s, the Audubon Society of North Carolina provided the first protection for these birds, and the first sites were protected by wardens. By 1995, about 65 percent of all sites were protected by private, state or federal agencies. The outlook is guardedly optimistic. Maintenance of sites by the deposition of dredged material may decline as costs of dredging coastal channels and competition for dredged material escalates. Management agencies, however, are showing strong interest in the welfare of these species, and the level of effort directed toward protection and management is increasing.
doi_str_mv 10.2307/1521596
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_16343171</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>1521596</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>1521596</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c283t-b97d44af77a678929acd73d38c25332057fdbb3c3a20b772f22d0beecbef32ff3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10DtPwzAUBWAPIFEK4i94QDAF_EjieEQRL6kqDCDEFF07duvKjYPtDvx7Au3KdKSjT1e6B6ELSm4YJ-KWVoxWsj5CMyJ4U9SENSfoNKUNIWVZET5Dn-0ahpVJ2A14aVJ2wwq_hnHnIbswJBwsboMPgwOPPyCbqFzs_3QbIOWpXYaY17iFGLwbAFNJSEGlrM7QsQWfzPkh5-j94f6tfSoWL4_P7d2i0KzhuVBS9GUJVgioRSOZBN0L3vNGs4pzRiphe6W45sCIEoJZxnqijNHKWM6s5XN0tb87xvC1m17oti5p4z0MJuxSR2teciroBK_3UMeQUjS2G6PbQvzuKOl-5-oOc03yci83KYf4L_sBHqhopg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>16343171</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Changes in Nesting Populations of Colonial Waterbirds in Coastal North Carolina 1900-1995</title><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>Parnell, James F. ; Golder, W. Walker ; Shields, Mark A. ; Quay, Thomas L. ; Henson, Thomas M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Parnell, James F. ; Golder, W. Walker ; Shields, Mark A. ; Quay, Thomas L. ; Henson, Thomas M.</creatorcontrib><description>In the early 1900s, 13 species of gulls, terns, herons and egrets nested in the coastal zone of North Carolina. Four of these, Least Tern, Gull-billed Tern, Snowy Egret and Great Egret were uncommon or rare. By the time the first coast wide censuses of all species were completed in the 1970s, 23 species were nesting, and populations of most appeared relatively stable or were increasing. No species is known to have been extirpated from the state. Prior to the initiation of dredging in the coastal sounds, all colonies of gulls and terns were on natural beaches or islands while most heronries were in coastal swamps. By the 1970s, most nesting sites for gulls, terns and waders were in the estuarine zone and nearly 50 percent of all sites were on man-made or man-modified substrate. In the early 1900s, the Audubon Society of North Carolina provided the first protection for these birds, and the first sites were protected by wardens. By 1995, about 65 percent of all sites were protected by private, state or federal agencies. The outlook is guardedly optimistic. Maintenance of sites by the deposition of dredged material may decline as costs of dredging coastal channels and competition for dredged material escalates. Management agencies, however, are showing strong interest in the welfare of these species, and the level of effort directed toward protection and management is increasing.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0738-6028</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2307/1521596</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>E. O. Painter Printing Co</publisher><subject>Aves ; Beaches ; Bird nesting ; Censuses ; Coasts ; Marine ; Nesting sites ; Nesting tables ; Quays ; Soot ; Swamps ; Waterfowl</subject><ispartof>Colonial waterbirds, 1997-01, Vol.20 (3), p.458-469</ispartof><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c283t-b97d44af77a678929acd73d38c25332057fdbb3c3a20b772f22d0beecbef32ff3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1521596$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/1521596$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,4022,27921,27922,27923,58015,58248</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Parnell, James F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Golder, W. Walker</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shields, Mark A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quay, Thomas L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Henson, Thomas M.</creatorcontrib><title>Changes in Nesting Populations of Colonial Waterbirds in Coastal North Carolina 1900-1995</title><title>Colonial waterbirds</title><description>In the early 1900s, 13 species of gulls, terns, herons and egrets nested in the coastal zone of North Carolina. Four of these, Least Tern, Gull-billed Tern, Snowy Egret and Great Egret were uncommon or rare. By the time the first coast wide censuses of all species were completed in the 1970s, 23 species were nesting, and populations of most appeared relatively stable or were increasing. No species is known to have been extirpated from the state. Prior to the initiation of dredging in the coastal sounds, all colonies of gulls and terns were on natural beaches or islands while most heronries were in coastal swamps. By the 1970s, most nesting sites for gulls, terns and waders were in the estuarine zone and nearly 50 percent of all sites were on man-made or man-modified substrate. In the early 1900s, the Audubon Society of North Carolina provided the first protection for these birds, and the first sites were protected by wardens. By 1995, about 65 percent of all sites were protected by private, state or federal agencies. The outlook is guardedly optimistic. Maintenance of sites by the deposition of dredged material may decline as costs of dredging coastal channels and competition for dredged material escalates. Management agencies, however, are showing strong interest in the welfare of these species, and the level of effort directed toward protection and management is increasing.</description><subject>Aves</subject><subject>Beaches</subject><subject>Bird nesting</subject><subject>Censuses</subject><subject>Coasts</subject><subject>Marine</subject><subject>Nesting sites</subject><subject>Nesting tables</subject><subject>Quays</subject><subject>Soot</subject><subject>Swamps</subject><subject>Waterfowl</subject><issn>0738-6028</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1997</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp10DtPwzAUBWAPIFEK4i94QDAF_EjieEQRL6kqDCDEFF07duvKjYPtDvx7Au3KdKSjT1e6B6ELSm4YJ-KWVoxWsj5CMyJ4U9SENSfoNKUNIWVZET5Dn-0ahpVJ2A14aVJ2wwq_hnHnIbswJBwsboMPgwOPPyCbqFzs_3QbIOWpXYaY17iFGLwbAFNJSEGlrM7QsQWfzPkh5-j94f6tfSoWL4_P7d2i0KzhuVBS9GUJVgioRSOZBN0L3vNGs4pzRiphe6W45sCIEoJZxnqijNHKWM6s5XN0tb87xvC1m17oti5p4z0MJuxSR2teciroBK_3UMeQUjS2G6PbQvzuKOl-5-oOc03yci83KYf4L_sBHqhopg</recordid><startdate>19970101</startdate><enddate>19970101</enddate><creator>Parnell, James F.</creator><creator>Golder, W. Walker</creator><creator>Shields, Mark A.</creator><creator>Quay, Thomas L.</creator><creator>Henson, Thomas M.</creator><general>E. O. Painter Printing Co</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>H97</scope><scope>L.G</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19970101</creationdate><title>Changes in Nesting Populations of Colonial Waterbirds in Coastal North Carolina 1900-1995</title><author>Parnell, James F. ; Golder, W. Walker ; Shields, Mark A. ; Quay, Thomas L. ; Henson, Thomas M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c283t-b97d44af77a678929acd73d38c25332057fdbb3c3a20b772f22d0beecbef32ff3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1997</creationdate><topic>Aves</topic><topic>Beaches</topic><topic>Bird nesting</topic><topic>Censuses</topic><topic>Coasts</topic><topic>Marine</topic><topic>Nesting sites</topic><topic>Nesting tables</topic><topic>Quays</topic><topic>Soot</topic><topic>Swamps</topic><topic>Waterfowl</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Parnell, James F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Golder, W. Walker</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shields, Mark A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quay, Thomas L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Henson, Thomas M.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences &amp; Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 3: Aquatic Pollution &amp; Environmental Quality</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><jtitle>Colonial waterbirds</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Parnell, James F.</au><au>Golder, W. Walker</au><au>Shields, Mark A.</au><au>Quay, Thomas L.</au><au>Henson, Thomas M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Changes in Nesting Populations of Colonial Waterbirds in Coastal North Carolina 1900-1995</atitle><jtitle>Colonial waterbirds</jtitle><date>1997-01-01</date><risdate>1997</risdate><volume>20</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>458</spage><epage>469</epage><pages>458-469</pages><issn>0738-6028</issn><abstract>In the early 1900s, 13 species of gulls, terns, herons and egrets nested in the coastal zone of North Carolina. Four of these, Least Tern, Gull-billed Tern, Snowy Egret and Great Egret were uncommon or rare. By the time the first coast wide censuses of all species were completed in the 1970s, 23 species were nesting, and populations of most appeared relatively stable or were increasing. No species is known to have been extirpated from the state. Prior to the initiation of dredging in the coastal sounds, all colonies of gulls and terns were on natural beaches or islands while most heronries were in coastal swamps. By the 1970s, most nesting sites for gulls, terns and waders were in the estuarine zone and nearly 50 percent of all sites were on man-made or man-modified substrate. In the early 1900s, the Audubon Society of North Carolina provided the first protection for these birds, and the first sites were protected by wardens. By 1995, about 65 percent of all sites were protected by private, state or federal agencies. The outlook is guardedly optimistic. Maintenance of sites by the deposition of dredged material may decline as costs of dredging coastal channels and competition for dredged material escalates. Management agencies, however, are showing strong interest in the welfare of these species, and the level of effort directed toward protection and management is increasing.</abstract><pub>E. O. Painter Printing Co</pub><doi>10.2307/1521596</doi><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0738-6028
ispartof Colonial waterbirds, 1997-01, Vol.20 (3), p.458-469
issn 0738-6028
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_16343171
source JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing
subjects Aves
Beaches
Bird nesting
Censuses
Coasts
Marine
Nesting sites
Nesting tables
Quays
Soot
Swamps
Waterfowl
title Changes in Nesting Populations of Colonial Waterbirds in Coastal North Carolina 1900-1995
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T02%3A15%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Changes%20in%20Nesting%20Populations%20of%20Colonial%20Waterbirds%20in%20Coastal%20North%20Carolina%201900-1995&rft.jtitle=Colonial%20waterbirds&rft.au=Parnell,%20James%20F.&rft.date=1997-01-01&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=458&rft.epage=469&rft.pages=458-469&rft.issn=0738-6028&rft_id=info:doi/10.2307/1521596&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E1521596%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=16343171&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=1521596&rfr_iscdi=true