| Literature DB >> 27992578 |
Davi Castro Tavares1, Jailson Fulgencio de Moura2, Salvatore Siciliano3.
Abstract
Beached bird surveys have been widely used to monitor the impact of oil pollution in the oceans. However, separating the combined effects of oil pollution, environmental variables and methodological aspects of beach monitoring on seabird stranding patterns is a challenging task. The effects of a comprehensive set of oceanographic and climatic variables and oil pollution on seabird strandings in a tropical area of Brazil were investigated herein, using two robust and innovative methods: Generalized Linear Mixed Models and Structural Equation Modeling. We assessed strandings of four resident seabird species along 480 km of beaches divided into 11 sampling areas, between November 2010 and September 2013. We found that increasing the distance from the nearest breeding island reduce the seabird stranding events. Storm activity and biological productivity were the most important factors affecting the stranding events of brown boobies Sula leucogaster, Cabot's terns Thalasseus acuflavidus and kelp gulls Larus dominicanus. These species are also indirectly affected by warm tropical waters, which reduce chlorophyll-a concentrations. Beach surveys are, thus, useful to investigate the mortality rates of resident species near breeding sites, where individuals are more abundant and exposed to local factors associated with at-sea mortality. In contrast, conservation actions and monitoring programs for far-ranging seabird species are needed in more distant foraging areas. Furthermore, beach monitoring programs investigating the impact of oil pollution on seabirds need to account for the effects of environmental factors on stranding patterns. The present study also demonstrated that seabirds inhabiting tropical coastal waters are sensitive to climate conditions such as adverse weather, which are expected to increase in frequency and intensity in next decades.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27992578 PMCID: PMC5161483 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168717
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Panel summarizing the study design and seabird stranding events.
The left panel shows the 11 transects covered to record seabird carcasses and adjacent buffers from where we extracted the average values of the variables used to predict stranding events along the South-eastern coast of Brazil. The right panel shows histograms indicating strandings for the four resident seabird studied species along the 11 transects. Dark and light shades indicate juveniles and adults, respectively.
Fig 2Principal Component Analysis demonstrating the relationship of the predictor variables.
Dots indicate observations. Abbreviations indicate: chlorophyll-a concentrations (cl), latitude (lat), meridional currents (mc), onshore wind frequency (owf), river outflow (ro), sea surface temperature (sst), upwelling index (ui), wave height (wh), wave period (wp), wind direction (wd), wind speed (ws), and zonal currents (zc).
Ranking of the best model fits.
The selection is based on the second-order Akaike’s information criterion (AICc) corrected for small sample sizes (see Materials and Methods). The Generalized Linear Mixed Models were fitted with binomial errors for predicting seabird strandings as functions of environmental variables and oil pollution along the coast of Brazil.
| Models | AICc | ΔAICc | w |
|---|---|---|---|
| wh + dbi + ds | 311.7 | 0.0 | 0.23 |
| wh + dbi | 311.7 | 0.0 | 0.22 |
| wh + wd + dbi + ds | 312.1 | 0.4 | 0.18 |
| sst + wh + wd + dbi + ds | 313.3 | 1.6 | 0.10 |
| wh + dbi + sst | 313.4 | 1.7 | 0.09 |
| owf + os + dbi | 126.2 | 0.0 | 0.28 |
| owf + ro + dbi | 127.5 | 1.3 | 0.15 |
| owf + ro + os +dbi + ds | 127.5 | 1.3 | 0.14 |
| owf + os + dbi + ds | 128.1 | 1.9 | 0.11 |
| sst + cl + dbi + ds | 120.7 | 0.0 | 0.44 |
| sst + cl + wp + dbi + ds | 121.6 | 0.9 | 0.28 |
| sst + ro + wh + os + dbi * bp | 227.6 | 0.0 | 0.18 |
| sst + cl + ro + wh + os + dbi * bp | 227.8 | 0.2 | 0.16 |
| mc + sst + ro + wh + ws + os + dbi * bp | 228.2 | 0.6 | 0.14 |
| mc + sst + cl + ro + wh + ws + os + dbi * bp | 228.7 | 1.1 | 0.11 |
| sst + ro + wh + ws + os + dbi * bp | 228.8 | 1.2 | 0.10 |
| sst + cl + ro + wh + os + dbi * bp | 229.4 | 1.7 | 0.08 |
Abbreviations indicate: chlorophyll-a concentrations (cl), distance from breeding islands (dbi), breeding period (bp), surveyed distance (ds), meridional currents (mc), oil spills (os), onshore wind frequency (owf), river outflow (ro), sea surface temperature (sst), wave height (wh), wave period (wp), wind direction (wd) and wind speed (ws). AICc = Second-order Akaike’s information criterion corrected for small sample sizes, ΔAICc = difference in AICc score between ranked models; w = AIC weights.
Model-averaged parameter estimates.
The Generalized Linear Mixed Models were fitted with binomial errors. Predictor variables are ordered according to importance scores (see Materials and Methods).
| Predictor variables | β | 95% CI lower | 95% CI upper | P-value | IMP | AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wave height | 0.49 | 0.01 | 0.98 | 0.04 | 0.82 | 0.87 |
| Distance from breeding islands | -0.98 | -1.68 | -0.28 | < 0.01 | 0.82 | |
| Surveyed distance | -0.32 | -1.19 | 0.15 | 0.39 | 0.47 | |
| Wind direction | -0.09 | -0.62 | 0.13 | 0.60 | 0.37 | |
| Sea surface temperature | 0.05 | -0.31 | 0.70 | 0.76 | 0.32 | |
| Distance from breeding islands | -1.42 | -2.37 | -0.46 | < 0.01 | 0.99 | 0.89 |
| Onshore wind frequency | -0.63 | -1.06 | -0.21 | < 0.01 | 0.77 | |
| Oil spills | -1.45 | -5.20 | 1.50 | 0.39 | 0.77 | |
| River outflow | -2.03 | -16.16 | 6.68 | 0.65 | 0.64 | |
| Surveyed distance | 0.03 | -1.03 | 1.20 | 0.93 | 0.27 | |
| Distance from breeding islands | -5.53 | -9.25 | -1.81 | < 0.01 | 1.00 | 0.94 |
| Surveyed distance | 2.78 | 0.66 | 4.90 | 0.01 | 0.92 | |
| Chlorophyll-a | -1.36 | -2.39 | -0.31 | 0.01 | 0.90 | |
| Sea surface temperature | -0.68 | -1.31 | -4.61 | 0.03 | 0.71 | |
| Wave period | 0.10 | -0.23 | 0.76 | 0.61 | 0.4 | |
| Distance from breeding islands | -0.83 | -1.35 | -0.30 | < 0.01 | 1.00 | 0.84 |
| Surveyed distance | 0.80 | 0.36 | 1.24 | < 0.01 | 0.99 | |
| River outflow | 0.59 | 0.21 | 0.97 | < 0.01 | 0.96 | |
| Non-breeding period | -1.39 | -2.67 | -0.10 | 0.03 | 0.91 | |
| Oil spills | 0.34 | 0.09 | 0.60 | < 0.01 | 0.75 | |
| Wave height | -0.49 | -0.93 | -0.05 | 0.03 | 0.63 | |
| Chlorophyll-a | 0.14 | -0.15 | 0.75 | 0.52 | 0.56 | |
| V current | -0.13 | -0.92 | 0.08 | 0.58 | 0.55 | |
| Sea surface temperature | -0.36 | -2.84 | -1.64 | 0.18 | 0.40 | |
| Wind speed | -0.17 | -0.84 | 0.20 | 0.49 | 0.40 | |
| Non-breeding period * dbi | -0.10 | -1.20 | 1.00 | 0.86 | - |
β = parameter estimates for slopes (coefficients); CI = Confidence interval; IMP = variable importance (the sum of the Akaike weights for each variable in a set of models randomly generated from the full model); AUC = area under ROC curve; dbi = distance from breeding islands.
Fig 3Responses of seabird strandings to the distance from the nearest breeding island in Brazil.
Responses were obtained with Generalized Linear Models. Shaded areas indicate 95% confidence intervals.
Fig 4Best-fitting Structural Equation Models (SEMs) for stranding seabird wrecks in Brazil.
Predictor variables are shown in white boxes, while the composite terms are shown in the circles. Response variables included in the composite term are displayed in grey boxes. Significant paths (P < 0.05) are presented in blue (positive effects) and in orange (negative effects). Non-significant paths (P > 0.05) are shown in grey. Numbers adjacent to arrows indicate path coefficient estimates. The larger the coefficient, the greater the magnitude of the relationship between the variables. The width of the arrows is proportional to the value of the standardized coefficients (comparable to each other). The model fit the data (S4 Table). The variance explained by the model (R2) is shown next to each response variable.