Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-2mbcq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-30T09:23:37.967Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

14 - Oil and marine birds in a variable environment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2013

By
John A. Wiens ,
Robert H. Day  and
Stephen M. Murphy
Edited by
John A. Wiens
John A. Wiens
Affiliation:
PRBO Conservation Science, California and University of Western Australia, Perth
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Marine birds are among the most conspicuous elements of coastal ecosystems. Their variety, abundance, visibility, and behavior resonate with the public. They are also particularly vulnerable to oil spills. Most marine-bird species forage at or beneath the water’s surface, where they are at risk of exposure to floating oil. Additionally, many feed and nest along shorelines where floating oil can accumulate, and some form large breeding colonies that are susceptible to oil spills. Over 200 000 marine birds died as a direct consequence of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, and images of oiled birds dominated media coverage. Federal regulations requiring documentation of injuries to natural resources from oil spills (see Chapter 1) prompted multiple studies of marine birds, fueling debates about short- and long-term effects of the spill and subsequent recovery.

Determining how an oil spill (or any large environmental disturbance) affects marine birds is complicated by variation in the environment and in how birds respond to that environment. Coastal environments vary substantially from place to place and time to time. At high-latitude locations such as Prince William Sound (PWS), diurnal and monthly changes in tides; seasonal variations in storms, water temperatures, and productivity; and multiyear changes in ocean temperature and circulation such as El Niño events and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation can have dramatic effects. At any time, marine birds may be responding to a host of environmental factors over a range of scales, from the availability of suitable nesting sites along a small stretch of shoreline to the abundance of prey over a broad region or to variation in hemispheric-scale forces affecting the ocean. Because these influences do not disappear when an oil spill occurs, they and any associated environmental variations must be accounted for when assessing spill effects. Population changes attributed to an oil spill must be rigorously tested and documented, not just inferred.

Type
Chapter
Information
Oil in the Environment
Legacies and Lessons of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill
 , pp. 318 - 347
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Agler, B.A., Kendall, S.J., Irons, D.B., and Klosiewski, S.P. (1999). Declines in marine bird populations in Prince William Sound, Alaska, coincident with a climatic regime shift. Waterbirds 22(1): 98–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ainley, D.G., Ford, R.G., Brown, E.D., Suryan, R.M., and Irons, D.B. (2003). Prey resources, competition, and geographic structure of kittiwake colonies in Prince William Sound. Ecology 84(3): 709–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, P.J. and Piatt, J.F. (1999). Community reorganization in the Gulf of Alaska following ocean climate regime shift. Marine Ecology Progress Series 189: 117–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andres, B.A. (1997). The Exxon Valdez oil spill disrupted the breeding of black oystercatchers. The Journal of Wildlife Management 61(4): 1322–1328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andres, B.A. (1999). Effects of persistent shoreline oil on breeding success and chick growth in black oystercatchers. The Auk 116(3): 640–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernatowicz, J.A., Schempf, P.F., and Bowman, T.D. (1996). Bald eagle productivity in south-central Alaska in 1989 and 1990 after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. In Proceedings of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Symposium. Rice, S.D., Spies, R.B., Wolfe, D.A., and Wright, B.A., eds. Bethesda, MD, USA: American Fisheries Society; Symposium 18; ISBN-10: 0913235954; ISSN 08922284; pp. 785–797.Google Scholar
Bibby, C.J. and Lloyd, C.S. (1977). Experiments to determine the fate of dead birds at sea. Biological Conservation 12(4): 295–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bixler, K.S. (2010). Why Aren’t Pigeon Guillemots in Prince William Sound, Alaska, Recovering from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill? Corvallis, OR, USA: Oregon State University; M.S. Thesis.
Boersma, P.D., Parrish, J.K., and Kettle, A.B. (1995). Common murre abundance, phenology, and productivity on the Barren Islands, Alaska: The Exxon Valdez oil spill and long-term environmental change. In Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Fate and Effects in Alaskan Waters. Wells, P.G., Butler, J.N., and Hughes, J.S., eds. Philadelphia, PA, USA: American Society for Testing and Materials; ASTM Special Technical Publication 1219; ISBN-10: 0803118961; pp. 820–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrd, G.V., Reynolds, J.H., and Flint, P.L. (2009). Persistence rates and detection probabilities of bird carcasses on beaches of Unalaska Island, Alaska, following the wreck of the M/V Selendang Ayu. Marine Ornithology 37(3): 197–204.Google Scholar
Day, R.H., Murphy, S.M., Wiens, J.A., Hayward, G.D., Harner, E.J., and Lawhead, B.E. (1997a). Effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on habitat use by birds along the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. The Condor 99(3): 728–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, R.H., Murphy, S.M., Wiens, J.A., Hayward, G.D., Harner, E.J., and Smith, L.N. (1995). Use of oil-affected habitats by birds after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. In Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Fate and Effects in Alaskan Waters. Wells, P.G., Butler, J.N., and Hughes, J.S., eds. Philadelphia, PA, USA: American Society for Testing and Materials; ASTM Special Technical Publication 1219; ISBN-10: 0803118961; pp. 726–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, R.H., Murphy, S.M., Wiens, J.A., Hayward, G.D., Harner, E.J., and Smith, L.N. (1997b). Effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on habitat use by birds in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Ecological Applications 7(2): 593–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, R.H., Murphy, S.M., Wiens, J.A., and Parker, K.R. (2003). Changing habitat use by birds after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. In Proceedings of the 2003 International Oil Spill Conference (Prevention, Preparedness, Response and Restoration-Perspectives for a Cleaner Environment), April 6–11, 2003, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Washington DC, USA: American Petroleum Institute.Google Scholar
Dwyer, T.J., Isleib, P., Davenport, D.A., and Haddock, J.L. (1976). Marine Bird Populations in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Anchorage, AK, USA: US Fish and Wildlife Service; unpublished report.Google Scholar
Erikson, D.E. (1995). Surveys of murre colony attendance in the Northern Gulf of Alaska following the Exxon Valdez oil spill. In Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Fate and Effects in Alaskan Waters. Wells, P.G., Butler, J.N., and Hughes, J.S., eds. Philadelphia, PA, USA: American Society for Testing and Materials; ASTM Special Technical Publication 1219; ISBN-10:0803118961; pp. 780–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esler, D., Bowman, T.D., Dean, T.A., O’Clair, C.E., Jewett, S.C., and McDonald, L.L. (2000a). Correlates of harlequin duck densities during winter in Prince William Sound, Alaska. The Condor 102(4): 920–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esler, D., Bowman, T.D., O’Clair, C.E., Dean, T.A., and McDonald, L.L. (2000b). Densities of Barrow’s goldeneyes during winter in Prince William Sound, Alaska, in relation to habitat, food and history of oil contamination. Waterbirds 23(3): 423–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esler, D. and Iverson, S.A. (2010). Female harlequin duck winter survival 11 to 14 years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The Journal of Wildlife Management 74(3): 471–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esler, D., Schmutz, J.A., Jarvis, R.L., and Mulcahy, D.M. (2000c). Winter survival of adult female harlequin ducks in relation to history of contamination by the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The Journal of Wildlife Management 64(3): 839–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esler, D., Trust, K.A., Ballachey, B.E., Iverson, S.A., Lewis, T.L., Rizzolo, D.J., Mulcahy, D.M., Miles, A.K., Woodin, B.R., Stegeman, J.J., Henderson, J.D., and Wilson, B.W. (2010). Cytochrome P450 1A biomarker indication of oil exposure in harlequin ducks up to 20 years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 29(5): 1138–1145.Google Scholar
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council (2009). 2009 Status Report. Anchorage, AK, USA: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council.Google Scholar
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council (2010). 2010 Update on Injured Resources and Services. Anchorage, AK, USA: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council.Google Scholar
Ford, R.G., Bonnell, M.L., Varoujean, D.H., Page, G.W., Carter, H.R., Sharp, B.E., Heinemann, D., and Casey, J.L. (1991). Assessment of Direct Seabird Mortality in Prince William Sound and the Western Gulf of Alaska Resulting from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Portland, OR, USA: Ecological Consulting, Inc.; Exxon Valdez Oil Spill State/Federal Natural Resource Damage Assessment Bird Study Number 1; unpublished final report.
Ford, R.G., Bonnell, M.L., Varoujean, D.H., Page, G.W., Carter, H.R., Sharp, B.E., Heinemann, D., and Casey, J.L. (1996). Total direct mortality of seabirds from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. In Proceedings of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Symposium. Rice, S.D., Spies, R.B., Wolfe, D.A., and Wright, B.A., eds. Bethesda, MD, USA: American Fisheries Society; Symposium 18; ISBN-10: 0913235954; ISSN 08922284; pp. 684–711.Google Scholar
Ford, R.G., Wiens, J.A., Heinemann, D., and Hunt, G.L. (1982). Modelling the sensitivity of colonially breeding marine birds to oil spills: Guillemot and kittiwake populations on the Pribilof Islands, Bering Sea. Journal of Applied Ecology 19(1): 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fry, D.M. (1993). How do you fix the loss of half a million birds? In Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Symposium Program and Abstracts. Anchorage, AK, USA: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council; pp. 30–33.Google Scholar
Golet, G.H., Seiser, P.E., McGuire, A.D., Roby, D.D., Fischer, J.B., Kuletz, K.J., Irons, D.B., Dean, T.A., Jewett, S.C., and Newman, S.H. (2002). Long-term direct and indirect effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on pigeon guillemots in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Marine Ecology Progress Series 241: 287–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hare, S.R. and Mantua, N.J. (2000). Empirical evidence for North Pacific regime shifts in 1977 and 1989. Progress in Oceanography 47(2–4): 103–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harwell, M.A., Gentile, J.H., Parker, K.R., Murphy, S.M., Day, R.H., Bence, A.E., Neff, J.M., and Wiens, J.A. (2012). Quantitative assessment of current risks to harlequin ducks in Prince William Sound, Alaska, from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 18(2): 261–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatch, S.A. and Hatch, M.A. (1983). Populations and habitat use of marine birds in the Semidi Islands, Alaska. The Murrelet 64(2): 39–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, D.L. (1995). Recovery Monitoring of Pigeon Guillemot Populations in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Anchorage, AK, USA: US Fish and Wildlife Service; unpublished report.
Integral Consulting, Inc. (2006). Information Synthesis and Recovery Recommendations for Resources and Services Injured by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Final Report. Mercer Island, WA, USA: Integral Consulting, Inc.; Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Project 060783 Final Report.
Irons, D.B. (1996). Size and productivity of black-legged kittiwake colonies in Prince William Sound before and after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. In Proceedings of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Symposium. Rice, S.D., Spies, R.B., Wolfe, D.A., and Wright, B.A., eds. Bethesda, MD, USA: American Fisheries Society; Symposium 18; ISBN-10: 0913235954; ISSN: 08922284; pp. 738–747.Google Scholar
Irons, D.B., Kendall, S.J., Erickson, W.P., McDonald, L.L., and Lance, B.K. (2000). Nine years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill: Effects on marine bird populations in Prince William Sound, Alaska. The Condor 102(4): 723–737.Google Scholar
Irons, D.B., Nysewander, D.R., and Trapp, J.L. (1988). Prince William Sound Waterbird Distribution in Relation to Habitat Type. Anchorage, AK, USA: US Fish and Wildlife Service; unpublished report.
Irons, D. and Roby, D. (2011). Pigeon Guillemot Restoration Research in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Anchorage, AK, USA: Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, Restoration Project 11100853.
Iverson, S.A. and Esler, D. (2010). Harlequin duck population injury and recovery dynamics following the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. Ecological Applications 20(7): 1993–2006.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klosiewski, S.P. and Laing, K.K. (1994). Marine Bird Populations of Prince William Sound, Alaska, before and after the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Final Report. Anchorage, AK, USA: US Fish and Wildlife Service; Exxon Valdez Oil Spill State/Federal National Resource Damage Assessment Bird Study Number 2; Final Report.Google Scholar
Kuletz, K.J. (1996). Marbled murrelet abundance and breeding activity at Naked Island, Prince William Sound, and Kachemak Bay, Alaska, before and after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. In Proceedings of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Symposium. Rice, S.D., Spies, R.B., Wolfe, D.A., and Wright, B.A., eds. Bethesda, MD, USA: American Fisheries Society; Symposium 18; ISBN-10: 0913235954; ISSN 08922284; pp. 770–784.Google Scholar
Lance, B.K., Irons, D.B., Kendall, S.J., and McDonald, L.L. (2001). An evaluation of marine bird population trends following the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Prince William Sound, Alaska. Marine Pollution Bulletin 42(4): 298–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Litzow, M.A., Piatt, J.F., Prichard, A.K., and Roby, D.D. (2002). Response of pigeon guillemots to variable abundance of high-lipid and low-lipid prey. Oecologia 132(2): 286–295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKnight, A., Sullivan, K.M., Irons, D.B., Stephensen, S.W., and Howlin, S. (2008). Prince William Sound Marine Bird Surveys, Synthesis and Restoration. Anchorage, AK, USA: US Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management; Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Project 080751 Final Report.
Murphy, S.M., Day, R.H., Wiens, J.A., and Parker, K.R. (1997). Effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on birds: Comparisons of pre- and post-spill surveys in Prince William Sound, Alaska. The Condor 99(2): 299–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, S.M. and Mabee, T.J. (2000). Status of black oystercatchers in Prince William Sound, Alaska, nine years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Waterbirds 23(2): 204–213.Google Scholar
Nysewander, D.R., Dippel, C.H., Byrd, G.V., and Knudtson, E.P. (1993). Effects of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill on Murres: A Perspective from Observations at Breeding Colonies. Homer, AK, USA: US Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge; Exxon Valdez Oil Spill State/Federal National Resource Damage Assessment Bird Study Number 3; Final Report.
Oakley, K.L. and Kuletz, K.J. (1996). Population, reproduction, and foraging of pigeon guillemots at Naked Island, Alaska, before and after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. In Proceedings of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Symposium. Rice, S.D., Spies, R.B., Wolfe, D.A., and Wright, B.A., eds. Bethesda, MD, USA: American Fisheries Society; Symposium 18; ISBN-10: 0913235954; ISSN 08922284; pp. 759–769.Google Scholar
Parker, K.R. and Wiens, J.A. (2005). Assessing recovery following environmental accidents: environmental variation, ecological assumptions, and strategies. Ecological Applications 15(6): 2037–2051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patten, S.M., Crowe, T., Gustin, R., Hunter, R., Twait, P., and Hastings, C. (2000). Assessment of Injury to Sea Ducks from Hydrocarbon Uptake in Prince William Sound and the Kodiak Archipelago, Alaska, following the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Anchorage, AK, USA: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation; Exxon Valdez Oil Spill State/Federal National Resource Damage Assessment Bird Study Number 11 Final Report; Volumes I and II.
Peterson, C.H. (2001). The “Exxon Valdez” oil spill in Alaska: Acute, indirect and chronic effects on the ecosystem. Advances in Marine Biology 39: 1–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, D.L. and Parker, V.T., eds (1998). Ecological Scale: Theory and Applications. New York, NY, USA: Columbia University Press; ISBN-10: 0231105037; ISBN-13: 9780231105033.Google Scholar
Piatt, J.F. and Anderson, P. (1996). Response of common murres to the Exxon Valdez oil spill and long-term changes in the Gulf of Alaska marine ecosystem. In Proceedings of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Symposium. Rice, S.D., Spies, R.B., Wolfe, D.A., and Wright, B.A., eds. Bethesda, MD, USA: American Fisheries Society; Symposium 18; ISBN-10: 0913235954; ISSN 08922284; pp. 720–737.Google Scholar
Piatt, J.F. and Ford, R.G. (1996). How many seabirds were killed by the Exxon Valdez oil spill? In Proceedings of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Symposium. Rice, S.D., Spies, R.B., Wolfe, D.A., and Wright, B.A., eds. Bethesda, MD, USA: American Fisheries Society; Symposium 18; ISBN-10: 0913235954; ISSN 08922284; pp. 712–719.Google Scholar
Piatt, J.F. and Lensink, C.J. (1989). Exxon Valdez bird toll. Nature 342(6252): 865–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piatt, J.F., Lensink, C.J., Butler, W., Kendziorek, M., and Nysewander, D.R. (1990). Immediate impact of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on marine birds. The Auk 107(2): 387–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, S.D., Short, J.W., Carls, M.G., Moles, A., and Spies, R.B. (2007). The Exxon Valdez oil spill. In Long-Term Ecological Change in the Northern Gulf of Alaska. Spies, R.B., ed. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier; ISBN-10: 0444529608; ISBN-13: 9780444529602; pp. 419–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, D.H. and Petrula, M.J. (1998). Status of harlequin ducks in Prince William Sound, Alaska, after the Exxon Valdez oil spill, 1995–1997. Anchorage, AK, USA: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation; Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Project 97427 Final Report.
Sharp, B.E., Cody, M., and Turner, R. (1996). Effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on the black oystercatcher. In Proceedings of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Symposium. Rice, S.D., Spies, R.B., Wolfe, D.A., and Wright, B.A., eds. Bethesda, MD, USA: American Fisheries Society; Symposium 18; ISBN-10: 0913235954; ISSN 08922284; pp. 748–758.Google Scholar
Skalski, J.R., Coats, D.A., and Fukuyama, A.K. (2001). Criteria for oil spill recovery: A case study of the intertidal community of Prince William Sound, Alaska, following the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Environmental Management 28(1): 9–18.Google Scholar
Skalski, J.R. and McKenzie, D.H. (1982). A design for aquatic monitoring programs. Journal of Environmental Management 14(3): 237–251.Google Scholar
Sowls, A.L., Hatch, S.A., and Lensink, C.J. (1978). Catalog of Alaskan Seabird Colonies. Anchorage, Alaska, USA: US Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services; Project FWS/OBS 78/78.Google Scholar
Springer, A.M. (1998). Is it all climate change? Why marine bird and mammal populations fluctuate in the North Pacific. In Biotic Impacts of Extratropical Climate Variability in the Pacific: Proceedings, ‘Aha Huliko‘a 10th Hawaiian Winter Workshop, January 25–29, 1998, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Hawaii. Holloway, G., Müller, P., and Henderson, D., eds. Honolulu, HI, USA: University of Hawaii, Department of Oceanography and School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology; pp. 109–119.Google Scholar
US Fish and Wildlife Service (2008). North Pacific Seabird Colony Database. Anchorage, AK, USA: US Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management.Google Scholar
White, C.M., Ritchie, R.J., and Cooper, B.A. (1995). Density and productivity of bald eagles in Prince William Sound, Alaska, after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. In Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Fate and Effects in Alaskan Waters. Wells, P.G., Butler, J.N., and Hughes, J.S., eds. Philadelphia, PA, USA: American Society for Testing and Materials; ASTM Special Technical Publication 1219; ISBN-10: 0803118961; pp. 762–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiens, J.A. (1989). Spatial scaling in ecology. Functional Ecology 3(4): 385–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiens, J.A. (1995). Recovery of seabirds following the Exxon Valdez oil spill: An overview. In Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: Fate and Effects in Alaskan Waters. Wells, P.G., Butler, J.N., and Hughes, J.S., eds. Philadelphia, PA, USA: American Society for Testing and Materials; ASTM Special Technical Publication 1219; ISBN-10: 0803118961; pp. 854–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiens, J.A., Crist, T.O., Day, R.H., Murphy, S.M., and Hayward, G.D. (1996). Effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on marine bird communities in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Ecological Applications 6(3): 828–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiens, J.A., Day, R.H., Murphy, S.M., and Fraker, M.A. (2010). Assessing cause-effect relationships in environmental accidents: Harlequin ducks and the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Current Ornithology 17: 131–189.Google Scholar
Wiens, J.A., Day, R.H., Murphy, S.M., and Parker, K.R. (2004). Changing habitat and habitat use by birds after the Exxon Valdez oil spill, 1989–2001. Ecological Applications 14(6): 1806–1825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiens, J.A. and Parker, K.R. (1995). Analyzing the effects of accidental environmental impacts: Approaches and assumptions. Ecological Applications 5(4): 1069–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiese, F.K. and Robertson, G.J. (2004). Assessing seabird mortality from chronic oil discharges at sea. The Journal of Wildlife Management 68(3): 627–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zabala, J., Zuberogoitia, I., Martínez-Climent, J.A., and Etxezarreta, J. (2011). Do long lived seabirds reduce the negative effects of acute pollution on adult survival by skipping breeding? A study with European storm petrels (Hydrobates pelagicus) during the Prestige oil-spill. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62(1): 109–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×