Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Seabirds as Bioindicators of Marine Ecosystems

Written By

Muhammad Nawaz Rajpar, Ibrahim Ozdemir, Mohamed Zakaria, Shazia Sheryar and Abdu Rab

Submitted: 13 November 2017 Reviewed: 14 February 2018 Published: 05 September 2018

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.75458

From the Edited Volume


Edited by Heimo Mikkola

Chapter metrics overview

1,974 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


Seabirds are those waterbirds that directly or indirectly depend on the marine environment over the waters, i.e., they foraged at sea either near shore or offshore and inhabit in coastal areas, islands, estuaries, wetlands, and ocean islands. They are mostly aerial waterbirds sailing above sea spending much of their time (weeks, months, and even years) in marine environments or floating on the water surface or diving in deep sea in search of food. Seabirds encompass of 65 genera, 222 marine, and 72 partially marine bird species. Seabirds have been used as good indicators (i.e., bioindicators) of marine ecosystems due to cause-effect association with different microclimate and habitats. They exploit broad scale of habitat, quickly respond to environmental changes, they can be detected easily (i.e., they showed their presence through vocalization), easy to identify, can be surveyed efficiently over large spatial scale, e.g., presence, abundance, and influenced by surrounding habitats as compared to other animals. Employing seabird as bioindicators is a cost-effective and informative tool (well defined matrix) to determine the effects of disturbances, contamination, i.e., effects of pollutants, organic substances, and oil-spills of the marine environment. Seabirds are top predators in the marine food chain and key component of the food web. Seabirds may indicate the status of habitat, reduction in food occurrence and abundance, rate of the predation, an effect of weather (climate change), and threats. The other reason could be that, seabirds often closely associate with inter-site more distinctly than other animals and may breed in the same site each year, easy to catch while incubating and during rearing chicks. Hence, it is crucially important to use seabirds as bioindicators within the context of ecological and spatial parameters to determine the effects of disturbances in the marine environment and for effective conservation and better management of seabirds in the future.


  • seabirds
  • bioindicators
  • marine
  • habitat
  • threats
  • ecology

1. Introduction

Marine is the largest and highly productive aquatic ecosystem of the world which covers 70% earth surface and encompasses of salt marshes, intertidal zones, estuaries, lagoons, mangroves, coral reefs, and deep sea. They are suitable home, (i.e., living place, food, shelter, and breeding grounds) for a wide array (i.e., millions of species) of invertebrate, e.g., corals, crustaceans, molluscs, etc., and vertebrate animal species, e.g., birds, reptiles, mammals, and fishes. Despite being a highly productive ecosystem, it faces significant threats due to human interaction. Marine ecosystem has substantial linkages with coastal and inland waters which are important habitats for numerous species. For example: sandy beaches, estuaries, and mangroves are nurseries and breeding grounds for a diversity of birds, reptiles, and fishes [1]. In addition, marine ecosystem is a major source of economic wealth for human being, i.e., it provides a wide range of active ingredient resources such as raw material for medicine, staple food for human as well as wildlife, and gene bank for basic as well as applied research [2].

1.1. Current status of marine areas

Presently, only 1.2% marine areas of the world within exclusive economic zones, 4.3% areas of the continental shelf, and 0.9% areas of offshore waters have been protected [3, 4]. Marine areas are the most productive ecosystem for seabird species, i.e., they provide a wide array of habitat rich in food resources that had attracted a diversity of seabird species to be utilized year around. Identifying the ideal foraging and breeding sites of the seabird is highly crucial to declare marine protected areas and manage them on the sustainable basis to ensure the breeding success and to enhance population of seabirds.

The coastal and island areas offer heterogeneous habitat and highly productive foraging sites that had attracted a wide array of seabirds to forage year-round in these areas to fulfill their requirements (Figures 13). These areas attracted congregate numbers of loons, gulls, and cormorants during winter season to forage in rich up dwelling areas. In addition, an island within the proximity to rich foraging sites also provide ideal nesting sites for Gulls, Guillemots, Cormorants, and Oystercatchers (Figures 410).

Figure 1.

Least tern—Sternula antillarum. Source: This picture was taken from short natural film “A Puffin Paradise: The Seabirds of the Farne Island”.

Figure 2.

Whiskered tern—Childonias hybrid. Photo by Rajpar in Marudu Bay coastal area Malaysia.

Figure 3.

Greater flamingo—Phoenicopterus ruber. Photo by Rajpar in the coastal area of Sindh, Pakistan.

Figure 4.

Atlantic puffin—Fratercula arctica. Source: This picture was taken from short natural film “A Puffin Paradise: The Seabirds of the Farne Island”.

Figure 5.

Common Murres—Uria aalge. Source: This picture was taken from short natural film “A Puffin Paradise: The Seabirds of the Farne Island”.

Figure 6.

Great black-backed Gull—Larus marinus. Source: This picture was taken from short natural film “A Puffin Paradise: The Seabirds of the Farne Island”.

Figure 7.

Red-footed Booby—Sula sula. Source: This picture was taken from short natural film “A Puffin Paradise: The Seabirds of the Farne Island”.

Figure 8.

Artic tern—Sterna paradisaea. Source: This picture was taken from short natural film “A Puffin Paradise: The Seabirds of the Farne Island”.

Figure 9.

Ringed-billed Gul—Larus dilawarensis. Source: This picture was taken from short natural film “A Puffin Paradise: The Seabirds of the Farne Island”.

Figure 10.

White tern—Gygis alba. Source: This picture was taken from short natural film “A Puffin Paradise: The Seabirds of the Farne Island”.


2. Seabirds

The term “seabirds” has been applied to waterbirds that directly or indirectly depend on the marine environment over the waters [5]. Seabirds comprised of five orders, namely; Sphenisciformes (i.e., Penguins), Procellariiformes (i.e., Albatrosses, Petrels, Storm-Petrels, Fulmars, Shearwaters), Ciconiiformes (i.e., Herons, Egrets, Storks, Ibis, Spoonbills), Pelecaniformes (i.e., Pelicans, Frigatebirds, Gannets, Boobies, Cormorants, Anhingas), and Charadriiformes (i.e., Shorebirds, Skuas, Jaegers, Skimmers, Auks, Guillemots and Puffins) are a major component of the marine environment and often exhibit distinct association with the sea environment (Table 1).

FamilyScientific nameCommon nameReference
AlcidaeAlca tordaRazorbill[6]
LaridaeAnous minutusBlack noddy[7]
ProcellariidaeArdenna bulleriBuller’s shearwater[8]
ProcellariidaeArdenna creatopusPink-footed shearwater[9]
ProcellariidaeArdenna gravisGreat shearwater[8]
ProcellariidaeCalonectris leucomelasStreaked shearwater[10]
StercorariidaeCatharacta antarcticaBrown skua[10]
StercorariidaeCatharacta chilensisChilean Skua[10]
StercorariidaeCatharacta maccormickiSouth polar skua[10]
StercorariidaeCatharacta skuaGreat skua[10]
AlcidaeCephphus grylleBlack guillemot[6]
LaridaeCreagrus furcatusSwallow-tailed gull[9, 10, 11]
ProcellariidaeDaption capenseCape petrel[9]
DiomedeidaeDiomedea exulansWandering albatross[8]
DiomedeidaeDiomedea sanfordiNorthern royal albatross[8, 9]
AlcidaeFratercula arcticaAtlantic Puffin[6]
FregatidaeFregata andrewsiChristmas frigatebird[10]
FregatidaeFregata aquilaAscension frigatebird[10]
FregatidaeFregata arielLesser frigatebird[10]
FregatidaeFregata magnificensMagnificent frigatebird[10]
FregatidaeFregata minorGreat frigatebird[10]
OceanitidaeFregetta grallariaWhite-bellied storm petrel[8]
ProcellariidaeFulmarus glacialisNorthern fulmar[6, 12]
ProcellariidaeHydrobates pelagicusEuropean storm petrel[6]
LaridaeLarus argentatusHerring gull[6, 10]
LaridaeLarus armenicusArmenian gull[10]
LaridaeLarus brunnicephalusBrown-headed gull[10]
LaridaeLarus cachinnansYellow-legged gull[10]
LaridaeLarus canusMew gull[6]
LaridaeLarus fuscusLesser black-backed gull[6, 10]
LaridaeLarus glaucescensGlaucous-winged gull[10]
LaridaeLarus kumelieniKumlien’s gull[10]
LaridaeLarus marinusGreat black-backed gull[6]
LaridaeLarus ridibundusBlack-headed gull[6]
LaridaeLarus schistisagusSlaty-backed gull[10]
LaridaeLarus scopulinusRed-billed gull[13]
LaridaeLarus thayeriThayer’s gull[10]
ProcellariidaeMacronectes giganteusSouthern giant petrel[9]
ProcellariidaeMorus bassanusNorthern gannet[6]
ProcellariidaeOceanites oceanicusWilson’s storm petrel[8]
ProcellariidaeOceanites gracilisElliott’s storm petrel[9]
PelecanoididaeOceanodroma leucorhoaLeach’s storm petrel[6, 14]
ProcellariidaePacronectes halliNorthern giant petrel[9]
LaridaePagophila eburneanIvory gull[21]
ProcellariidaePelagodroma marinaWhite-faced storm petrel[8, 9]
ProcellariidaePelecanoides garnotiiPeruvian diving petrel[9]
ProcellariidaePelecanoides urinatrixCommon diving petrel[8]
PelecanidaePelecanus occidentalisBrown pelican[10, 21]
PhaethontidaePhaethon aethereusRed-billed tropicbird[8, 9, 10]
PhaethontidaePhaethon lepturusWhite-tailed tropicbird[10]
PhaethontidaePhaethon rubricaudaRed-tailed tropicbird[15]
PhalacrocoracidaePhalacrocorax aristotelisEuropean shag[6]
PhalacrocoracidaePhalacrocorax carboGreat cormorant[6]
ScolopacidaePhalaropus lobatusRed-necked phalarope[9]
ScolopacidaePhalaropus fulicariusRed phalarope[9]
AlcidaePinguinnis impenniGreat auk[10]
ProcellariidaeProcellaria aequinoctiallisWhite-chinned petrel[8]
ProcellariidaeProcellaria parkisoniParkinson’s petrel[8]
ProcellariidaeProcellaria westlandicaWestland petrel[9]
ProcellariidaePterodroma deflippianaDe Filippin’s petrel[9]
ProcellariidaePterodroma externaJuan Fernandez petrel[9]
ProcellariidaePuffinus gravisGreat shearwater[6, 10]
ProcellariidaePuffinus griseusSooty shearwater[6, 10]
ProcellariidaePuffinus puffinusManx shearwater[6]
ProcellariidaePuffinus tenuirostrisShort-tailed shearwater[10]
ProcellariidaePufnus assimilusLittle shearwater[8]
ProcellariidaePufnus pufnusManx shearwater[8]
StercorariidaeRhodostethia roseaRoss’s gull[10]
LaridaeRissa tridactylaBlack-legged kittiwake[6, 17]
RhynchopidaeRynchops nigerBlack skimmer[18]
SpheniscidaeSpheniscus mendiculusGalapagos penguin[10]
StercorariidaeStercorarius chilensisChilean skua[8]
StercorariidaeStercorarius longicaudusLong-tailed jaeger/skua[6, 19]
StercorariidaeStercorarius maccormickiSouth polar skua[9]
StercorariidaeStercorarius parasiticusParasitic jaeger/Arctic skua[6, 9]
StercorariidaeStercorarius pomarinusPomarine skua[6, 20]
StercorariidaeStercorarius skuaGreat skua[6]
SternidaeSterna bengalensisLesser crested tern[7]
SternidaeSterna dougalliiRoseate tern[21]
SternidaeSterna hirundoCommon tern[6, 21]
SternidaeSterna paradisaeaArctic tern[6]
SulidaeSula leucogasterBrown booby[21]
SulidaeSula sulaRed-footed booby[22]
DiomedeidaeThalassarche bulleriBuller’s/Pacific albatross[9]
DiomedeidaeThalassarche chrysostomaGray-headed albatross[9, 23]
DiomedeidaeThalassarche eremiteChatham albatross[9]
DiomedeidaeThalassarche melanophrisBlack-browed albatross[9, 10, 23]
DiomedeidaeThalassarche salviniBlack-browed albatross[9]
DiomedeidaeThalassarche salviniSalvin’s albatross[9]
Uria aalgeCommon murres[6]
LaridaeXema sabiniSabine’s gull[10]

Table 1.

List of seabird species detected by different ornithologist.

Seabird are dull in color, i.e., black, white or black and white in color. They are bioindicators of land, productivity (food resources), and environment [24]. Boobies, gulls, terns, and alcids are colonial seabirds which often live in colonies and colonies may encompass of several species to million individuals, (e.g., Sooty Shearwaters, Wilson’s Storm-petrel—Oceanites oceanicus) while others prefer to live solitary considered as the rarest, (i.e., only 10–20 pairs), e.g., Chatham Island Petrel—Pterodroma magenta and Chinese Crested Tern—Sterna bernsteini [25]. Seabirds often prefer to live marine near shore (depositional areas) foraging and upland areas (erosional environment) for loafing and breeding.

Bermuda Petrel—Pterodroma cahow and Black-capped Petrel—P. hasitata are endemic to only few marine sites of West Indies. Likewise, Fiji Petrel—P. macgillivaryi and Christmas Island Frigatebird—Fregata andrewsi are endemic to Guam South Pacific Island. In contrast, the other are migrant species which travel thousands of kilometers while migration from one area to another, i.e., pelagic seabird, e.g., sooty shearwater—Puffinus griseus [26].

Apparently, information on seabird community parameters (i.e. species composition, relative abundance, diversity, foraging guilds and density), habitat characteristics and closed relationship with food resources and water quality is insufficient. Marine habitat is a distinctive set of physical sea areas that seabird species use for its survival and reproduction. Notably, the marine habitat is not solely comprised vegetation, but also a combination of biotic and abiotic factors that influence the level of seabird use under certain conditions. For this reason, marine areas are ideal habitats for diverse seabird species where seabirds foraged, inhabit, and reproduced. Various globally threatened and non-threatened seabird species depend on different marine areas to fulfill their daily requirements, such as food, water and shelter for their survival and breeding purposes.

Seabird community parameters have been used to examine the status, productivity, and threats to the habitat marine ecosystem. Monitoring the various aspects of seabird community parameters provide detailed information on migration pattern, seasonal distribution, foraging ecology, breeding biology, physiology that will help in conservation activities. The population and community parameters of seabirds fluctuate from time to time and depend on productivity, prey availability, natality, mortality, immigration and emigration (Figure 11; [27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32]). Monitoring the seabird’s parameters in marine habitats provides the data to evaluate the factors that cause population fluctuations among different marine habitats. In addition, monitoring, thus helps in conservation and better management of threatened and endangered seabird species.

Figure 11.

The major driven variable which regulates the population and community parameters of seabirds in the marine ecosystem.

Detailed information on the seabird’s behavior and ecology in marine habitat is lacking, i.e., very little information is available on seabirds as bioindicators of marine ecosystems. Conversely, long-term population trends of seabirds, microhabitat and microclimate characteristics as well as correlationship between the seabird species with microclimate and microhabitat characteristics have not been examined. In fact, very little is known on the ecological roles of seabird species in relation to microhabitat and habitat disturbances, i.e., What would happen to the seabird species when their habitat is altered? Would the seabird population be increased or decreased? or would they move to other areas less suitable for foraging and breeding?

Seabirds have accommodated themselves in different ecosystems from North Pole to Antarctica. They directly or indirectly depend on the marine environment, such as: coastal area (i.e., mangrove, mudflats, estuaries, and islands) to perform various activities such as inhabit, foraging, perching, loafing, roosting, and breeding, etc. for their survival and existence. Seabirds are aerial birds in nature, i.e., spend hours, weeks, months, and even years at sea. Majority of seabirds observed hovering above the sea surface for searching vast areas for food that can be caught and carried from long distance to the colony. Some of seabirds, i.e., pelican, cormorant, gulls, terns, skimmers are often observed near shore and estuarine areas [33]. Likewise, albatrosses, petrels, and boobies always occur offshore. The most common characteristics of all seabirds are that they forage in salt water. Seabirds often inhabit and exploit a wide range of habitats for foraging and breeding purposes.


3. Seabirds as bioindicators of marine ecosystem

Seabirds have been used as good bioindicators of marine ecosystems. They respond more quickly to environmental changes, show their occurrence through vocalization, and are easy to detect and identify [4, 34, 35]. Previously, seabirds have been used as a bioindicators of pollution [36, 37, 38, 39], oil spills [40, 41], contamination in the Antarctic ecosystem [42, 43, 44], evaluate wetland ecosystem health [45, 46], climate change [47], primary productivity [48], and environmental pollution in aquatic system [49, 50, 51]. This could be that, seabirds may show distinctive habitat preferences and display a variety of adaptations to exploit the marine resources and can be used to determine the marine ecosystem integrity.

Cause variable or abiotic factors may indicate the existing condition of the particular area while seabird community parameters highlight environmental condition, productivity. The cause-effect relationship is the utmost essential tool to decide what actions should be taken for conservation and protection of specific site. The information on seabird’s community parameters would be more suitable to use them as bioindicators of threats and contamination due to satisfactory sample sizes and ease of sampling, i.e., colonial breeders often occur in large numbers [52]. Detailed information on seabird ecology provides the basis for interpretation to examine the toxic effect patterns and levels of contamination [53].

The choice of seabird species and study site is crucially important, i.e., some species become panic due to human presence and may cause mortality of eggs or chicks (e.g., Great Cormorant, Black-legged Kittiwakes) while other species are highly tolerant of disturbance (e.g., Northern Gannet). Seabird species should be selected as a bioindicators of marine ecosystem which has following attributes, namely accumulate high concentration of contamination, resistant to toxic effects, forage on narrow define and consistent diet feed predominantly or exclusively on prey in the food web under investigation, often occur in large number of colonies and large population size with known breeding biology, physiology, and ecology, less disturbed with human interference, easily identifiable, and easy to collect samples [52].


4. Foraging behaviour of seabirds

Fish is potential prey of seabirds, i.e., they foraged on >100 fish species (i.e., herring, sardines, anchovies, menhaden, sand eels, smelts, and flying fish, etc.) and invertebrates, e.g., squids, crustaceans, crabs, molluscs, and krills [54, 55]. The capture and handling food of depends on morphological and physiological adaptations (e.g., bill shape, feed, and body shape) and enables them to exploit a wide array of food resources in myriad ways. Furthermore, the foraging behaviour of seabird species influenced by foraging range, ability to dive, foraging efforts, energy expands on foraging, ability to catch, handle, and consume prey items [56]. Seabirds employ heterogeneous foraging techniques to catch their prey. For example: pursuit diving; following their prey into the water (penguins, alcids, cormorant, and diving petrels), dipping; picking prey, i.e., squid and krill while floating on the water surface (storm’s petrels, skuas, gulls, terns, large petrels, pelicans, and albatrosses), plunge diving (gannets, boobies, tropicbirds, terns, and pelicans), piracy and cannibalism (Frigatebirds and skuas), and aerial pursuit [7, 57, 58]. Some species are solitary feeders while other forage in flocks [59, 60]. The occurrence of food resources and distribution may alter the demographic characteristics of seabird species [61]. Seabird can be classified according to habitat preference, e.g., albatrosses often prefer to forage over open sea and avoid utilizing the coastal area and are known as pelagic seabirds. On the contrarily, gulls and terns tend to forage in coastal areas and loaf on beaches considered as shorebirds. However, some seabird species utilized pelagic as well as coastal area during breeding and non-breeding seasons and rarely use terrestrial areas, i.e., alcids and penguins.

Seabirds detect their prey visually and tactile way and employ various foraging techniques to catch their prey. Mostly, seabirds are visual diurnal predators, i.e., mostly foraging during daylight hours, i.e., Common Murre—Uria aalge [62] and some are nocturnal, prey during the night, such as: Bulwer’s Petrel—Bulweria bulwerii, Wedge-rumped Storm Petrel—Oceanodroma tethys, Red-footed Booby—Sula leucogaster, Dovekie—Alle alle, Red-legged Kittiwake—Rissa brevirostris, Swallow-tailed Gull—Creagrus furcatus, and White Tern—Gygris alba, Thick-billed Murre—Uria lomvia, and Macaroni Penguin—Eduyptes chrysolophus, etc. [63, 64]. However, some species exhibit both diurnal and nocturnal foraging behaviour.

For example: Storm-Petrels forage on surface zooplankton, penguin consumed pelagic fish and squid, gulls and albatrosses feed on dead animals, i.e., scavengers [65, 66]. Inshore bird species such as gulls and terns often concentrate where plenty of food is available, penguins and alcids dive at greater depth to catch their prey, albatrosses, shearwaters, and petrels soar at the sea surface in search of food.


5. Threats to seabirds

The habitat degradation due to water pollutants has caused the great threats to marine birds and their population had declined, i.e., some of them become endangered, threatened and endangered, critically endangered and even some species become extinct out of many seabird species around the world. Seabirds are facing different challenges such as weather influence on foraging, salt load (i.e., diving Petrels—Pelecanoides spp.) ingestion of salt water while diving [67], anthropogenic contamination, and competition from fisheries.

The major threat to seabirds is killing by fishing gear or culling (e.g., mass mortality of diving auks, common guillemots, razorbills, and Atlantic Puffins in gill nets, drift net, and other fixed fishing gears in coastal or offshore shallow waters), alteration in food resources due to over exploitation of fishery resources, oil spills, water pollution, hunting, predation by mammals, human disturbance, climate change, introduction of invasive species in breeding area, and disturbance natural oceanographic factors that effects on prey availability [68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73]. These are major driven factors which directly or indirectly effects on seabird population community parameters, e.g., some seabird species become endangered or threatened and vulnerable to the brink of extinction.

It has been stated that human population growth in some coastal areas has been increased up to 40% in the last 10 years [55]. Rapid increase of human population in coastal areas may cause disturbances that exerts physiological stress to Adelie Penguins—Pygoscelis adeliae, Gentoo Penguins—Pygoscelis papau, Herring Gulls—Larus argentatus, and Redshanks—Tringa tetanus, egg and nestling mortality of Sooty Tern—Sterna fuscata, premature fledging of Rhinoceros Auklets Cerorhinca monocerata and Spectacled Guillemots—Cepphus carbo, and colony abandonment, e.g., cormorant species [74, 75, 76].

An oil spill is a serious threat to the seabird, i.e., it may cause the mass mortality among seabird species. Seabirds are the most conspicuous and prone to marine oil spills as compared to other animals [77, 78, 79]. This could be that, they spend much time of their life at sea and their populations are patchily distributed and concentrated in coastal areas and offshore habitats which often faces the oil spill problems and their survival probability is very low in case of oil spills incidence [80, 81, 82, 83]. For example: in 2002–2003 about 60,000-ton prestige oil was spilled in the Iberian Coastal area of northern Portugal to France and caused mass mortality of auks (i.e., 9826 individuals), Common Murres—Uria aalge (4492 individuals), Razorbills—Alca torda (2861 individuals), and Atlanic Puffins—Fratercula arctica (2473 individuals) [84].


6. Conclusion

In conclusion, it has been clearly determined that the seabirds are closely associated with the marine environment and can be used as bioindicators to detect the changes in water quality, productivity, and other threats to the marine ecosystem. Seabirds are top predators of the marine ecosystems and easy to identify and survey. Hence, it is crucially important that the population of seabird communities must be protected to reduce the threats, to enhance the population of seabirds, and keep nature in balance for proper functions of the marine ecosystems on a sustainable basis for future generation.


7. Recommendation for future research and conservation

  1. In future a detailed research on seabird ecology, interaction with food resources and marine habitats should be conducted to identify the major driven factors which effect on seabird community parameters. This will identify what are the major factors, i.e., environmental, ecological and anthropogenic, etc. variable due to which seabirds are facing severe threats for their survival and existence.

  2. A mass awareness among public should be created how disturbance affects the population parameters of different seabird species and what is their ecological importance of balance and proper functions of the marine ecosystem. In addition, how to utilize marine resources without causing disturbance to the seabird while seeking for human welfare.

  3. A detailed strategy should be developed to address the issues, viewing guidelines, i.e., ecological importance, threats, and disturbance to the seabirds.


  1. 1. Mumby PJ. Connectivity of reef fish between mangroves and coral reefs: Algorithms for the design of marine reserves at seascape scales. Biological Conservation. 2006;128:215-222
  2. 2. Goulletquer P, Gros P, Boeuf G, Weber J. The importance of marine biodiversity. In: Biodiversity in the Marine Environment. Dordrecht: Springer; 2014
  3. 3. Butchart SHM, Walpole M, Collen B, van Strien A, Scharlemann JPW, Almond REA, et al. Global biodiversity: Indicators of recent declines. Science. 2010;328(5982):1164-1168
  4. 4. Croxall JP, Butchart SHM, Lascelles B, Stattersfield AJ, Sullivian B, Symes A, Taylor P. Seabird conservation status, threats and priority actions: A global assessment. Bird Conservation International. 2012;22:1-34
  5. 5. Schreiber EA, Burger J. Seabirds in the marine environment. In: Schreiber EA, Burger J, editors. Biology of Marine Birds. Washington DC, USA. ISBN: 0-8493-9882-7: CRC Press; 2002. p. 1
  6. 6. Mackey M, Gimene DP. SEA678 Data Report for Offshore Seabird Populations. Coastal and Marine Resource Centre, Environmental Research Institute, University College Cork; 2003
  7. 7. Hulsman K. The structure of seabird communities: An example from Australian waters. In: Seabirds and Other Marine Vertebrates: Composition, Predation and Other Interactions. New York: Columbia University Press; 1988
  8. 8. Shirihai H, Diaz HA, Huichalaf JE, Brettagnolle V. Petrels and Endemic Landbirds of the Mas Afuera (Alejandro Selkirk) and Robinson Crusoe Island, Juan Fernandez archipelago. Expedition Research Report: March 2013; 2016.
  9. 9. Flood RL, Wilson AC, Zufelt K, Danzenbaker M, Ryan J and Shemilt J. Humboldt Current and the Juan Fernandez Archipelago. Expedition Research Report: November 2014; 2017.
  10. 10. Brooke deL M. Seabird systematics and distribution: A review of current knowledge. In: Biology of Marine Birds, Schreiber EA and Burger J. Washington DC, USA: CRC Press; 2002. p. 1. ISBN: 0-8493-9882-7
  11. 11. Harris MP. Breeding ecology of swallow–tailed Gull (Creagrus furcatus). Auk. 1970;87:215-243
  12. 12. Dunnet GM, Yarrall JW, Mills DA. A 28 year study of breeding fulmars Fulmars glacialis in Orkney. IBIS. 1996;121:293-300
  13. 13. Mills JA, Yarrall JW, Mills DA. Causes and consequences of mate fidelity in red bill gulls. In: Black JM, editor. Partnerships in Birds. The Study of Monogamy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996. pp. 286-304
  14. 14. Place AR, Stoyan NC, Ricklefs RE, Butler RG. Physiological basis of stomach oil formation in Leach’s storm petrel (Oceanodroma leucorhoa). Auk. 1989;106:687-699
  15. 15. Schreiber EA. Experimental manipulation of feeding in red-tailed tropicbird chicks. Colonial Waterbirds. 1996;19:45-55
  16. 16. Enticott J, Tipling D. Photographic Handbook of the Seabirds of the World. London: New Holland; 1997
  17. 17. Coulson JC, Thomas CS. Mate choice in the kittiwake Gull. In: Bateson P, editor. Mate Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1983
  18. 18. Burger J, Gochfeld M. Black Skimmer: Social Dynamics of a Colonial Species. New York: Columbia University Press; 1991. p. 355
  19. 19. Cohen BL, Baker AJ, Belechschmidt K, Dittmann DL, Furness RW, Gerwin JA, Helbig AJ, De Korte J, Marshall HD, Palma RL, Peter H-U, Ramli R, Siebold I, Willcox MS, Wilson RH, Zink RM. Enigmatic phylogency of skuas (Aves: Stercorariidae). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B. 1997;264:181-190
  20. 20. Cohen BL, Baker AJ, Belechschmidt K, Dittmann DL, Furness RW, Gerwin JA, Helbig AJ, De Korte J, Marshall HD, Palma RL, Peter H-U, Ramli R, Siebold I, Willcox MS, Wilson RH, Zink RM. Enigmatic phylogency of skuas (Aves: Stercorariidae). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B. 1997;264:181-190
  21. 21. Schreiber EA, Burger J. Seabirds in the marine environment. In: Schreiber EA, Burger J, editors. Biology of Marine Birds. USA. ISBN: 0-8493-9882-7: CRC Press, Washington DC; 2002. p. 1
  22. 22. Schreiber EA. Experimental manipulation of feeding in red-tailed tropicbird chicks. Colonial Waterbirds. 1996;19:45-55
  23. 23. Prince PA, Ricketts C. Relationships between food supply and growth in albatrosses: An interspecies chick fostering experiment. Ornis Scandinavica. 1981;12:207-210
  24. 24. Couper–Johnston, R. The Weather Phenomenon that Changed the World: El Nino. London: Hodder and Stoughton; 2000
  25. 25. Brooke ML. Seabird systematics and distribution: A review of current knowledge. In: Biology of Seabird; 2004. pp. 57-85
  26. 26. Shaffer S, Tremblay Y, Weimerskirch H, Scott D, Thompson D, Sagar P, et al. Migratory shearwaters integrate oceanic resources across the Pacific Ocean in an endless summer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2006;103:12799
  27. 27. Heubeck M, Mellor RM, Harvey PV, Mainwood AR, Riddington R. Estimating the population size and rate of decline of kittiwakers Rissa tridactyla breeding in Shetland, 1981-97. Bird Study. 1999;46:8-61
  28. 28. Oro D, Pradel R, Lebreton J-D. The effects of nest predation and food availability on life history traits in Audouin’s gull. Oecologia. 1999;119:438-445
  29. 29. Oro D, Furness RW. Influence of food and predation on survival of kittiwakes. Ecology. 2002;83:2516-2528
  30. 30. Shaffer S, Weimerskirch H, Scott D, Pinaud D, Thompson D, Sagar P, et al. Spatiotemporal habitat use by breeding sooty shearwaters Puffinus griseus. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 2009;391:209-220
  31. 31. Raymond B, Shaffer S, Sokolov S, Woehler E, Costa D, Einoder L, et al. Shearwater foraging in the Southern Ocean: The roles of prey avaialability and winds. PLoS One. 2010;5:e10960
  32. 32. Weimerskirch H, Louzao M, de Grissac S, Delork K. Changes in wind pattern alter albatross distribution and life history traits. Science. 2012;335:211-214
  33. 33. Nelson B. Seabirds: Their Biology and Ecology. New York: A & W Publishers; 1979
  34. 34. Carignan V, Villard M-A. Selecting indicator species to monitor ecological integrity: A review. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 2002;78:45-61
  35. 35. Piatt J, Sydeman W, Wiese F. Introduction: A modern role for seabirds as indicators. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 2007;352:1999-1204
  36. 36. Wayland M, Gilchrist HG, Marchant T, Keating J, Smith JE. Immune function, stress response and body condition in artic-breeding common eiders in relation to cadmium, mercury, and selenium concentrations. Environmental Research. 2002;90:47-60
  37. 37. Helander B, Bigneri A, Asplund L. Using raptors as environmental sentinels: Monitoring the White-Tailed Sea eagle Haliaeetus albicilla in Sweden. Ambio. 2008;37:425-431
  38. 38. Henny CJ, Crove RA, Kaiser JL, Johnson BL. North American osprey populations and contaminants: Historic and contemporary perspectives. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health-Part B-Critical Review. 2010;13:579-603
  39. 39. Sonne C, Bustnes Jo, herzke D, Jaspers VLB, Covaci A, Halley DJ, Moum T, Eulares I, Eens M, Ims RA, Hanssen SA, Erikstade KE, Johsen T, Schnug I, Riget FF, Jensen AL. Relationship between organhalogen contaminants and blood plasma clinical-chemical parameters in chicks of three raptor species from northern Norway. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2011;73:7-17
  40. 40. Sanpera C, Ruiz X, Moreno R, Jover L, Waldron S. Mercury and stable isotopes in feathers of Audouin’s gulls as indicators of feeding habits and migratory connectivity. Condor. 2007;109:268-275
  41. 41. Moreno R, Jover I, Munilla I, Velando A, Sanpera C. Seabird’s feathers as monitors of the levels and persistence of heavy metal pollution after the prestige oil spill. Environmental Pollution. 2010;159:2454-2460
  42. 42. Corsolini S, Borghesi N, Ademollo N, Focardi S. Chlorinated biphenyls and pesticides in migrating and resident seabirds from east and West Antarctica. Environmental International. 2011;37:1329-1335
  43. 43. Jeraz S, Motas M, Jose Palacois M, Valera F, Javier Cuervo J, Barbosa A. Concentration of traces elements in feathers of three Antarctic penguins: Geographical and interspecific differences. Environmental Pollution. 2011;159:2412-2419
  44. 44. Metcheva R, Yurukova L, Teodora SE. Biogenic and toxics elements in feathers, eggs, and excreta of Genitoo penguin (Pygoscelis papua eliswarthii) in the Antarctic. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 2011;182:571-585
  45. 45. Abdennadher A, Ramirez F, Romdhane MS, Ruiz X, Jover L, Sanpera C. Little egret (Egretta garzetta) as a bioindicators of trace elements pollution in Tunisian aquatic ecosystems. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 2011;175:677-684
  46. 46. Aliakbari A, Savabieasfahani M, Ghasempouri SM. Mercury in egg and eggshell of whiskered tern (Chlidonias hybrid) from Anzali wetlands of Caspian Sea, Iran. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 2011;86:175-179
  47. 47. Hoegh-Guldberg O, Bruno JF. The impact of climate change on the world’s marine ecosystems. Science. 2007;328:1523-1528
  48. 48. Velarde E, Ezcurra E, Anderson DW. Seabird diet provides early warning of sardine fishery decline in the Gulf of California. Scientific Reports. 2013;3:1332
  49. 49. Champoux L, Rodrigue J, Trudeau S, Boily MH, Spear PA, Honetla A. Contamination and biomarkers in the great blue heron, an indicator of the state of the St. Lawrence River. Ecotoxicology. 2006;15:83-96
  50. 50. Paiva VH, Tavares PC, Ramos JA, Pereira E, Antunes S, Duarte AC. The influence of diet on mercury intake by little tern chicks. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 2008;55:317-328
  51. 51. Baker SD, Sepulveda MS. An evaluation of the effects of persistent environmental contaminants on the reproductive success of great blue herons (Ardea Herodias) in Indiana. Ecotoxicology. 2009;18:271-280
  52. 52. ICES 2003. Seabirds as Monitors of the Marine Environment. Tasker ML, Furness RW. editors. ICES Cooperative Research Report, 258. 73 pp
  53. 53. Thompson DR, Bearhop S, Speakman JR, Furness RW. Feathers as a means of monitoring mercury in seabirds: Insight from stable isotope analysis. Environmental Pollution. 1998;101:193-200
  54. 54. Montevecchi WA. Birds as indicators of change in marine prey stocks. In: Furness WR, Greenwood JJD, editors. Birds as Monitors of Environmental Change. Chapman and Hall London; 1993. pp. 217-266
  55. 55. Booth BP. Southern Vancouver Island Marine Waters and Seabird Islands Important Bird Areas Conservation Plan. Can. Nature Fed., Bird Studies Can., Fed. of BC Naturalists, Wild Bird Trust BC; 2001. p. 34
  56. 56. Furness RW, Tasker ML. Seabird-fishery interactions: Quantifying the sensitivity of seabirds to reductions in sand eel abundance and identification of key areas of sensitive seabirds in the North Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 2000;202:253-264
  57. 57. Michael B, Birkhaead T, editors. Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Ornithology, a Cambridge Reference Book. Cambridge University Press; 1991 ISBN: 10:0521362059
  58. 58. Williams TD. The Penguins: Spheniscidae. Oxford University Press. Edition: Illustrated. ISBN: 9780198546672; 1995. p. 295
  59. 59. Hebshi AJ, Duffy DC, Hyrenbach KD. Association between seabirds and sub-surface predators around Oahu, Hawaii. Aquatic Biology. 2008;4:89-98
  60. 60. Nevitt GA, Losekoot M, Weimerskirch H. Evidence for olfactory search in wandering albatross, Diomedea exulans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2008;105:4576-4581
  61. 61. Furness RW. Impacts of fisheries on seabird communities. Scientia Marina. 2003;67:33-45
  62. 62. Burger AE, Piatt JF. Flexible time budgets in breeding common Murres: Buffers against variable prey abundance. Studies in Avian Biology. 1990;14:71-83
  63. 63. Brooke M de L, Prince PA. Nocturnality in seabirds. Proceedings of the International Ornithological Congress. 1991;20:1113-1121
  64. 64. Croll DA, Gaston AJ, Burger AE, Konnoff D. Foraging behaviour and physiological adaptation for diving in thick-billed Murres. Ecology. 1992;73:344-356
  65. 65. Hertel F, Balance LT. Wing ecomorphology of seabirds from Johnston atoll. Condor. 1999;1010:549-556
  66. 66. Watanuki Y, Burger AE. Body mass and drive duration in alcids and penguins. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 1999;77:1838-1842
  67. 67. Green B, Brothers N. Water and sodium turnover and estimated food consumption rates in free-living fairy prions (Pachyptila turtur) and common diving petrels (Pelecanoides urinatrix). Physilogical Zoology. 1989;62:702-705
  68. 68. Garthe S. Influence of hydrography, fishing activity and colony location on summer seabird distribution in the south-eastern North Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 1997;54:566-577
  69. 69. Camphuysen CJ, Webb A. Multi-species feeding associations in North Sea seabirds; jointly exploiting a patchy marine environment. Ardea. 2000;87:177-198
  70. 70. Huppop O, Wurm S. Effects of winter fishery activities on resting numbers, food and body conditions of large gulls Larus argentatus and L. marinus in southeastern North Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 2000;194:241-247
  71. 71. Tasker ML, Camphuysen CJ, Cooper J, Garthe S, Montevecchi WA, Blaber SJM. The impacts of fishing on marine birds. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 2000;57:531-547
  72. 72. Baker B, Gales R, Hamilton S, Wilkinson V. Albatrosses and petrels in Australia: A review of their conservation and management. EMU. 2002;102:71-97
  73. 73. Tuck GN, Polacheck T, Bulman CM. Spatio–temporal trends of longline fishing effort in the Southern Ocean and implications for seabird bycatch. Biodiversity and Conservation. 2003;114:1-27
  74. 74. Skagen SK, Knight RL, Orians GH. Human disturbances on avian scavenging guil. Ecological Applications. 1991;1:215-225
  75. 75. Moul IE. Population trends of double-crested and pelagic Cormorants nesting along the South-east coast of Vancouver Island. Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks, Nanaimo Report; 2000
  76. 76. Vennesland RG. The effects of disturbance from humans and predators on breeding decisions and productivity of the Great Blue Heron in South-coastal British Columbia. MSc Thesis. Burnaby: Simons Fraser University; 2000
  77. 77. Irons DB, Kendall SJ, Erickson WP, McDonald LL, Lance BK. Nine years after the Exxon Valdez oil spills: Effects on marine bird populations in Prince William sound, Alaska. Condor. 2000;102:723-737
  78. 78. Wiese FK, Robertson GJ. Assessing seabird mortality from chronic oil discharge at sea. Journal of Wildlife Management. 2004;68:627-638
  79. 79. Votier SC, Birkhead TR, Oro D, Trinder M, Grantham MJ, Clark JA, McCleery RH, Hatchwell BJ. Recruitment and survival of immature seabirds in relation to oil spills and climate variability. Journal of Animal Ecology. 2008;77:974-983
  80. 80. Balseiro A, Espi A, Marquez I, Perez V, Ferreras C, Marin JFG, Prieto JM. Athological features in marine birds affected by the prestige oil spills in the north of Spain. Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 2005;41:371-378
  81. 81. Perez C, Velando A, Munilla I, Lopez-Alonso M, Oro D. Monitoring PAH pollution in the marine environment after the prestige oil–spill by means of seabird blood analysis. Environmental Science and Technology. 2008;42:707-713
  82. 82. Munilla I, Velando A. Oiling of live gulls as a tool to monitor acuteoil spill effects on seabirds. IBIS. 2010;152:405-409
  83. 83. Velando A, Munilla I, Lopez-Alonso M, Freire J, Perez C. EROD activity and staple isotopes in seabirds to disentangle marine food web contamination after the prestige oil spill. Environmental Pollution. 2010;158:1275-1280
  84. 84. Munilla I, Arcos JM, Oro D, Alvarez D, Leyenda PM, Velando A. Mass mortality of seabirds in the aftermath of the prestige oil spills. Ecosphere. 2011;2(7):art83

Written By

Muhammad Nawaz Rajpar, Ibrahim Ozdemir, Mohamed Zakaria, Shazia Sheryar and Abdu Rab

Submitted: 13 November 2017 Reviewed: 14 February 2018 Published: 05 September 2018