Predation effect by cats and rodents on the reproductive success of seabirds: a global systematic review and meta-analysis

Efeito da predação por gatos e roedores no sucesso reprodutivo de aves marinhas: uma revisão sistemática global e meta-análise

Abstract

Seabirds belong to one are the most threatened bird groups in the world. One of the main threats and most relevant risk for local extinction of these birds is the predation by introduced mammals (cats, rats, and mice). Due to the severity of the impact of predators on seabirds, investigation of the effect of predation by cats and rodents (mice and rats) on the reproductive success of seabirds is needed to assess whether the success increases when the predator is managed and for how long. Our objective was to evaluate, through a global systematic literature review and a meta-analysis, the effectiveness of predator control on the reproductive success of seabirds, taking into account the type of predator and the control period. After the review, 85 articles published between 1974 and 2022 were selected, resulting in 14 articles (16 datasets) adequate for the meta-analysis. For comparison among studies, we used the effect size of the predator control in the meta-analysis models, accounting for their sample sizes. We detected that when predators are controlled, seabird reproductive success increases significantly (mean effect size = 1.4, range: 1.19–1.64). This control was significant for mice/rats as predators (mean = 1.61, range: 1.31–1.98, n = 14) but not for cats (mean = 0.60, range: 0.12–2.96, n = 2). Moreover, short-term predator control (<4 years; mean = 1.52; range: 1.25–1.84, n = 11) was more effective than long-term control (≥ 4 years; mean = 1.15, range: 0.52–2.54, n = 5). Thus, the need of these long-term studies must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, also considering their increased costs. We also highlight the need for further studies with quantitative data on the percentage of nests with reproductive success, both in the absence and in the presence of the predator control.

Keywords:
population; predator control; nest survival; Felis catus; rats and mice

Resumo:

As Aves marinhas pertencem a um dos grupos de aves mais ameaçados do mundo. Uma das principais ameaças e fonte de risco mais relevante para a extinção local dessas aves é a predação por mamíferos introduzidos (gatos, ratos e camundongos). Devido à gravidade do impacto dos predadores nas aves marinhas, é necessária uma investigação do efeito da predação por gatos e roedores (ratos e camundongos) no sucesso reprodutivo das aves marinhas a fim de avaliar se o sucesso aumenta quando o predador é manejado e por quanto tempo. Nosso objetivo foi avaliar, através de uma revisão sistemática global da literatura e de uma meta-análise, a eficácia do controle de predadores no sucesso reprodutivo das aves marinhas, levando em consideração o tipo de predador e o período de controle. Após a revisão, foram selecionados 85 artigos publicados entre 1974 e 2022, resultando em 14 artigos (16 conjuntos de dados) adequados para a meta-análise. Para comparação entre os estudos, utilizamos o tamanho do efeito do controle do predador nos modelos de meta-análise, considerando também o tamanho da amostra de cada estudo. Detectamos que quando os predadores são controlados, o sucesso reprodutivo das aves marinhas aumenta significativamente (tamanho médio do efeito = 1,4, intervalo: 1,19–1,64). Este controle foi significativo para os camundongos/ratos como predadores (média = 1,61, variação: 1,31–1,98, n = 14), mas não para gatos (média = 0,60, variação: 0,12–2,96, n = 2). Além disso, o controle de predadores a curto prazo (<4 anos; média = 1,52; variação: 1,25–1,84, n = 11) foi eficaz como o controle a longo prazo (≥4 anos; média = 1,15, variação: 0,52–2,54, n = 5). Assim, a necessidade desses estudos de longo prazo deve ser avaliada caso a caso, considerando também o aumento dos custos. Destacamos também a necessidade de mais estudos com dados quantitativos sobre a porcentagem de ninhos com sucesso reprodutivo, tanto na ausência como na presença do controle do predador.

Palavras-chave
população; controle de predador; sobrevivência dos ninhos; Felis catus; ratos e camundongo

Introduction

Seabirds are a highly and globally threatened group (Croxall et al. 2012, BirdLife International 2018) since most species are considerably sensitive to disturbance, due to their longevity, late maturation, low fecundity, wide reproductive range, extensive parental care, and fidelity to mate and nest site (Schreiber and Burger 2002, Le Corre 2008). About a third of seabird species, are threatened, and 70% have been in population decline over the past 60 years (Paleczny et al. 2015). A contributing factor to this scenario is that the majority of the species nest on the ground (Ricklefs 2000) and breed on coastal or oceanic islands (Simberloff 2000) on all continents (Otero et al. 2018). Thus, the colonies of seabirds are usually more susceptible to predation by exotic species than other birds (Spatz et al. 2023). Many studies show that the introduction of exotic predators, especially cats (Felis catus) and small rodents (rats and mice), has been the main cause of seabird population declines on islands (Schulz et al. 2005, Cuthbert et al. 2013, Spatz et al. 2017, Leo et al. 2018). These predators have generalist strategies and especially rats and mice have high adaptability to the environment (Major et al. 2006). Cats, rats and mice have different predation strategies in seabird colonies, cats attack adult birds more often than rodents, while the latter prefer eggs and newborn chicks (Newton and Fugler 1989, Mills et al. 2018). Understanding the effects of these predators on the seabird populations is essential for adopting effective mitigation measures and for achieving the conservation of these species (Le Corre 2008).

Globally, the damage caused by seabird predation is increasing due to the spread of introduced mammals, although several efforts have been made to control and eradicate these predators (Clout 2001, Jones et al. 2008, Brooke et al. 2018). Commonly, cats are introduced to islands to control rats and mice populations (Van Aarde 1977, Ruffino et al. 2008, Dilley et al. 2016). However, the cats end up attacking newborn and adult birds (Newton and Fugler 1989; Keitt and Tershy, 2003, Scoleri et al. 2020), risking the breeding season (Wendeln et al. 2000, Bolton et al. 2013, Dilley et al. 2016). Cat predation can therefore play into population number decline and even local extinction (Quammen 1996, Atkinson 2001, Clout and Russell 2006). In this sense, predator control seems to be the main option to ensure the success of seabird colonies (Bester et al. 2002, Keitt et al. 2011, Jones et al. 2016), being a commonly used method to optimize nesting success, especially for ground-nesting species (Gibbons et al. 2007, Amaral et al. 2010, Jones, 2010). In most studies, however, predators are controlled, but not completely eradicated (Courchamp et al. 2000, Russell et al. 2009, Numfor et al. 2017).

Due to the severity of the impact of predators on seabird colonies (Jones et al. 2016), investigation of the effect of predation by cats, rats and mice on the reproductive success of seabird is needed to assess whether in fact the success increases when the predator is managed and for how long (Jones et al. 2016). The evaluation of the overall effect of predator control on seabird reproduction worldwide is important for indicating the kind of predators that are more harmful to the attacked populations and for helping in the establishment of successful controlling actions. So far, two global reviews evaluated related to the evaluation of cat and rodent predation on seabirds were published, both more than 12 years ago. One of these reviews evaluated the effects of cat predation on vertebrates in general (Medina et al. 2011) and the other the effects of rat predation on seabirds (Jones et al. 2008). In the literature, there are no updated global review studies about the effects of predator control (cats and rodents) on the reproductive success of seabirds.

Here we reviewed the literature on the effect of predation by cats, rats and mice on the reproductive success seabird, in the absence and presence of control of these predators. This kind of information may help in conducting adequate predator control programs during appropriate time periods, considering both the effectiveness of the control for the target predator and the costs of such programs. Our objective was to evaluate, through a meta-analysis, the effectiveness of predator control on the reproductive success of birds, taking into account the type of predator and the control period (number of reproductive seasons in which the predator was controlled). We expected that controlling predators (either cats or rodents) would increase the seabird reproductive success. Furthermore, we expected that reproductive success would increase when the predator was controlled for a longer period of time.

Material and Methods

Our literature review followed the steps recommended by Nakagawa and Poulin (2012) for conducting meta-analysis, outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items to Protocol for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis – PRISMA (Moher et al. 2009), and was performed by one of the authors (CC;). The searches were carried out in the following databases: ISI Web of Knowledge (ISI 2022), SCOPUS Preview (SCOPUS 2022) and Scholar Google (Scholar 2022). We restricted the studies to those whose predators were cats, rats and mice (rodents), and used the following combination of keywords in the English language: Predator OR cat OR rat OR mice AND seabird AND management OR presence OR control AND reproductive success OR nesting success. We conducted the bibliographic survey in March 2022 and considered published articles, books and theses. In addition, websites of seabird conservation organizations were consulted. Furthermore, we checked backward citations.

After the search, we filtered the documents according to five exclusion criteria: (1) duplicate studies; (2) articles focusing on prey other than seabirds; (3) studies whose predators were not cats or rodents; (4) studies that did not analyze or discuss the effects of predator management or control in the seabird population or on reproductive success; and (5) review papers. Initially, these criteria were applied through screening of titles and abstracts of the articles. For the studies that had insufficient information in the title and abstract, we also screened the methods section, also excluding those that meet any of these criteria.

For the remaining studies included in the review, the following descriptive information was extracted: publication year, study area description (island or continental area, country, and continent), predator and seabirds species, predator origin (introduced or native), number of nests monitored, nest position (ground or suspended), colony density (clustered or isolated nests in holes or crevices), conservation status (based on IUCN red list; IUCN 2022), and methods used to measure the effect of the predator on the reproductive success of the seabird.

^1.

Data analysis

For the meta-analysis, we considered studies (sampling units) that contained quantitative data on the reproductive success (percentage of nests with reproductive success in relation to the total number of evaluated nests), both in the absence and in the presence of predator control. For the studies that presented discontinuous sample data and/or more than one species in different habitats, we separated them into distinct records. From each record, we extracted reproductive success data considering the treatments absence and presence of predator control, control time and predator type. When the reproductive success metric was not available in the text, we contacted the authors requesting information on the mean and standard deviation of nest success.

For allowing the comparison among studies with distinct characteristics (e.g., sample sizes and specific characteristics of each study) we calculated the effect size for each study through dividing the reproductive success in the presence of predator control by the reproductive success in the absence of predator control, generating a response rate considered adequate for meta-analyses (Hedges et al. 1999, Prevedello et al. 2013). Thus, values greater than one represented an increase in the reproductive success with predator control and values smaller than one represented a decrease in such success. We also took into account the duration of this control by considering the number of breeding seasons during which the predator was controlled. We counted such time length in years since all seabird species evaluated in the studies have annual reproductive cycles. Then, we categorized the variable ‘predator control time’ into <4 (less than four years) and ≥4 years (greater or equal to four years) since the data dispersion did not show symmetry. We assumed that it was a reasonable division of response time, once the reproduction of seabird species is annual. Predators were categorized into felines (domestic cat – Felis catus Linnaeus, 1758) or rodents (rats and mice of different species).

To assess the combined results of the studies for each of the two categories of predator control time, we obtained a single measure through meta-analysis models. We combined all effect sizes from the studies independent of control predator time within each category (Prevedello et al. 2013). The single measure estimate represents a weighted average of all studies, and the confidence interval calculation for this measure considers intra- and inter-study variability at the same time. The weight of each individual study was defined by the inverse proportion to its variance, a method that gives higher weights to studies with larger samples and lower weights to studies with smaller samples (following Hoeksema et al. 2010). We represented this calculation and the distribution of the measurements in the studies using a specific graph, the “forest plot”, which presents the individual effects of each study with their respective confidence intervals.

The results of the evaluated studies may present differences associated with several factors (methods, populations, or statistics in measuring the effects). To assess the presence of heterogeneity, we applied the I² test (Schwarzer 2007). This test allows assessing whether the differences observed between the studies were greater than expected (P < 0.05) or occurred by chance (P > 0.05). The alternative test hypothesis assumes variability/heterogeneity as significant. Then, we used these results to interpret the differences between the studies and to choose the most appropriate model for combining the effects. In meta-analysis, when the heterogeneity between effects is significant, random effects models should be used as the calculation of intra and inter-study weightings are more robust and account for such differences. On the other hand, when heterogeneity is not significant, fixed effects models are more suitable (Schwarzer 2007). Finally, publication bias was assessed using the Egger’s test (Egger et al. 1997). In the absence of publication bias between studies, the distribution graph assumes a shape similar to that of an inverted funnel around the combined value. Still, when there is a bias associated with the measures, the distribution shifts to one of the directions (positive or negative), showing the bias (Peters et al. 2006). We performed all analyzes in the R environment (R Core Team 2021) with the “Meta” package (Schwarzer 2007).

Results

Searches in the databases using combinations of keywords found 3377 articles and three theses. After applying the five exclusion criteria (Figure S1, Supplementary Material), 85 articles published between 1974 and 2022 were selected (Table S1, Supplementary Material). Although the studies were carried out on all continents, the spatial distribution of the areas covered in the studies analyzed was very varied, with oceanic islands, coastal islands, beaches, atolls and coastal regions. Furthermore, some studies did not present the geographic coordinates of the areas, making it difficult to create a map. These studies were carried out in America, Europe, Africa, Asia, Oceania, and Antarctica, majority of which were conducted on islands (n = 73) and, in some cases, continental areas (n = 12), with more than one species of bird studied in the same location (n = 20). Of the 85 studies used to compose the review, 14 had the adequate data to perform the meta-analysis. The selected studies for review provided information on nine predator species and eighty-three species of seabirds. Moreover, among the 85 studies, 45 studies of them presented information on predation by rats (Rattus exulans Peale, 1848; Rattus rattus Linnaeus, 1758; and Rattus norvegicus Berkenhout, 1796); 14 studies on predation by mice (Mus musculus Linnaeus, 1758; Mus domesticus Schwarz and Schwarz, 1943; Peromyscus maniculatus elusus Wagner, 1845; and Apodemus sylvaticus hirtensis Linnaeus, 1758); 21 studies on predation by cats (Felis catus Linnaeus, 1758); and 5 studies mentioned cats and rats in the same system preying on seabirds simultaneously. In two studies, seabird populations were preyed upon by native rodents (Peromyscus maniculatus elusus Wagner, 1845 and Apodemus sylvaticus hirtensis Linnaeus, 1758).

Regarding the attributes that make birds more susceptible to predation, the majority of species nest on the ground (~80%), nesting in isolated nests, holes or crevices, and few with dense colonies (25%). In the studies used for the meta-analysis (n = 16), all birds nest on the ground and the majority in isolated nests, in crevices (n = 11). In 58% of the studies analyzed, the clutch size was not reported, in 36% it was one egg (n = 31) and in five studies clutch size was two eggs, with an incubation period greater than 40 days in most studies (~85%) and less than 30 days in 13 studies. In the studies used for meta-analysis, the majority (92%), the clutch size was one egg with an incubation period longer than 40 days in 11 studies (~84%) and less than 30 days in two studies. Population size was reported in 56 studies analyzed, but 24 studies reported the number of nests sampled, ranging between 10 and 20% of the total number of nests in the colony. Most of the articles (n = 39) reported a negative effect of predation on seabird population and 33 studies considered the effect of the predator on the reproductive success of the birds. Nevertheless, few of them investigated this effect on bird reproductive success (n = 14, which were used in our meta-analyses), with the assessment of predation intensity being more common (n = 46).

Among the studies used for meta-analysis in 31% (n = 5), birds breed in dense colonies with gregarious nests. Of these, 1 study recorded reproductive success of the seabirds (nest survival > 50%) in the presence of predators. On the other hand, in studies with isolated colonies in holes (n = 11), five studies indicated reproductive success (nest survival > 50%) in the presence of predators and in all these studies the predators were rodents. Furthermore, 45% the studies that lasted < 4 years focused on seabird species with endangered status (n = 5), breeding isolated in holes. For studies lasting ≥ 4 years, 18% of the species are in the endangered category (n = 2); of these, one species breeds isolated in holes, and the remaining three in dense colonies.

^1.

Meta-analysis

Our review indicated that two studies investigated reproductive success in the absence and presence of predator, also evaluating responses before and after predator control (Rayner et al. 2007, Hughes et al. 2008). Because of that, we considered the comparative response in the absence and presence of predator control, since all other studies evaluated these two treatments. In summary, 14 studies presented information on predation by rodents, and two by felines (). Studies included in the meta-analysis (n = 14) occurred between 1975 and 2021 and were conducted on islands or atolls, with five studies in America, one in Africa, one in Asia, four in Europe, and two in Oceania. In 38% of them, research was conducted on small islands or atolls, with a sampling effort lower than 4 years (Taukihepa Island, in New Zealand; Spit Island, in Midway Atoll; Steeple Jason and Grand Jason Islands, in Falklands Islands Archipelago; Port-Cros Island, in France; and Kure Atoll, in Hawaii). These studies provided information on five predator species (cats, mice, and rats) and eleven seabird species. Only four seabird species were investigated in more than one study. Predation of Phaethon rubricauda (Boddaert, 1783) by rodents was investigated in three studies and two studies investigated predation of Calonectris diomedea (Scopoli, 1769), one of them by cats and the other one by rodents. Furthermore, four studies investigated seabird predation by rodents, with two focusing on Pterodroma cookii (Gray, 1843) and two on Puffinus griseus (Gmelin, 1789). Among the recorded seabird species preyed upon, the majority (n = 9) are migratory, whereas two are resident species: Synthliboramphus hypoleucus scrippsi (Green and Arnould, 1939) and Pachyptila macgillivrayi (Mathews, 1912). In addition, most studies (n = 13) dealt with introduced predator species, and one analyzed the predation by a native species (the rodent Peromyscus maniculatus elusus Wagner, 1845). All studies reported the use of traps to control the predator, but none of them informed the number of traps used or even mentioned the size of the predator population. Among the 14 studies, one of them presented discontinuous sample data, with an interval of one year, while another one described the control of two predator species (cats and rats) in different locations. Hence, they were separated into different data sets, totalizing 16 sample units.

The meta-analysis of the 16 datasets indicated a significant overall increase (mean effect size = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.19–1.64, n = 16; Figures 1 and 2), in the reproductive success of seabirds where predator control occurred (Table 1, Figure 2). This increase was dependent, however, of predator species and length of control period (Figure 1). Regarding effect size as a function of predator group, rodent control resulted in a significant increase of 61% in reproductive success (n = 14) compared to uncontrolled conditions (Figure 1, Table 1). On the other hand, controlling the cats did not alter significantly the seabird reproductive success (n = 2; Figure 1; Table 1, Figure 2). When considering the time period of predator control, reproductive success increased 52% in studies with predator control during < 4 years (n = 11; Figure 1, Table 1, Figure 2), but did not change significantly in studies with predator control for ≥ 4 years (n = 5; Figure 1; Table 1; Figure 2). Finally, heterogeneity was significant in all models (Heterogeneity Test, I² = 97–99%, P-values < 0.01; Table 1), indicating variability between results but with absence of significant publication bias (Figure S2, Supplementary Material) as indicated by the Egger’s test (P > 0.45 for all tests) (Table 1; Figure 2).

Figure 1.
Mean effect size of predator control on reproductive success of seabirds in relation to uncontrolled conditions (i.e., presence of predators). We considered the combined effect of 16 studies (General) and also the effects of these studies divided by the type of predator (felines or rodents) and period of predator control (<4 years or ≥ 4 years). For each case, the combined effect and CI 95% (error bars) are shown. The horizontal dashed line indicates no effect of predator control.

Figure 2.
Meta-analysis results (forest plot) considering the effect size and 95% CI combined between the studies according to period of predator control (a; <4 and ≥4 years) and type of predator (b; feline or rodents). The red diamonds show the studies combination; the blue squares show individual studies (the square size is proportional to the study contribution for the meta-analysis estimates); dotted lines indicate the model estimates; and continuous lines indicate no effect (response rate = 1). At the bottom of the graph, there is the summary measure and its confidence interval (red diamond).

Table 1.
Summary of meta-analysis results about effects of predator control on seabird reproductive success, including combined effect between studies, confidence interval of combined effect estimates, heterogeneity test between studies, and publication bias test. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; I², heterogeneity between studies. The measures can only be interpreted with their gross value between 0 and 100% and a CI = 95%.

Variable	Pooled effect	CI 95%	Heterogeneity test	p-value publication bias test
Effect size ratio
General	1.40	1.19–1.64	I2 = 98%; p < 0.01	0.467
Predator: Feline	0.60	0.12–2.96	I2 = 99%; p < 0.01	–
Predator: Rodent	1.61	1.31–1.98	I2 = 98%; p < 0.01	–
Study time <4 years	1.52	1.25–1.84	I2 = 98%; p < 0.01	–
Study time ≥ 4 years	1.15	0.52–2.54	I2 = 97%; p < 0.01	–
Management effect – predator control
General	68%	51–82%	I2 = 99%; p < 0.01	0.801
Predator: Feline	42%	4–92%	I2 = 100%; p < 0.01	–
Predator: Rodent	72%	56–83%	I2 = 99%; p < 0.01	–
Study time <4 years	78%	63–88%	I2 = 99%; p < 0.01	–
Study time ≥ 4 years	35%	17–59%	I2 = 98%; p < 0.01	–
Predator effect
General	45%	30–62%	I2 = 99%; p < 0.01	0.895
Predator: Feline	49%	27–72%	I2 = 99%; p < 0.01	–
Predator: Rodent	45%	27–63%	I2 = 99%; p < 0.01	–
Study time <4 years	52%	32–72%	I2 = 99%; p < 0.01	–
Study time ≥ 4 years	29%	20–39%	I2 = 99%; p < 0.01	–

Discussion

Our findings indicated an overall >50% increase in seabird reproductive success when exotic predators are controlled. In general, studies that assessed bird population size before predator control and after predator introduction showed that these populations declined dramatically with predation (Imber 1975, Scofield and Christie 2002, Uhlmann et al. 2005, Jones et al. 2021). There were a few cases, however, in which some seabird populations still persisted in colonies where cats or rodents were introduced or naturally occur (Dobson 1988, Nogales et al. 2004, Whitworth et al. 2005, Parker et al. 2017, Caravaggi et al. 2018, Thomsen and Green 2019). The indication of possible causes for this persistence in the presence of predators is hampered by the paucity of available data. Most studies on predation of seabird nests by cats and rodents have not provided quantitative data, nor have they considered the effects of predation on reproductive success, presenting predation as the cause of population decline. Still, several studies recommended predator control as an important conservation tool (Schaffiner 1991, Millus et al. 2007, Pascal et al. 2008, Vanderwerf and Young 2014, Murphy et al. 2019, Bicknell et al. 2020) and highlighted the importance of long-term monitoring (Bellingham et al. 2010, Whitworth et al. 2013, Jones et al. 2016, Dilley et al. 2017).

Our results suggested that predation is higher in dense colonies with gregarious nests than in isolated colonies. This is not unexpected, considering that large bird colonies are potentially more easily detected by predators via auditory, olfactory, and visual cues (Rodgers 1987, Varela et al. 2007). However, the behavioral attributes that increase the susceptibility of birds to predation, such as breeding in isolated or dense colonies and building ground or suspended nests are aspects that still seek a consensus in the literature (Atkinson 1985, Becker 1995, Oro 1996, Velando and Freire 2001, Imber et al. 2003, Jones et al. 2008, Ruffino et al. 2009). Regarding the conservation status of birds in the studies analyzed, birds with threatened status responded quickly after predator control, regardless of the of control period. In agreement with this pattern, there is the suggestion that threatened species can respond quickly after the eradication of predators. The recovery of the population and its ecological functions, however, may require much longer periods and additional management efforts (Prior et al. 2018).

While our findings are relevant, they should be interpreted cautiously due to sample size limitations, reflected in some result heterogeneity. This highlights the need for further studies on exotic predator control’s impact on seabird reproduction, though such studies are challenging and unlikely to increase significantly in the near future. Nonetheless, our results remain valid, as the methods applied during our meta-analysis require a minimum of 10 studies (Harbord et al. 2009). Our meta-analysis results indicated that rodents are more detrimental to the reproductive success of seabirds than cats. Our literature review indicated that, although predation by both cats and rodents are considered major threats to the persistence of seabird colonies, there is a more extensive literature on the negative effects of predation by rodents (rats and mice) than by cats (Burger and Gochfeld 1994, Sanders and Maloney 2002, Rayner et al. 2007, Hughes et al. 2008, Le Corre 2008, Medina et al. 2011). In addition, only three studies assessed predation by cats and rodents simultaneously (Jones et al. 2003, Le Corre 2008, Nishijima et al. 2014). Although the observed results on cat predation control are not conclusive because of the low number of studies evaluating the effects of felines on seabird reproduction, cats and rodents differ in several characteristics that may affect their effect on seabirds. For example, the two predators differ in their predation strategies: cats primarily target adult birds, whereas rodents preferentially prey on eggs and newborn chicks. Such characteristics may cause different effects on their prey populations, independent of specific ecological and biological traits of the seabird species (Fleet 1974, Hughes et al. 2008, Russell and Le Corre 2009, Parker et al. 2017). Predator effects on seabirds may differ according to several factors, such as predator population size and hunting strategies, including approaches and prey-capture methods (Valkama et al.1999, Leighton 2002, Le Corre 2008, Barbraud et al. 2021). Still, none of the studies analyzed by us indicated the size of the predator population. However, our review findings indicate that cats and rodents have different strategies, as cats exerted greater predation pressure than rats in dense colonies with gregarious nests. Considering the difference in predation between cats and rodents, Newton and Fugler (1989) mention that cats attack more adult birds, causing population declines, than rodents, which attack eggs and newborns, indicating a strong impact on reproduction, especially in small colonies. Furthermore, the effect of cat predation on adult seabirds (which was not within the scope of our review) is maximized by the fact that seabirds have delayed sexual maturation, meaning the loss of adult individuals can disproportionately affect population stability, as adults are more frequently targeted (Major et al. 2006, Frost and Taylor 2018). Therefore, the effect of predation by cats tends to be more negative on the number of breeding adults than on immediate reproductive success, leading to population decline over time (Newton and Fugler 1989, Hughes et al. 2008). In contrast, rodents are generally more numerous than cats and primarily prey on eggs and chicks, directly impacting seabird reproductive success in the short term (Jones et al. 2016).

We detected that predator control lasting less than 4 years was effective in enhancing seabird reproductive success (Table 1). Longer-term control efforts (≥4 years) also showed a positive but non-significant impact on reproductive success, with an average increase of 12%. However, only 6 long-term control studies were included in our analysis and our results may reflect variability in approaches that grouped studies on both cat and rodent control, despite the distinct demographic impacts of these predators (population numbers vs. reproductive success). It is known that the sustained control of predators generally promotes greater reproductive success (Jones et al. 2016, Brooke et al. 2018) and is crucial for preventing predator reintroduction (Brooke et al. 2018). Unexpectedly, our findings did not fully support our expectation that that extended predator control would yield higher reproductive success, although this prediction aligns with numerous previous studies advocating for prolonged monitoring to ensure effective predator control and enhance seabird reproductive success (Courchamp et al. 2003, Rayner et al. 2007, Le Corre 2008, Lavers et al. 2010, Robertson 2013, Jones et al. 2016). Our results indicated, however, that even short-term predator control can quickly reduce adverse impacts on seabirds. Furthermore, islands where there is lower predator impact on seabirds may exhibit more rapid responses to eradication efforts (Brooke et al. 2018). Therefore, short-term removal of introduced predators on islands brings substantial benefits to seabird colonies (Jones et al. 2016, Holmes et al. 2019), mainly by increasing reproductive success (Lavers et al. 2010; Brooke et al. 2018).

Finally, we conclude that reproductive success is clearly affected by the presence of introduced predators, mainly small rodents. The exclusion of predators increases seabird reproductive success by an average of 40%. Rodent control seems to be more relevant for increasing reproductive success than cat control, but this assumption requires further investigation. Predator control studies conducted on a short-term basis (up to 4 years) are effective for allowing an increase in reproductive success of seabirds. In comparison, the benefits of long-term control should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, considering their higher costs. Finally, we highlight the need for more monitoring studies that gather quantitative data from before, during, and after predator control interventions. Studies focusing specifically on the effects of introduced cats on seabird reproduction are also needed. Such data will provide quantitative metrics to reevaluate the effect sizes revealed by our meta-analyses therefore improving our understanding on the effect of introduced predators on seabird colonies.

Supplementary Material

The following online material is available for this article:

Table S1 – List of selected articles for review and meta-analysis.

Figure S1 – Flowchart of articles research and selection results.

Figure S2 – Publication bias test for effect size ratio in 16 studies.

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Camila Cassano, Dr. Leandro Buggoni and Dr. Dimas Gianuca for the comments on this paper. We also thank our dear Julio Baumgarten, for his immense partnership and contribution to this work, but who, unfortunately, passed away before the article submission process. During the elaboration of this study, EMV received personal research grant (‘productivity’ grant) from the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico – CNPq; number 311857/2022-1).

Data Availability

The dataset analyzed during this study is available at Biota Neotropica Dataverse: https://doi.org/10.48331/scielodata.VFFSOP.

Reference

• AMARAL, J., ALMEIDA, S., SEQUEIRA, M. & NEVES, V. 2010. Black rat (Rattus rattus) eradication by trapping allows recovery of breeding roseate tern (Sterna dougallii) and common tern (S. hirundo) populations on Feno Islet, the Azores, Portugal. Conservation Evidence 7:16–20.
• ATKINSON, I.A.E. 1985. The spread of commensal species of (Rattus rattus) to oceanic islands and their eff on island avifaunas. In P.J. Moors (Ed.), Conservation of island birds: Case studies for the management of threatened island species (3rd ed, pp.35–38). International Council for Birding Conservation.
• ATKINSON, I.A.E. 2001. Introduced mammals and models for restoration. Biological Conservation 99:81–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006- 3207(00)00189-0.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00189-0
• AZUMI, S., WATARI, Y., OKA, N. & MIYASHITA, T. 2021. Seasonal and spatial shifts in feral cat predation on native seabirds vs. non-native rats on Mikura Island, Japan. Mammal Research 66(1):75–82.
• BARBRAUD, C., DELORD, K., LE BOUARD, F., HARIVEL, R., DEMAY, J., CHAIGNE, A. & MICOL, T. 2021. Seabird population changes following mammal eradication at oceanic Saint-Paul Island, Indian Ocean. Journal for Nature Conservation 63:126049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jnc.2021.126049.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2021.126049
• BECKER, P.H. 1995. Effects of coloniality on gull predation on common tern (Sterna hirundo) chicks. Colonial Waterbirds 18(1):11–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/1521394.
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/1521394
• BELLINGHAM, P.J., TOWNS, D.R., CAMERON, E.K., DAVIS, J., WARDLE, D.A., WILMSHURST, J.M. & MULDER, C.P.H. 2010. New Zealand island restoration: seabirds, predators, and the importance of history. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 34:115–136.
• BESTER, M.N., BLOOMER, J.P., VAN AARDE, R.J., ERASMUS, B.H., VAN RENSBURG, P.J.J., SKINNER, J.D., HOWELL, P.G. & NAUDE, T.W. 2002. A review of the successful eradication of feral cats from subAntarctic Marion Island, Southern Indian Ocean. South African Journal of Wildlife Research 32(1):65–73. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC117137
  » https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC117137
• BICKNELL, A. W. J., WALKER, B. W., BLACK, T., NEWTON, J.PEMBERTON, J.M., LUXMOORE, R., INGER, R. & VOTIER, S. 2020. Stable isotopes reveal the importance of seabirds and marine foods in the diet of St Kilda field mice. Scientific Reports 10:6088. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-62672-x.
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-62672-x
• BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL. 2018. State of the world’s birds: taking the pulse of the planet. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK. https://issuu.com/birdlife-international/docs/sowb_2018_english_for_web Accessed October 11, 2022.
  » https://issuu.com/birdlife-international/docs/sowb_2018_english_for_web
• BOEKEN, M. 2016. Breeding success of red-billed tropicbirds Phaethon aethereus on the Caribbean island of Saba. Ardea 104:263–271. https://doi.org/10.5253/arde.v104i3.a8.
  » https://doi.org/10.5253/arde.v104i3.a8.
• BOLTON, M., STANBURY, A., BAYLIS, A.M.M. & CUTHBERT, R. 2013. Impact of introduced house mice (Mus musculus) on burrowing seabirds on Steeple Jason and Grand Jason Islands, Falklands, South Atlantic. Polar Biology 37:1659–1668. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-014-1554-2.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-014-1554-2
• BONNAUD, E., BOURGEOIS, K., VIDAL, E., LEGRAND, J. & LE CORRE, M. 2009. How can the Yelkouan shearwater survive feral cat predation? A meta-population structure as a solution? Population Ecology 51:261–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10144-008-0134-0.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10144-008-0134-0
• BONNAUD, E., ZARZOSO-LACOSTE, D., BOURGEOIS, K., RUFFINO, L., LEGRAND, J. & VIDAL, E. 2010. Top-predator control on islands boosts endemic prey but not mesopredator. Anim Conserv 13:556–567. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2010.00376.x.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2010.00376.x
• BRIED, J. & JOUVENTIN, P. 1999. Influence of breeding success on fidelity in long-lived birds: an experimental study. Journal of Avian Biology 30(4):392–398. https://doi.org/10.2307/3677011.
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/3677011
• BROOKE, M.L., BONNAUD, E., DILLEY, B., FLINT, E.N., HOLMES, N.D., JONES, H.P. & BUXTON, R.T. 2018. Seabird population changes following mammal eradications on islands. Animal Conservation 21:3–12. https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/acv.12344
  » https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/acv.12344
• BRUNTON, D. 1999. “Optimal” colony size for Least Terns: An inter-colony study of opposing selective pressures by predators. The Condor 101(3):607– 615. https://doi.org/10.2307/1370190.
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/1370190
• BURGER, J. & GOCHFELD, M. 1994. Predation and effects of humans on island-nesting seabirds. In D.N. Nettleship, J. Burger & M. Gochfield (Eds.), Seabirds on Islands: Threats, Case Studies and Action Plans (1st ed., pp. 39–67). BirdLife Conservation.
• BUXTON, R.T. 2010. Monitoring and managing recovery of nocturnal burrow- nesting seabird populations on recently predator-eradicated Aleutian Islands (Doctoral dissertation, Memorial University of Newfoundland).
• CAMPOS, J.L. & GRANADEIRO, J.P. 1999. Breeding biology of the White- faced Storm-Petrel on Salvagem Grande Island, North-East Atlantic. Waterbirds 22:199–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-008-9401-4.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-008-9401-4
• CARAVAGGI, A., CUTHBERT, R.J., RYAN, P.G., COOPER, J. & BOND, A.L. 2018. The impacts of introduced House Mice on the breeding success of nesting seabirds on Gough Island. International Journal of Avian Society 168(6):648–661. https://doi.org/10.1111/ibi.12664.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/ibi.12664
• CAUT, S., ANGULO, E. & COURCHAMP, F. 2008. Dietary shift of an invasive predator: rats, seabirds and sea turtles. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45(2):428–437. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01438.x.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01438.x
• CLARKE, A., CROXALL, J.P., PONCET, S., MARTIN, A.R. & BURTON, R. 2012. Important Bird Areas: South Georgia. British Birds 105:118–144.
• CLOUT, M.N. 2001. Where protection is not enough: active conservation in New Zealand. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16(8):415–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02225-X.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02225-X
• CLOUT, M.N. & RUSSELL, J.C. 2006. The eradication of mammals from New Zealand Islands. In F. Koike, M.N. Clout, M. Kawamichi, M. De Poorter & K. Iwatsuki (Eds.), Assessment and control of biological invasion risks (pp. 127–141). IUCN, Gland.
• COOPER, J., MARAIS, A.V.N., BLOOMER, J.P. & BESTER, M.N. 1995. A success story: breeding of burrowing petrels (Procellariidae) before and after the eradication of feral cats Felis catus at subantarctic Marion Island. Mar. Ornithol. 23:33–37.
• COURCHAMP, F., LANGLAIS, M. & SUGIHARA, G. 2000. Rabbits killing birds: modelling the hyperpredation process. Journal of Animal Ecology 69(1):154–164. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2656.2000.00383.x.
  » https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2656.2000.00383.x
• COURCHAMP, F., CHAPUIS, J.L. & PASCAL, M. 2003. Mammal invaders on islands: impact, control and control impact. Biological Reviews 78(3):347–383. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1464793102006061.
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/s1464793102006061
• CROXALL, P., BUTCHART, S.H.M., LASCELLES, B., STATTERSFIELD, A.J., SULLIVAN, B., SYMES, A. & TAYLOR, P. 2012. Seabird conservation status, threats and priority actions: a global assessment. Bird Conservation International 22(1):1–34. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0959270912000020.
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959270912000020
• CUTHBERT, R. 2003. Sign left by introduced and native predators feeding on Hutton’s shearwaters Puffinus huttoni New Zealand Journal of Zoology 30(3):163–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/03014223.2003.9518335.
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/03014223.2003.9518335
• CUTHBERT, R. & HILTON, G. 2004. Introduced house mice Mus musculus: a significant predator of threatened and endemic birds on Gough Island, South Atlantic Ocean? Biological Conservation, 117(5):483–489. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2003.08.007.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2003.08.007
• CUTHBERT, R., SOMMER, E., RYAN, P., COOPER, J. & HILTON, G. 2004. Demography and conservation of the Tristan albatross Diomedea [exulans] dabbenena Biological Conservation, 117(5):471–481. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2003.08.006.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2003.08.006
• CUTHBERT, R.J., LOUW, H., LURLING, J., PARKER, G., REXER-HUBER, K., SOMMER, E., VISSER, P. & RYAN, P.G. 2013. Low burrow occupancy and breeding success of burrowing petrels at Gough Island: a consequence of mouse predation. Bird Conservation International 23(2):113–124. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959270912000494.
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959270912000494
• DILLEY, B.J., SCHOOMBIE, S., SCHOOMBIE, J. & RYAN, P.G. 2016. ‘Scalping’ of albatross fledglings by introduced mice spreads rapidly at Marion Island. Antarctic Science 28(2):73–80. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102015000486.
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102015000486
• DILLEY, B.J., SCHRAMM, M. & RYAN, P.G. 2017. Modest increases in densities of burrow-nesting petrels following the removal of cats (Felis catus) from Marion Island. Polar Biology 40:625–637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-016-1985-z.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-016-1985-z
• DILLEY, B. J., DAVIES, D., REPETTO, J., SWAIN, G. & RYAN, P. G. 2020. Rats and prions at Tristan da Cunha Island. Ostrich, 91(3):240–243. https://doi.org/0.2989/00306525.2020.1771622.
  » https://doi.org/0.2989/00306525.2020.1771622
• DOBSON, A.P. (1988). Restoring island ecosystems: the potential of parasites to control introduced mammals. Conservation Biology 3:31–38.
• EGGER, M., SMITH, G.D., SCHNEIDER, M. & MINDER, C. 1997. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal 315(7109):629–634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629.
  » https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
• FLEET, R.R. 1974. The Red-tailed Tropicbird on Kure Atoll. Ornithological Monographs (16th ed.) The American Ornithologists Union.
• FROST, P.G.H. & TAYLOR, G.A. 2018. The status of the red-billed gull (Larus novaehollandiae scopulinus) in New Zealand, 2014–2016. Notornis 65:1–13.
• FUGLER, S.R., HUNTER, S., NEWTON, I.P. & STEELE, W.K. 1987. Breeding biology of blue petrels Halobaena caerulea at the Prince Edward Islands. Emu 87:103–110. https://doi.org/10.1071/mu9870103.
  » https://doi.org/10.1071/mu9870103
• GIBBONS, D.W., AMAR, A., ANDERSON, G.Q.A., BOLTON, M., BRADBURY, R.B., EATON, M.A., EVANS, A.D., GRANT, M.C., GREGORY, R.D., HILTON, G.M., HIRONS, G.J.M., HUGHES, J., JOHNSTONE, I., NEWBERY, P., PEACH, W.J., RATCLIFFE, N., SMITH, K.W., SUMMERS, R.W., WALTON, P. & WILSON, J.D. 2007. The predation of wild birds in the UK: a review of its conservation impact and management (n.23) . RSPB Research Report, Sandy. https://www.rspb.org.uk/contentassets/74cdb15f90964d7d80b21091db5708a4/gibbons-etal.- 2007-the-predation-of-wild-birds-in-the-uk.pdf Accessed April 20^th, 2022.
  » https://www.rspb.org.uk/contentassets/74cdb15f90964d7d80b21091db5708a4/gibbons-et-al.-2007-the-predation-of-wild-birds-in-the-uk.pdf
• HARBORD, R.M., HARRIS, R.J. & STERNE, J.A.C. 2009: Updated tests for small-study effects in meta–analyses. The Stata Journal 9:197–210. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0900900202.
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0900900202
• HARPER, G.A. 2007. Detecting predation of a burrow-nesting seabirds by two introduced predators, using stable isotopes, dietary analysis and experimental removals. Wildlife Research 34(6):443–453. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR07037.
  » https://doi.org/10.1071/WR07037
• HEDGES, L., GUREVITCH, J. & CURTIS, P. 1999. The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology 80(4):1150–1156. https:// doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[1150:TMAORR]2.0.CO;2.
  » https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080%5b1150:TMAORR%5d2.0.CO;2
• HERVÍAS, S., HENRIQUES, A., OLIVEIRA, N., PIPA, T., COWEN, H., RAMOS, J.A., NOGALES, M., GERALDES, P., SILVA, C., YBAÑEZ, R.R.DE. & OPPEL, S. 2013. Studying the effects of multiple invasive mammals on Cory’s Shearwater nest survival. Biological Invasions 15:143–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-012-0274-1.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-012-0274-1
• HOBSON, K.A., DREVER, M.C. & KAISER, G.W. 1999. Norway rats as predators of burrow-nesting seabirds: insights from stable isotope analyses. The Journal of Wildlife Management:14–25. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/3802483.
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/3802483
• HOEKSEMA, J.D., CHAUDHARY, V.B., GEHRING, C.A., JOHNSON, N.C., KARST, J., KOIDE, R.T., PRINGLE, A., ZABINSKI, C., BEVER, J.D., MOORE, J.C., WILSON, G.W.T., KLIRONOMOS, J.N. & UMBANHOWAR, J. 2010. A meta-analysis of context-dependency in plant response to inoculation with mycorrhizal fungi. Ecology Letters 13:394–407. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01430.x.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01430.x
• HOLMES, N.D., SPATZ, D.R., OPPEL, S., TERSHY, B., CROLL, D.A., KEITT, B., GENOVESI, P., BURFIELD, I.J., WILL, D.J. & BOND, A.L. 2019. Globally important islands where eradicating invasive mammals will benefit highly threatened vertebrates. PLoS One 14:e0212128. https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212128.
  » https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212128
• HUGHES, B.J., MARTIN, G.R. & REYNOLDS, S.J. 2008. Cats and seabirds: effects of feral Domestic Cat (Felis silvestris catus) eradication on the population of Sooty Terns (Onychoprion fuscata) on Ascension Island, South Atlantic. International Journal of Avian Society 150:122–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2008.00838.x.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2008.00838.x
• IMBER, M.J. 1975. Petrels and predators. Bulletin of the International Council for Bird Preservation – IUCN 12:260–263.
• IMBER, M.J. 1978. The effects of rats on breeding success of petrels. The ecology and control of rodents in New Zealand nature reserves Department of Lands and Survey, Wellington. 67–71.
• IMBER, M.J., WEST, J.A. & COOPER, W.J. 2003. Cook’s petrel (Pterodroma cookii): historic distribution, breeding biology and effects of predators. Notornis 50(4):221–223.
• ISI Web Of Knowledge. 2022. [database]. www.isiwebofknowledge.com Accessed March, 2022.
  » www.isiwebofknowledge.com
• IUCN. 2022. Red list of threatened species (v.2019). https://www.iucnredlist.org/ Accessed March 26th, 2022.
  » https://www.iucnredlist.org/
• JONES, C., BETTANY, S., MOLLER, H., FLETCHER, D. & CRUZ, J. 2003. Burrow occupancy and productivity at coastal sooty shearwater (Puffinus griseus) breeding colonies, South Island, New Zealand: can mark–recapture be used to estimate burrowscope accuracy? Wildlife Research 30(4):377– 388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WR01050.
  » https://doi.org/10.1071/WR01050
• JONES, H.P., WILLIAMHENRY III, R., HOWALD, G. R., TERSHY, B. R. & CROLL, D. A. 2005. Predation of artificial Xantus’s murrelet (Synthliboramphus hypoleucus scrippsi) nests before and after black rat (Rattus rattus) eradication. Environmental Conservation, 32(4):320–325. http://dx.doi:10.1017/S0376892906002608.
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892906002608
• JONES, H.P., TERSHY, B.R., ZAVALETA, E.S., CROLL, D.A., KEITT, B.S., FINKELSTEIN, M.E. & HOWALD, G.R. 2008. Severity of the effects of invasive rats on seabirds: A global review. Conservation Biology 22(1):6–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00859.x.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00859.x
• JONES, H.P. 2010. Prognosis for ecosystem recovery following rodent eradication and seabird restoration in an island archipelago. Ecological Applications 20(5):1204–1216. https://doi.org/10.1890/09-1172.1.
  » https://doi.org/10.1890/09-1172.1
• JONES, C., LYVER, P., WHITEHEAD, A., FORRESTER, G., PARKES, J. & SHEEHAN, M. 2015. Grey-faced petrel (Pterodroma gouldi) productivity unaffected by kiore (Pacific rats, Rattus exulans) on a New Zealand offshore island. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 42(3):131–144. https://doi.org/10. 1080/03014223.2015.1048809.
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/03014223.2015.1048809
• JONES, H.P., HOLMES, N.D., BUTCHART, S.H.M., TERSH Y, B.R., KAPPES, P.J., CORKERY, I., AGUIRRE-MUÑOZ, A., ARMSTRONG, D.P., BONNAUD, E., BURBIDGE, A.A., CAMPBELL, K., COURCHAMP, F., COWAN, P., CUTHBERT, R.J., EBBERT, S., GENOVESI, P., HOWALD, G.R., KEITT, B.S., KRESS, S.W., MISKELLY, C.M., OPPEL, S., PONCET, S., RAUZON, M.J., ROCAMORA, G., RUSSELL, J.C., SAMANIEGOHERRERA, A., SEDDON, P.J., SPATZ, D.R., TOWNS, D.R. & CROLL, D.A. 2016. Invasive-mammal eradication on islands results in substantial conservation gains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(15):4033– 4038. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1521179113.
  » https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1521179113
• JONES, C.W., RISI, M.M., OSBORNE, A.M., RYAN, P.G. & OPPEL, S. 2021. Mouse eradication is required to prevent local extinction of an endangered seabirds on an oceanic island. Animal Conservation 24(4):637– 645. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12670.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12670
• KAWAKAMI, K. & HORIKOSHI, K. 2022. Recovery or change? Differences between in seabirds fauna in island ecosystems before alien mammal disturbance and after alien mammal eradication. Restoration Ecology 30(5):e 13579. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/rec.13579.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13579
• KEITT, B.S. & TERSHY, B.R. 2003. Cat eradication significantly decreases shearwater mortality. Animal Conservation 6:307–308. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1367943003003378.
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/S1367943003003378
• KEITT, B., CAMPBELL, K., SAUNDERS, A., CLOUT, M., WANG, Y., HEINZ, R., NEWTON, K. & TERSHY, B. 2011. The Global Islands Invasive Vertebrate Eradication Database: A tool to improve and facilitate restoration of island ecosystems. In C.R. Veitch, M.N. Clout & D.R. Towns (Eds.), Island Invasives: Eradication and Management (pp.74–77). IUCN, Gland. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/SSC-OP042.pdf Accessed September 8th, 2022.
  » https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/SSC-OP042.pdf
• KNOWLTON, J.L., DONLAN, C.J., ROEMER, G.W., SAMANIEGOHERRERA, A., KEITT, B.S., WOOD, B., AGUIRRE-MUÑOZ, A., FAULKNER, K.R. & TERSHY, B. R. 2007. Eradication of non- native mammals and the status of insular mammals on the California Channel Islands, USA, and Pacifi Baja California Peninsula Islands, Mexico. The Southwestern Naturalist 52(4):528–540. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20424868
  » https://www.jstor.org/stable/20424868
• LATORRE, L., LARRINAGA, A.R. & SANTAMARIA, L. 2013. Rats and seabird: effects of egg size on predation risk and the potential of conditioned taste aversion as a mitigation method. PLOS ONE 8(9):e76138. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0076138.
  » https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0076138
• LAVERS, J.L., WILCOX, C. & DONLAN, C.J. 2010. Bird demographic responses to predator removal programs. Biological Invasions 12:3839–3859. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530010-9776-x.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-010-9776-x
• LE CORRE, M. (2008). Conservation Biology: cats, rats and seabirds. Nature 451:134-135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/451134a.
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/451134a
• LE CORRE, M., DANCKWERTS, D.K., RINGLER, D., BASTIEN, M., ORLOWSKI, S., MOREY RUBIO, C., PINAUD, D. & MICOL, T. 2015. Seabird recovery and vegetation dynamics after Norway rat eradication at Tromelin Island, western Indian Ocean. Biological Conservation 185:85–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.12.015.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.12.015
• LEIGHTON, L.R. 2002. Inferring Predation Intensity in The Marine Fossil Record. Paleobiology 28(3):328–342. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3595484
  » https://www.jstor.org/stable/3595484
• LEO, B.T., ANDERSON, J.J., HA, J., PHILLIPS, R.B. & HA, R.R. 2018. Modeling Impacts of Hunting on Control of an Insular Feral Cat Population. Pacific Science 72(1):57–67. https://doi.org/10.2984/72.1.4.
  » https://doi.org/10.2984/72.1.4
• MAJOR, H. L. & JONES, I. L. 2005. Distribution, biology and prey selection of the introduced Norway rat Rattus norvegicus at Kiska Island, Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Pacific Conservation Biology, 11(2):105–113. https://doi.org/10.1071/PC050105.
  » https://doi.org/10.1071/PC050105
• MAJOR, H.L., JONES, I.L., BYRD, V.G. & WILLIAMS, J.C. 2006. Assessing the effects of introduced Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) on survival and productivity of least auklets (Aethia pusilla). The Auk 123(3):681–694. https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/123.3.681.
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/123.3.681
• MARTÍNEZ-GÓMEZ JE, JACOBSEN JK 2004 The conservation status of Townsend’s shearwater Puffinus auricularis auricularis Biol. Conserv. 116:35–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00171-x.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00171-X
• MCCHESNEY, G.J. & TERSHY, B.R. 1998. History and status of introduced mammals and impacts to breeding seabirds on the California Channel and northwestern Baja California Islands. Colonial Waterbirds:335–347.
• MEDINA, F.M., BONNAUD, E., VIDAL, E., TERSHY, B.R., ZAVALETA, E.S., DONLAN, C.J., KEITT, B.S., LE CORRE, M., HORWARTH, S.V. & NOGALES, M. 2011. A global review of the impacts of invasive cats on island endangered vertebrates. Global Change Biology 17:3503–3510. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.13652486.2011.02464.x.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02464.x
• MILLS, J.A., YARRALL, J.W., BRADFORD-GRIEVE, J.M., MORRISSEY, M. & MILLS, D.A. 2018. Major changes in the red-billed gull (Larus novaehollandiae scopulinus) population at Kaikōura Peninsula, New Zealand, causes and consequences: a review. Notornis 65:14–26.
• MILLUS, S.A., STAPP, P. & MARTIN, P. 2007. Experimental control of a native predator may improve breeding success of a threatened seabird in the California Channel Islands. Biological Conservation 138(3–4):484–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.05.017484–492.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.05.017484–492
• MISKELLY, C.M., BISHOP, C.R., GREENE, T.C., RICKETT, J.E.N.N.Y., TAYLOR, G.A., & TENNYSON, A.J. 2020. Breeding petrels of Breaksea and Dusky Sounds, Fiordland; responses to three decades of predator control. Notornis 67:543–557.
• MOHER, D., LIBERATI, A., TETZLAFF, J., ALTMAN, D.G. & THE, P.G. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLOS Medicine 6:e1000097 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
  » https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
• MURPHY, E.C., RUSSELL, J.C., BROOME, K.G., RYAN, G.J. & DOWDING, J.E. 2019. Conserving New Zealand’s native fauna: a review of tools being developed for the Predator Free 2050 programme. Journal of Ornithology 160:883–892. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-019-01643-0.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-019-01643-0
• NAKAGAWA, S. & POULIN, R. 2012. Meta-analytic insights into evolutionary ecology: an introduction and synthesis. Evolutionary Ecology 26:1085– 1099. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/S10682-012-9593-Z.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/S10682-012-9593-Z
• NEWTON, I.P. & FUGLER, S.R. 1989. Notes on the Winter-Breeding Greatwinged Petrel (Pterodroma macroptera) and Grey Petrel (Procellaria cinerea) at Marion Island. Cormorant 17(1–2):27–34.
• NISHIJIMA, S., TAKIMOTO, G. & MIYASHITA, T. 2014. Roles of Alternative Prey for Mesopredators on Trophic Cascades in Intraguild Predation Systems: A Theoretical Perspective. The American Naturalist 183(5):625–637. https://doi.org/10.1086/675691.
  » https://doi.org/10.1086/675691
• NOGALES, M., MARTÍN, A., DELGADO, G. & EMMERSON, K. 1988. Food spectrum of the feral cat (Felis catus) in the juniper woodland on El Hierro (Canary Islands). Bonner Zoologische Beitrage 39(1):6–1. http://hdl.handle.net/10261/22239
  » http://hdl.handle.net/10261/22239
• NOGALES, M., MARTÍN, A., TERSHY, B.R., DONLAN, C.J., VEITCH, D., PUERTA, N., WOOD, B. & ALONSO, J. 2004. A Review of Feral Cat Eradication on Islands. Conservation Biology 18(2):310–319. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00442.x.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00442.x
• NUMFOR, E., HILKER, F.M. & LENHAR, T.S. 2017. Optimal culling and biocontrol in a predator–prey model. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 79:88–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-016-0228-3.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-016-0228-3
• OKA N., SUGINOME H., JIDA N., MARUYAMA N. 2002. Chick growth and fl dging performance of streaked shearwaters Calonectris leucomelas on Mikura Island for two breeding seasons. J Yamashina Inst Ornithol 34:39–59.
• OKA N. 2019 Sharp decrease of the world’s largest breeding population of the streaked shearwaters affected by the feral cats on Mikura Island, Tokyo. J Jpn Wildl Res Soc 44:65–72.
• ORO, D., JOVER, L. & RUIZ, X. 1996. Influence of trawling activity on the breeding ecology of a threatened seabird, Audouin’s gull (Larus audouinii). Marine Ecology Progress Series 139(1–3):19–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/ meps139019.
  » https://doi.org/10.3354/meps139019
• OTERO, X.L., DE LA PEÑA-LASTRA, S., PÉREZ-ALBERTI, A., FERREIRA, T.O. & HUERTA-DIAZ, M.A. 2018. Seabird colonies as important global drivers in the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles. Nature Communications 9(1):246249. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02446-8.
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02446-8
• PALECZNY, M., HAMMILL, E., KARPOUZI, V. & PAULY, D. 2015. Population trend of the world’s monitored seabirds, 1950–2010. PLOS ONE 10:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129342.
  » https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129342
• PARKER, G.C., REXER-HUBER, K. & THOMPSON, D. 2017. Grey petrel population on Campbell Island 14 years after rodent eradication. Antarctic Science 29(3):209–216. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000626.
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000626
• PASCAL, M., LORVELEC, O. & BRETAGNOLLE, V. 2008. Improving the breeding success of a colonial seabird: a cost-benefit comparison of the eradication and control of its rat predator. Endangered Species Research 4:267–276. http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/esr00080.
  » https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00080
• PECK D.R., FAULQUIER L., PINET P., JAQUEMET S., LE CORRE M. 2008. Feral cat diet and impact on sooty terns at Juan de Nova Island, Mozambique Channel. Anim. Conserv. 11:65–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1469-1795.2007.00153.x.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2007.00153.x
• PETERS, J.L., SUTTON, A.J., JONES, D.R., ABRAMS, K.R. & RUSHTON, L. 2006. Comparison of Two Methods to Detect Publication Bias in Meta-analysis. The Journal of Medical Association 295(6):676–680. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.6.676.
  » https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.6.676
• PREVEDELLO, J.A., DICKMAN, C.R., VIEIRA, M.V. & VIEIRA, E.M. 2013. Population responses of small mammals to food supply and predators: a global meta-analysis. Journal of Animal Ecology 82:927–936. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12072.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12072
• PRIDDEL, D., CARLILE, N., FULLAGAR, P., HUTTON, I. & O’NEILL, L. 2006. Decline in the distribution and abundance of flesh-footed shearwaters (Puffinus carneipes) on Lord Howe Island, Australia. Biological Conservation 128(3):412–424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.10.007.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.10.007
• PRIOR, K.M., ADAMS, D.C., KLEPZIG, K.D. & HULCR, J. 2018. When does invasive species removal lead to ecological recovery? Implications for management success. Biological Invasions 20:267–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1542-x.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1542-x
• PULLIN, A.S. & STEWART, G.B. 2006. Guidelines for Systematic Review in Conservation and Environmental Management. Conservation Biology 20(6):1647–1656. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00485.x.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00485.x
• QUAMMEN, D. 1996. The Song of the Dodo Scribner Books.
• QUILLFELDT, P., SCHENK, I., MCGILL, R.A., STRANGE, I.J., MASELLO, J.F., GLADBACH, A., ROESCH, V. & FURNESS, R.W. 2008. Introduced mammals coexist with seabirds at New Island, Falkland Islands: abundance, habitat preferences, and stable isotope analysis of diet. Polar Biology 31:333–349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00300-007- 0363-2.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-007-0363-2
• R Core Team. 2021. R: A language and environment for statistical computing R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/
  » https://www.r-project.org/
• RATCLIFFE, N., HUGHES, J. & ROBERTS, F.A. 1999. The population status of Sooty Terns Sterna fuscata on Ascension Island. Atl. Seabirds 1:159–168.
• RAYNER, M.J., HAUBER, M.E., IMBER, M.J., STAMP, R.K. & CLOUT, M.N. 2007. Spatial heterogeneity of mesopredator release within an oceanic island system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(52):20862–20865. https://doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.0707414105.
  » https://doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.0707414105
• RAINE, A.F., DRISKILL, S., VYNNE, M., HARVEY, D. & PIAS, K. 2020. Managing the effects of introduced predators on Hawaiian endangered seabirds. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 84(3):425–435.
• RICKLEFS, R.E. 2000. Density Dependence, Evolutionary Optimization, and the Diversification of Avian Life Histories. The Condor 12(1):9–22. https:// doi.org/10.1093/condor/102.1.9.
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/condor/102.1.9
• RINGLER, D., RUSSELL, J.C. & LE CORRE, M. 2015. Trophic roles of black rats and seabird impacts on tropical islands: Mesopredator release or hyperpredation? Biological Conservation 185:75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.12.014.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.12.014
• ROBERTSON, H.A., DOWDING, J.E., ELLIOTT, G., HITCHMOUGH, R., MISKELLY, C., O’DONNELL, C.F.J., POWLESLAND, R., SAGAR, P.M., SCOFIELD, R.P. & TAYLOR, G.A. 2013. Conservation status of New Zealand birds, 2012 Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand. https://www.doc.govt.nz/documents/science-and-technical/nztcs4entire.pdf Accessed March 22nd, 2022.
  » https://www.doc.govt.nz/documents/science-and-technical/nztcs4entire.pdf
• RODGERS JR., J.A. 1987. On the antipredator advantages of coloniality: a word of caution. The Wilson Bulletin 99:269–271.
• RODRÍGUEZ, B., RODRÍGUEZ, A., SIVERIO, F., MARTÍNEZ, J.M., SACRAMENTO, E. & ACOSTA, Y. 2022. Introduced predators and nest competitors shape distribution and breeding performance of seabirds: feral pigeons as a new threat. Biological Invasions, 24(6):1561–1573.
• RUFFINO, L., BOURGEOIS, K., VIDAL, E., ICARD, J., TORRE, F. & LEGRAND, J. 2008. Introduced predators and cavity-nesting seabirds: unexpected low level of interaction at breeding sites. Canadian Journal of Zoology 86(9):1068–1073. https://doi.org/10.1139/Z08-070.
  » https://doi.org/10.1139/Z08-070
• RUFFINO, L., BOURGEOIS, K., VIDAL, E., DUHEM, C., PARACUELLOS, M., ESCRIBANO, F., SPOSIMO, P., BACCETTI, N., PASCAL, M. & ORO, D. 2009. Invasive rats and seabirds after 2,000 years of an unwanted coexistence on Mediterranean islands. Biological Invasions 11:1631–1651. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10530-008-9394-z.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-008-9394-z
• RUSSELL, J.C. & LE CORRE, M. 2009. Introduced mammal impacts on seabirds in the Îles Éparses, western Indian Ocean. Marine Ornithology 37:121–128. http://www.marineornithology.org/content/get.cgi?rn=827 Accessed March 17^th, 2022.
  » http://www.marineornithology.org/content/get.cgi?rn=827
• RUSSELL, J.C., LECOMTE, V., DUMONT, Y. & LE CORRE, M. 2009. Intraguild predation and mesopredator release effect on long-lived prey. Ecological Modelling 220(8):1098–1104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolmodel.2009.01.017.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2009.01.017
• SANDERS, M.D. & MALONEY, R.F. 2002. Causes of mortality at nests of ground-nesting birds in the Upper Waitaki Basin, South Island, New Zealand: a 5-year video study. Biological Conservation 106(2):225–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00248-8.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00248-8
• SARMENTO, R., BRITO, D., LADLE, R.J., LEAL, G. DA, R. & EFE, M.A. 2014. Invasive House (Rattus rattus) and Brown Rats (Rattus norvegicus) Threaten the Viability of Red-Billed Tropicbird (Phaethon aethereus) in Abrolhos National Park, Brazil. Tropical Conservation Science 7(4):614– 627. https://doi.org/10.1177/194008291400700403.
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/194008291400700403
• SAUNIER, M., AMY, M., BARBRAUD, C., PINET, P., RINGLER, D., RUSSELL, J. C. & LE CORRE, M. 2022. Seabird predation effects and population viability analysis indicate the urgent need for rat eradication from Europa Island, western Indian Ocean. Avian Conservation and Ecology, 17:art32. https://doi.org/10.5751/ACE-02174-170132.
  » https://doi.org/10.5751/ACE-02174-170132
• SCHAFFINER, C.F. 1991. Nest-site selection and nesting success of white- tailed tropicbirds (Phaethon lepturus) at Cayo Luís Peña, Puerto Rico. The Auk 108(4):911–922. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4088321
  » https://www.jstor.org/stable/4088321
• SCHIAVINI, A., YORIO, P., GANDINI, P., REY, A.R. & BOERSMA, P.D. 2005. Los Pingüinos de Las Costas Argentinas: Estado Poblacional Y Conservación. El Hornero 20(1):5–23.
• SCHOLAR GOOGLE. 2022. [database]. https://scholar.google.com.br/ Accessed March, 2022.
  » https://scholar.google.com.br/
• SCHREIBER, E.A. & BURGER, J. 2002. Biology of Marine Birds (1st ed). CRC Press.
• SCHULZ, M., ROBINSON, S. & GALES, R. 2005. Breeding of the grey petrel (Procellaria cinerea) on Macquarie Island: population size and nesting habitat. Emu 105(4):323–329. https://doi.org/10.1071/MU04058.
  » https://doi.org/10.1071/MU04058
• SCHWARZER, G. 2007. Meta: An R Package for Meta-Analysis. R News 7:40–45. https://cran.rproject.org/doc/Rnews/Rnews_2007-3.pdf
  » https://cran.rproject.org/doc/Rnews/Rnews_2007-3.pdf
• SCOFIELD, R.P. & CHRISTIE, D. 2002. Beach patrol records indicate a substantial decline in sooty shearwater (Puffinus griseus) numbers. Notornis 49(3):158–165.
• SCOLERI, V.P., JOHNSON, C.N., VERTIGAN, P. & JONES, M.E. 2020. Conservation trade-offs: Island introduction of a threatened predator suppresses invasive mesopredators but eliminates a seabird colony. Biological Conservation 248:108635. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. biocon.2020.108635.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108635
• SCOPUS PREVIEW. 2022. [database]. www.scopus.com Accessed March, 2022.
  » www.scopus.com
• SETO, N.W.H. & CONANT, S. 1996. The Eff s of Rat (Rattus rattus) Predation on the Reproductive Success of The Bonin Petrel (Pterodroma hypoleuca) on Midway Atoll. Colonial Waterbirds 19(2):171–185. https:// doi.org/10.2307/1521854.
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/1521854
• SHIOZAKI, T., SHIRAI, M., OSUGI, M., YAMAMOTO, M., YODA, K. 2014. Predation by feral cat on streaked shearwater chicks on Awashima. Jpn J Ornithol 63:75–78.
• SIMBERLOFF, D. 2000. Global climate change and introduced species in United States forests. Science of Total Environment 262(3):253–261. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0048-9697(00)00527-1.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-9697(00)00527-1
• SPATZ, D.R., HOLMES, N.D., REGUERO, B.G., BUTCHART, S.H.M., TERSHY, B.R. & CROLL, D.A. 2017. Managing invasive mammals to conserve globally threatened seabirds in a changing climate. Conservation Letters 10(6):736–747. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/conl.12373.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12373
• SPATZ, D.R., JONES, H.P., BONNAUD, E., KAPPES, P., HOLMES, N.D., & GUZMÁN, Y.B. 2023. Invasive species threats to seabirds. In L. Young & E. VanderWer (Eds.), Conservation of marine birds (pp. 97–130). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-88539-3.00017-0.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-88539-3.00017-0
• THIBAULT, J. 1995. Effect of predation by the black rat (Rattus rattus) on the breeding success of Cory’s shearwater (Calonectris diomedea) in Corsica. Marine Ornithology 23:1–10. http://www.marineornithology.org/content/get.cgi?rn=316 Accessed March 26th, 2022.
  » http://www.marineornithology.org/content/get.cgi?rn=316
• THOMSEN, S.K. & GREEN, D.J. 2019. Predator-mediated effects of severe drought associated with poor reproductive success of a seabird in a cross- ecosystem cascade. Global Change Biology 25(5):1642–1652. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14595.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14595
• UHLMANN, S., FLETCHER, D. & MOLLER, H. 2005. Estimating incidental takes of shearwaters in driftnet fisheries: lessons for the conservation of seabirds. Biological Conservation 123(2):151–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biocon.2004.11.003.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2004.11.003
• VALKAMA, J., CURRIE, D. & KORPIMAKI, E. 1999. Differences in the intensity of nest predation in the curlew (Numenius arquata): A consequence of land use and predator densities? Ecoscience 6(4):497–504. https://doi.or g/10.1080/11956860.1999.11682552.
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/11956860.1999.11682552
• VAN RENSBURG, P. J. J. 1985. The feeding ecology of a decreasing feral house cat, Felis catus, population at Marion Island. In Antarctic nutrient cycles and food webs Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 620–624.
• VAN RENSBURG, P.J.J. & BESTER, M.N. 1988a. The effect of cat Felis catus predation on three breeding Procellariidae species on Marion Island. S. Afr. J. Zool. 23:301–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/02541858.1988.11 44811.
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/02541858.1988.1144811
• VAN AARDE, R.J. 1977. Voeding, habitats voorkeur en voortplanting vandie wildehuiskat (Felis catus Linnaeus, 1758) op Marioneiland [Master thesis, University of Pretoria].
• VANDERWERF, E.A. & YOUNG, L.C. 2014. Breeding biology of Red-Tailed Tropicbirds Phaethon rubricauda and response to predator control on O’ahu, Hawai’i. Marine Ornithology 42:73–76. http://www.marineornithology.org/content/get.cgi?rn=1065 Accessed March 17th, 2022.
  » http://www.marineornithology.org/content/get.cgi?rn=1065
• VARELA, S.A.M., DANCHIN, E. & WAGNER, R.H. 2007. Does predation select for or against avian coloniality? A comparative analysis. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 20:1490–1503. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420- 9101.2007.01334.x.
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2007.01334.x
• VELANDO, A. & FREIRE, J. 2001. How general is the central-periphery distribution among seabird colonies? Nest spatial pattern in the European Shag. The Condor 103(3):544–554. https://doi.org/10.1093/ condor/103.3.544.
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/condor/103.3.544
• WANLESS, R.M., RYAN, P.G., ALTWEGG, R., ANGEL, A., COOPER, J., CUTHBERT, R. & HILTON, G.M. 2009. From both sides: dire demographic consequences of carnivorous mice and longlining for the critically endangered Tristan albatrosses on Gough Island. Biological Conservation 142(8):1710– 1718. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.03.008.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.03.008
• WENDELN, H., BECKER, P. & GONZÁLEZ-SOLÍS, J. 2000. Parental care of replacement clutches in common terns (Sterna hirundo). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 47:382–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002650050681.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s002650050681
• WHITWORTH, D.L., CARTER, H.R.,YOUNG, R.J., KOEPKE, J.S., GRESS, F. & FANGMAN, S. 2005. Initial recovery of Xantus’s Murrelets following rat eradication on Anacapa Island, California. Marine Ornithology 33:131–137.
• WHITWORTH, D.L., CARTER, H.R. & GRESS, F. 2013. Recovery of a threatened seabird after eradication of an introduced predator: eight years of progress for Scripps’s murrelet at Anacapa Island, California. Biological Conservation 162:52–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.03.026.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.03.026
• ZOTIER, R. 1990. Breeding Ecology of a Sub-Antarctic Winter Breeder the Gray Petrel (Procellaria cinerea) on Kerguelen Islands. Emu 90:180–184. https://doi.org/10.1071/MU9900180.
  » https://doi.org/10.1071/MU9900180

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  16 Dec 2024
• Date of issue
  2024

History

• Received
  05 July 2024
• Accepted
  03 Nov 2024