ArticlePDF Available

Population status, reproduction and conservation of Osprey Pandion haliaetus in La Gomera and El Hierro, Canary Islands (2003-2004)

  • Grupo de Ornitología e Historia Natural de las islas Canarias
  • Grupo de Ornitología e Historia Natural de las islas Canarias

Abstract and Figures

Breeding population size and some reproductive aspects of Osprey Pandion haliaetus in La Gomera and El Hierro (Canary Islands) were studied during the 2003 and 2004 breeding seasons. All active nests were situated in the southern coasts of both islands. A total of five territorial pairs were detected in La Gomera and one in El Hierro, nesting three in La Gomera and one in El Hierro. These islands contain about 30% of the entire Canarian Osprey population and 16-17% of the Spanish population. Laying dates, estimated in ten day periods, were 21-31 March (n=3) and 1-10 May (n=2). Mean productivity (0.86) was lower than that estimated by some authors for stable populations. Human activities such as recreational sailing, trekking or camping near the nests could limit the establishment of new pairs and cause low productivity.
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Osprey Pandion haliaetus has a patchy
distribution in the Western Palearctic. Many local
populations, especially in the Mediterranean and
Macaronesian regions, have decreased dramatically
to or very close to extinction during the last decades
due to human persecution, habitat destruction and
tourism development (Schmidt 1998). Current
breeding populations of Osprey in the
Macaronesian islands are located only in the Cape
Verde (Palma et al. 2004) and Canary Islands. In the
latter case, the Osprey breeds in Lanzarote,
Tenerife, La Gomera and El Hierro, and in the islets
of Montaña Clara and Alegranza (Martín &
Lorenzo 2001). Single individuals or pairs can be
observed in the rest of the archipelago (Martín &
Lorenzo 2001). Recent population estimates in the
Canarian Archipelago vary between 15 and 20 pairs
(Triay et al. 2004). Because of its low numbers and
limited distribution range in Spain (Balearic,
Chafarinas and Canary Islands), the species has
been catalogued as Critically Endangered (Triay &
Siverio 2003).
Airo 15: 85-90 (2005)
1Los Barros 21, E-38410 Los Realejos, Tenerife, Canary Islands. / 2La Malecita s/n, E-38480 Buenavista del Norte,
Tenerife, Canary Islands. E-mail:
SUMMARY - Breeding population size and some reproductive aspects of Osprey Pandion
haliaetus in La Gomera and El Hierro (Canary Islands) were studied during the 2003 and 2004
breeding seasons. All active nests were situated in the southern coasts of both islands. A total of five
territorial pairs were detected in La Gomera and one in El Hierro, nesting three in La Gomera and
one in El Hierro. These islands contain about 30% of the entire Canarian Osprey population and
16-17% of the Spanish population. Laying dates, estimated in ten day periods, were 21-31 March
(n=3) and 1-10 May (n=2). Mean productivity (0.86) was lower than that estimated by some authors
for stable populations. Human activities such as recreational sailing, trekking or camping near the nests
could limit the establishment of new pairs and cause low productivity.
Estimou-se a população reprodutora e estudaram-se alguns parâmetros reprodutores da Águia-
pesqueira Pandion haliateus nas ilhas de La Gomera e El Hierro (arquipélago das Canárias) em
2003 e 2004. Todos os ninhos activos na parte sul de cada uma das ilhas foram observados.
Detectaram-se cinco casais com comportamento territorial em La Gomera e um casal em El Hierro,
ilhas onde se encontraram três e um ninho, respectivamente. A Águia-pesqueira nestas duas ilhas
representa cerca de 30% da população total do arquipélago das Canárias e 16-17% do número de
efectivos em Espanha. As postura, avaliadas em períodos de 10 dias, ocorreram entre 21- 31 de Março
(n=3) e 1-10 Maio (n=2). A productividade (0,86 crias/casal onde ocorreu postura) foi mais baixa
do que os valores apresentados por alguns autores para populações estáveis. As actividades humanas
tais como vela de recreio, caminhadas ou campismo em áreas junto aos ninhos poderão limitar o
estabelecimento de novos casais e diminuir a produtividade.
Overall, very little information has been
published on the biology of Osprey in the Canaries
(cf. Martín & Lorenzo 2001). Up to now, studies
conducted at La Gomera and El Hierro involved
only extensive censuses, that were also carried out in
the whole Canarian Archipelago (Díaz et al. 1986,
Hernández et al. 1987, Delgado et al. 1988, González
et al. 1992). According to these censuses, the species
maintained three breeding pairs in both islands
during the period 1983-1991. Recently, Martín &
Lorenzo (2001) estimated five pairs in each island.
Little information is available on its breeding
biology; available data refers mainly to isolated
observations of non-fledged chicks in their nests.
In the present paper, we present new
information on breeding numbers and repro-
duction (especially productivity) of Osprey in La
Gomera and El Hierro. Threats that could affect
the population status and breeding success are
The Canary Islands are a volcanic archipelago
that is located 100km off the north-west African
coast (27º37’-29º25’N and 13º20’-18º19’W) and is
comprised of seven major islands and several small
islets and rocks. The islands of La Gomera and El
Hierro are situated in the south-west of the Canarian
Archipelago (Figure 1), and are the smallest (370 and
269 km2, respectively). Their coastlines are
predominantly rocky with boulder shore, and cliffs
up to 300 m high. Sea conditions are usually good
throughout the year in the sheltered coast sectors,
mainly with southern or western orientations.
Human settlements are scattered along the coast, and
a total of five major ports are present in these
islands. Around 33% and 58% of the territory of La
Gomera and El Hierro, respectively, are protected by
Canarian laws and the south-west marine sector of
El Hierro (Mar de Las Calmas) has been declared a
marine reserve by the Canarian government.
Osprey populations in La Gomera and El
Hierro were studied during the breeding seasons of
2003 and 2004 by three to four researchers. In the
first year, one visit was made to each island (during
the fledging period); La Gomera was surveyed at
the end of June (4 days) and El Hierro at the
beginning of the same month (4 days). During
2004, several visits (during the mating, incubation
and fledging periods) were made to both islands
from February to August (23 and 17 days to La
Gomera and El Hierro, respectively).
In both islands and years, all known territories
and recognizable nests (Delgado et al. 1988,
González et al. 1992, Martín & Lorenzo 2001) were
inspected and the remaining potential nesting areas
were searched carefully for new pairs. Coastal
transects by boat and observation from vantage
points were carried out, using binoculars and
Figure 1. Map of the Canary Islands and the position (in black) of La Gomera and El Hierro. / Figura 1. Mapa das
ilhas Canárias assinalando a posição (a negro) das ilhas La Gomera e El Hierro.
telescopes. To avoid disturbance, all observations
were made more than 150 meters away from nests.
Each nest was categorized according to Van
Daele & Van Daele (1982): active (defended by
adults and containing eggs), occupied (defended
but no egg laying) or inactive (no adults in the
surrounding and no new nesting material). The egg
laying dates (estimated in ten day periods) in
successful pairs were obtained from the chick
estimated ages, using 38 days as incubation period
(Triay 1995) and 53-54 days as nestling period
(Stotts & Henny 1975, Bustamante 1995).
Furthermore, the number of fledged young per
active pair (with clutch), breeding success
(percentage of pairs with young) and fledging rate
(number of fledged young per successful pair) were
calculated (Thibault et al. 2001, Triay 1995).
A total of ten nests, at different stages of
preservation, were located on sea cliffs around La
Gomera, one in the north coast and the rest in the
south. Occupied (n=1) and active (n=4) nests were
concentrated in 7.64 km (lineal distance) of the
south coast. Mean distance between nests of both
categories was 1,910 m (range 1,100-3,080 m). In El
Hierro, we located seven nests on coastal cliffs (two
of them were very deteriorated, consisting only of
some branches). None of them presented signs of
occupation during 2003, while in the following year
one was active in the southern sector.
In 1991, González et al. (1992) counted eight
nest structures in La Gomera (three on the north
coast and five on the south) and four in El Hierro.
Presumably some nests went unnoticed by these
authors and also by us, due to their bad state of
conservation; however, it is possible that two nests
were built on each island during the period 1992-
2002. In Tenerife, only one new nest has been build
during the last fifteen years and the nests/pair ratio
was 2.2 in 2003 (Siverio 2003).
Although a similar degree of human activity
seems to occur on both the north and south coasts
of La Gomera, breeding pairs occupied
preferentially the southern coast, where sea
conditions are usually good during all seasons, and
foraging activities are more successful (Grubbs
1977). In fact, the three active nests detected in La
Gomera in 1991 were also located in this coastal
sector (González et al. 1992).
Population status
As shown in Table 1, notable differences in
number of breeding pairs exist between the two
island. Two new pairs were counted in La Gomera,
while in El Hierro, two pairs apparently disappeared
since previous censuses, which mentioned three
pairs in 1983, 1984, 1987 and 1991 in both islands
(see González et al. 1992). However, our data agrees
with estimates made by Martín & Lorenzo (2001) in
the case of La Gomera but not in El Hierro (4-5
pairs according to these authors). The current
breeding individuals of La Gomera and El Hierro
represents 30% and 16-17% of the entire Canarian
and Spanish populations, respectively (Triay et al.
Although all known nests were inspected for
signs of occupation (new nesting material,
dropping, etc.), some pairs could have been left
undetected during 2003. For example, a single
individual observed in El Hierro in June could
belong to an unsuccessful pair.
Our data does not allow us to explain the
current status of the species in El Hierro. However,
the low or zero productivity (see Reproduction
section below), high adult mortality and/or human
disturbance during the breeding season should have
influenced the present critical situation.
Accordingly, in surveys carried out during 2000, no
successfully pairs were detected on the island (de la
Puente et al. 2003).
Due to the philopatric behaviour of the species
(Poole 1989a, Thibault et al. 2001), it is supposed that
the fledging rate of previous years (M. Siverio pers.
obs.) has contributed to stability and increase in
breeding numbers at La Gomera. It is known that
distance between hatching and breeding sites of the
majority of individuals (mainly males) of some
migratory populations is lower than 50 km (Poole
1989a). The same behaviour has been observed in the
resident osprey population in Corsica (West
Mediterranean), where median distance between natal
and breeding sites of both sexes is around 15 km
(Thibault et al. 2001). Distances between La Gomera
and Tenerife (around 29 km), and between La
Gomera and El Hierro (61 km), could influence the
interbreeding rates of Ospreys between those islands,
the rate being higher within closer islands. A similar
situation was suggested by Ferreira et al. (1999) for the
Cape Verde Archipelago, where the southern and
peripheral Sotavento (leeward) group of islands
(more dispersed) show a decrease in breeding
numbers, which may depend on immigration from
the Barlavento (windward) clustered group, with
stable or locally increasing numbers.
During the two years a total of seven active
pairs were counted, six in La Gomera (three per
year) and one in El Hierro. Laying dates of
successful pairs (n=5) were: three during 21-31
March and two during 1-10 May. Mean productivity
(young fledged/laying pair) and mean fledging rate
(fledged young/successful pair) for each year and
island are presented in Table 1. In La Gomera
average productivity and fledging rate in both years
were 0.83 and 1.25 (n=4), respectively; values of
these parameters for the two islands were 0.86 and
1.20 (n=5), respectively.
Previously, laying dates in the Canary Islands
were registered in the first fortnight of April
(González et al. 1992, Siverio & Siverio 1997, Siverio
2003). Therefore, laying dates in this archipelago
range from the first fortnight of February to the
first fortnight of May. Overall, pairs in their first or
second year of reproduction lay later (Triay 1995,
Siverio 2003), but it is impossible to know if this is
the case at La Gomera and El Hierro, because birds
were not individually marked (Bretagnolle et al.
Mean productivity at La Gomera (0.83) was
very low when compared to other nearby sedentary
populations: 1.32 in Tenerife (Siverio 2003), 1.30 in
Minorca, West Mediterranean (Triay 2002) or 1.43
in Corsica, West Mediterranean (Thibault &
Bretagnolle 2001). Some studies (based on
mortality and production) carried out in the United
States suggest that the mean productivity needed to
maintain a stable population must be 0.8 (Poole
1989b) or between 0.95 and 1.30 (Henny & Wight
1969) fledged young per active pair.
In our study area, low productivity coupled with
a probable high adult mortality rate will surely
influence population stability. However, depending
on the immigration rate from other islands (with
stable productivity), this situation might improve.
However, in Tenerife (the nearest island to La
Gomera), high productivity (>1.5) during recent
years has decreased to 0.5 in 2003 (Siverio 2003). In
Minorca, decreasing productivity is correlated with
a reduction in the number of pairs (Triay 2002,
Triay et al. 2004). It is probable that productivity in
La Gomera during recent years has been higher
than that observed in the present study. For
example, if we consider that all young observed by
González et al. (1992) in this island had fledged,
mean productivity would have been 2.0 (active
pairs, n=3).
Threats and conservation
Conservation problems in the islands studied
seem to be related with different human activities.
In La Gomera, camping and recreational sailing
probably caused the loss of one breeding pair in
1999 (M. Siverio pers. obs.). Habitat (nesting cliff
tops) modification or destruction could seriously
affect the population. In fact, in La Gomera, one
pair abandoned its eyrie while an airport was being
Table 1. Number of territorial pairs, active pairs (with
clutch) and some breeding parameters of Osprey (Pandion
haliaetus) in La Gomera and El Hierro (Canary Islands)
during 2003-2004. / Tabela 1. Número de casais de Águia-
pesqueira (Pandion haliateus) com comportamento territorial e
com ninho, e parâmetros reprodutores destes casais em La Gomera
e el Hierro, ilhas Canárias em 2003-2004.
La Gomera El Hierro
2003 2004 2003 2004
Territorial pairs 4 5 0 1
Active pairs 3 3 0 1
Fledged young 3 2 0 1
Mean productivity
(young fledged/
laying pair)
1 0.66 0 1
Breeding success
(% pairs with
50 40 0 100
Fledging rate
1.5 1 0 1
constructed during the 1990s. When it was finished,
one pair occupied the area again but recent tourist
development in its proximities caused the
disappearance of the birds. Other activities
potentially negative for Ospreys detected in the
eyries’ surroundings are sport fishing and wildlife
photography. In the vicinity of two nests in El
Hierro, one of them occupied at least until 2000 (de
la Puente et al. 2003) and the other until 2002 (F.
Siverio & P. Felipe pers. comm.), sightseeing tracks
were obvious.
Studies carried out in other populations in the
United States (Ames & Mersereau 1964, Swenson
1979, Van Daele & Van Daele 1982, Levenson &
Koplin 1984), Europe (Odsjö & Sondell 2001,
Thibault et al. 2001) and even Tenerife (Triay et al.
2004) have demonstrated that these activities are
important negative factors for the breeding success
of Ospreys. It has been speculated that repeated
human presence during the incubation or the early
chick rearing periods keep birds off their nests.
Such presence is related to low egg hatchability, due
to the overheating of eggs and subsequent
embryonic death, or low nestling survival (Swenson
1979, Van Daele & Van Daele 1982, Levenson &
Koplin 1984). Furthermore, in these situations
potential predation of eggs and chicks by the
Yellow-legged Gull Larus cachinnans (common
breeder in the studied area) may occur.
Action is needed to reduce the negative impact
of the aforementioned activities. Firstly, an annual
monitoring plan of the breeding population and the
identification of particular threats to each eyrie is
very important to take precise conservation
measures. During the breeding season, nest and
perch surroundings must be restricted to sailing and
anchoring. Approximately 150 m are recommended
by Rodgers & Schwikert (2002) as the minimum
buffer-zone to prevent Osprey flushing caused by
vessels and personal watercraft in the foraging and
feeding areas of the west coast of Florida.
Although no precise studies have been made of the
Canaries, we tentatively propose a buffer-zone of
more than 200 m for breeding territories and nests.
Furthermore, activities such as camping, abseiling
or trekking in the proximities of nests must be
prohibited, because it has caused the loss of active
nests and the low productivity in eyries less than
one km apart (Swenson 1979). Finally, information
on natal philopatry and mortality, based on a
ringing program of young birds would be very
useful for Osprey conservation in the Canary
Acknowledgements: Some visits to La
Gomera and El Hierro were supported by the
SEO/BirdLife and ICIAC, S.L. We are in dept to
Francisco M. González and David Acuña for the
loan of their boats, which allowed us to conduct the
coastal transects of La Gomera and El Hierro,
respectively. Special thanks also to Felipe Siverio,
Airam Rodríguez and Alejandro Padrón (and his
family) for their help during part of the fieldwork.
In La Gomera, Juana María Darias (Cabildo Insular
de La Gomera) facilitated our visits to this island
and, Juan González and Longino Lima
(Vicenconsejería de Pesca del Gobierno de
Canarias) help us very much during sea
prospections in 2003 in El Hierro. The location
map was produced by Jesús Alonso and valuable
comments and corrections on the earlier draft of
this manuscript were given by Felipe Siverio, Rubén
Barone and two anonymous referees.
Ames, P.L. & G.S. Mersereau 1964. Some factors in
the decline of the osprey in Connecticut. Auk
81: 173-185.
Bretagnolle, V., J.-C. Thibault & J.-M. Dominici
1994. Field identification of individual ospreys
using head marking pattern. Journal of Wildlife
Management 58: 175-178.
Bustamante, J. 1995. The duration of the post-
fledging dependence period of Ospreys Pandion
haliaetus at Loch Garten, Scotland. Bird Study 42:
de la Puente, J., R. Moreno-Opo, J.A. Lorenzo & C.
López (rec.) 2003. Noticiario Ornitológico.
Ardeola 50: 151-169.
Delgado, G., J. Carrillo, E. Hernández, N. Trujillo,
F. Santana, V. Quilis, M. Nogales & K.
Emmerson 1988. Censo de las aves rapaces del
archipiélago canario. Museo Insular de Ciencias
Naturales de Santa Cruz de Tenerife.
Unpublished report.
Díaz, G., O. Trujillo & E. Hernández 1986.
Situación del Águila Pescadora (Pandion haliaetus)
en Canarias. Boletín de la Estación Central de
Ecología 15: 67-72.
Ferreira, J., R. Cangarato, P.V. Pinto & L. Palma
1999. Situação actual e tendencias populacionais
do Guincho Pandion haliaetus em Cabo Verde. Pp
101-102 in P. Beja, P. Catry & F. Moreira (Eds).
Actas do II congresso de Ornitologia da Sociedade
Portuguesa para o Estudo das Aves. SPEA, Lisboa.
González, G., J.M. Santiago & L. Fernández 1992.
El Águila Pescadora (Pandion haliaetus) en España.
Censo, Reproducción y Conservación.ICONA.
Colección Técnica, Madrid.
Grubbs, T.C. 1977. Weather-dependent foraging in
Ospreys. Auk 94: 146-149.
Henny, C.J. & H.M. Wight 1969. An endangered
osprey population: estimates of mortality and
production. Auk 86: 188-198.
Hernández, E., G. Díaz & O. Trujillo 1987. El
Águila Pescadora (Pandion haliaetus) en Canarias:
situación actual y aspectos de la biología. Vieraea
17: 203-207.
Levenson, H. & J.R. Koplin 1984. Effects of
human activity on productivity of nesting
Ospreys. Journal of Wildlife Management 48: 1374-
Martín, A. & J.A. Lorenzo 2001. Aves del archipiélago
canario. Francisco Lemus Editor, La Laguna.
Odsjö T. & J. Sondell 2001. Population status and
breeding success of Osprey Pandion haliaetus in
Sweden, 1971-1998. Vogelwelt 122: 155-166.
Palma, L., J. Ferreira, R. Cangarato & P.V. Pinto
2004. Current status of the Osprey in the Cape
Verde Islands. Journal of Raptor Research 38: 141-
Poole, A.F. 1989a. Regulation of Osprey Pandion
haliaetus populations: the role of nest site
availability: Pp 227-234 in B.-U. Meyburg &
R.D. Chancellor (Eds). Raptor in the Modern
World. WWGBP, Berlin, London & Paris.
Poole, A.F. 1989b. Ospreys: A Natural and Unnatural
History. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rodgers, J.A. & S.T. Schwikert 2002. Buffer-Zone
Distances to Protect Foraging and Loafing
Waterbirds from Disturbance by Personal
Watercraft and Outboard-Powered Boat.
Conservation Biology 16: 216-224.
Siverio, M. 2003. Seguimiento del Águila Pescadora
(Pandion haliaetus Linnaeus, 1758) en Tenerife,
islas Canarias (1997-2003). Consejería de Medio
Ambiente y Ordenación Territorial del
Gobierno de Canarias. Unpublished report.
Siverio, M. & F. Siverio 1997. Population size and
breeding data of the Osprey Pandion haliaetus on
Tenerife, Canary Islands. Airo 8: 37-39.
Schmidt, D. 1998. Osprey Pandion haliaetus breeding
numbers in the Western Palearctic: Pp 323-327
in R.D. Chancellor, B.-U. Meyburg & J.J. Ferrero
(Eds). Holartic Birds of Prey. ADENEX-
WWGBP, Mérida.
Stotts, V.D. & C.J. Henny 1975. The age at first
flight for young American Ospreys. Wilson
Bulletin 87: 277-278.
Swenson, J.E. 1979. Factors affecting status and
reproduction of ospreys in Yellowstone
National Park. Journal Wildlife Management 43:
Thibault, J.-C. & V. Bretagnolle 2001. Monitoring,
research and conservation of Osprey Pandion
haliaetus on Corsica, Mediterranean France.
Vogelwelt 122: 173-178.
Thibault, J.-C., V. Bretagnolle & J.-M. Dominici
2001. Le Balbuzard pêcheur en Corse. Du martyre au
symbole de la protection de la nature. Éditions Alain
Piazzola, Ajaccio.
Triay, R. 1995. Reproducción del Águila Pescadora
(Pandion haliaetus) en la isla de Menorca
(Mediterráneo Occidental). Ardeola 42: 21-28.
Triay, R. 2002. Situació de l’Àguila Peixetera Pandion
haliaetus a l’illa de Menorca. Anuari Ornitològic de
les Balears 17: 31-40.
Triay, R. & M. Siverio 2003. Águila Pescadora
Pandion haliaetus. Pp 194-195 in R. Martí & J.C.
del Moral (Eds). Atlas de las Aves Reproductoras en
España. Dirección General de Conservación de
la Naturaleza Sociedad Española de
Ornitología, Madrid.
Triay, R., M. Siverio & B. Rodríguez 2004. Tendidos
y molestias humanas, un revés para el águila
pescadora. Quercus 217: 64-65.
Van Daele, L.J. & H.A. Van Daele 1982. Factors
affecting the productivity of Ospreys nesting in
West-Central Idaho. Condor 84: 292-299.
... Seventeen variables were used to characterize nesting cliffs and surrounding areas (both land and sea), and to evaluate the potential interspecific interactions with Barbary Falcons Falco pelegrinoides (> 150 breeding pairs in the Canaries) and Yellow-legged Gulls Larus michahellis (> 7000 breeding pairs) (Table S2). In the Canaries, both of these species have breeding seasons overlapping that of Ospreys, with laying dates between February and April (Siverio & Rodr ıguez 2005, Siverio 2006). Behavioural interactions of these species with Ospreys may influence habitat choice or breeding success of Ospreys, so incorporation of measures of these species' presence may be important (Sergio et al. 2004). ...
... Population size has remained stable since the 1980s, and many sites where old nests are still recognizable have remained unoccupied for decades (Triay & Siverio 2008 ). The philopatric and semi-colonial behaviour of the species (Poole 1989a,b), together with low breeding success (Siverio & Rodr ıguez 2005, Siverio 2006), and non-natural sources of mortality (Rodr ıguez et al. 2010) may be limiting population increase (Poole 1989b, Palma et al. 2004). In Corsica, breeding pairs located in coastal sectors with low human pressure and favourable habitats avoided local extinction during an overall population decline, and then provided the nucleus for a subsequent recovery (Thibault et al. 2001, Bretagnolle et al. 2008 ). ...
... Currently, Ospreys prefer nests situated higher above sea level and further away from unpaved roads than in the past, suggesting avoidance of human presence. Some old nests located low on cliffs and close to beaches have been unoccupied for many years (Triay & Siverio 2008), and others have been abandoned recently, probably because of excessive disturbance (Siverio & Rodr ıguez 2005). Recently used nests situated in caves have been less numerous than historical examples (17.2 vs. 33.3% of sites) perhaps because Ospreys select nests with good visibility in response to increased human activity. ...
We studied nesting habitat selection of the endangered non-migratory Osprey Pandion haliaetus population of the Canary Islands and evaluated the effect of human expansion in recent decades. Compared with randomly selected potential nest-sites, Osprey nests were more frequently found on taller, southwest-facing cliffs, char-acterized by lower human pressure and closer to Yel-low-legged Gull Larus michahellis colonies and Barbary Falcon Falco pelegrinoides breeding sites. Furthermore, changes in some breeding habitat features have been detected in recent decades. According to our predictive models, large areas of suitable habitat are available but unoccupied in the Canaries, and human activities are probably limiting the settlement and dispersion of new pairs.
... Some aspects of osprey ecology in the South, such as the fact they are resident, the natural substrate where they build their nests (usually on top of pinnacles, coastal cliff ledges or on the ground; Naurois, 1987;Fisher et al., 2001;Thibault, Bretagnolle & Dominici, 2001;Triay & Siverio, 2008) and prey consumed (essentially marine fish species; see a review in Siverio et al., 2011), considerably differ from those in higher latitudes, where the birds are migratory and tree nesters (Saurola, 1997), and feed mainly on freshwater fish species (see Siverio et al., 2011). In general, southern resident populations are rare and severely threatened (some of them even extinct) mostly because of human persecution and habitat degradation, or habitat loss due to coastal developments (Schmidt, 1998;Palma, 2001;Triay & Siverio, 2004;Siverio & Rodr ıguez, 2005). ...
... L opez-Su arez, pers. obs.; Siverio & Rodr ıguez, 2005), could have improved productivity (see Schmidt, 2001;Saurola, 2005;Wahl & Barbraud, 2005;Dennis, 2008). Furthermore, as mentioned by Mougeot & Bretagnolle (2006) for the red kite (Milvus milvus) in Corsica, low productivity in southern sedentary populations of osprey (residents in islands) could be due to suboptimal climatic and habitat conditions for the species, when established on the geographical edge of its range (Dennis, 2007), rather than an effect of insularity. ...
Between 2004 and 2007, we studied density, habitat features and breeding parameters of the osprey (Pandion haliaetus) population in Boa Vista Island (Cape Verde). A total of 79 nest structures were identified, 37 of which were occupied for at least 1 year during the study period. The osprey population ranged between 14 and 18 pairs, and the mean density and distance between neighbouring occupied nests were 2.58 pairs per 100 km2 and 3089 m, respectively. Occupied nests were found to be significantly further from the coastline and roads than unoccupied nests, but the distances from villages were similar. The majority (81.1%) of the 37 occupied nests were easily accessible to humans. Mean clutch size was 2.59, average productivity was 0.76 young/active nest, and breeding success was 58.8% [Correction added on 13 May 2013, after first online publication: the average productivity was changed from 0.72 to 0.76]. Density in Boa Vista was higher than that in other sedentary island populations in the Western Palearctic, whereas the productivity was the lowest of this region. Clutch size did not vary among Western Palearctic populations, but the differences observed in productivity were likely influenced by local factors that in Boa Vista are attributed to nest depredation by the brown-necked raven (Corvus ruficollis) and to direct human persecution.
... While unique in Australia as Osprey habitat, these coastal landscape characteristics found across the southern extent of the species' continental range are remarkably similar to P. haliaetus habitat in the Cape Verde and Canary Islands off northwest Africa and on the island of Corsica west of Italy. Here nest sites are also on cliffs in open terrain and subjected to frequent disturbance from human activity or approach, resulting in breeding failures (Palma et al. 2004;Siverio and Rodriguez 2005;Thibault, Bretagnolle and Domonici 1995). ...
Full-text available
Comprehensive surveys of Osprey habitat across all coastal regions of South Australia were undertaken in 2008-10 and in 2015-17. Comparison of results from the two surveys has revealed a significant decline in the population. In 2008-10, 58 occupied territories were found; in 2015-17 only 43 were identified. This represents an overall decline of 26% in the breeding population over the period between surveys. The steepest declines were in the west of the state where the number of occupied territories decreased from 33 in 2010 to 22 in 2017, a decline of 33%; and on Kangaroo Island where 14 occupied territories in 2010 declined to eight in 2015 and 2016, a 43% decline. When recent survey results from the quasi-mainland habitat of Kangaroo Island are combined with mainland data, a decline of 39% is revealed in the number of occupied territories across mainland coastal areas in South Australia; i.e. a combined total of 49 (of 58) territories were found on the mainland in 2008-10 and only 30 (of 43) territories were identified in these habitats in 2015-17 surveys. In addition to the number of abandoned territories we found an underlying level of instability in the contemporary population evidenced by: a) the high number of nest relocations (n = 16 of 43; 37%) that had occurred within occupied territories over the period since 2010; and b) the number of probable 'refugee' pairs (n = 6; 14% of the breeding population) apparently having moved to start new territories. Although the causes for this population instability and rapid decline are not immediately apparent, because it has occurred widely across the extreme southern edge of the Australasian sub-species' continental distribution, there are likely multiple contributing factors that require further investigation. From these compelling survey results we contend that species and habitat conservation measures are required in the short term to prevent further decline among the remaining Osprey population in South Australia.
... pers.). En La Gomera, sin embargo, parece que la población se ha mantenido "estable", con tres parejas en la mayoría de los censos (n = 12), si bien el número ha variado entre dos More- no, 2002) y cinco (2004; Siverio y Rodríguez, 2005). Por último, en los censos realizados en El Hierro durante el periodo 1983-2011 (n = 14), el número de parejas fluctuó entre una y tres (Trujillo, 2015), mientras que en los conteos de los años 2013 y 2014 solo fue visto un individuo solitario (Trujillo, 2015). ...
... pers.). En La Gomera, sin embargo, parece que la población se ha mantenido "estable", con tres parejas en la mayoría de los censos (n = 12), si bien el número ha variado entre dos Moreno, 2002Moreno, ) y cinco (2004Siverio y Rodríguez, 2005). Por último, en los censos realizados en El Hierro durante el periodo 1983-2011 (n = 14), el número de parejas fluctuó entre una y tres (Trujillo, 2015), mientras que en los conteos de los años 2013 y 2014 solo fue visto un individuo solitario (Trujillo, 2015). ...
Full-text available
Osprey Pandion haliaetus breeding population in Portugal (2018) Palma, L. y Safara, J. 2018. Censo de la población reproductora de guincho o águila pescadora en Portugal en 2018. En, M. Siverio, F. Siverio, B. Rodríguez y J. C. del Moral (Eds.): El águila pescadora en España y Portugal: población invernante 2016-2017, reproductora en 2018 y método de censo, pp. 35-38. SEO/BirdLife. Madrid.
... pers.). En La Gomera, sin embargo, parece que la población se ha mantenido "estable", con tres parejas en la mayoría de los censos (n = 12), si bien el número ha variado entre dos Moreno, 2002Moreno, ) y cinco (2004Siverio y Rodríguez, 2005). Por último, en los censos realizados en El Hierro durante el periodo 1983-2011 (n = 14), el número de parejas fluctuó entre una y tres (Trujillo, 2015), mientras que en los conteos de los años 2013 y 2014 solo fue visto un individuo solitario (Trujillo, 2015). ...
... The main threat to the Osprey throughout its range in Australia is habitat degradation and alteration through urban expansion and tourism infrastructure development (Olsen 1998, DSEWPC 2010, Dennis 2007b. Like (Palearctic) Osprey habitat on islands off northwest Africa, the mainly treeless habitat along the coastline in South Australia results in many nests being constructed at or near ground-level; consequently, human disturbance during the breeding season is a significant cause of nest failure (Palma et al. 2004, Siverio and Rodriguez 2005, Dennis 2007a, 2007b. In these open and exposed landscapes, human approach often occurs above nest level, causing the birds to leave the nest more readily, including at critical phases of the breeding cycle (Dennis 2007b). ...
Full-text available
El Estatus de Pandion haliaetus cristatus en Australia En Australia, la mayoría de las poblaciones de Australasia de Pandion haliaetus cristatus se encuentran en hábitats costeros y de estuario a lo largo de las regiones subtropicales y templadas del norte. En las líneas de costa del sur, la especie se distribuye de modo más disperso y existe un ancho vacío en la distribución reproductiva en la esquina sureste del continente por debajo de los 36° de latitud sur, incluyendo Tasmania. La población es fundamentalmente sedentaria y se la considera como estable a lo largo de la mayor parte de su rango de distribución. Sin embargo, existen reportes de que la población se encuentra en disminución en el borde sur de su distribución en el sur de Australia, pero que está aumentando y extendiendo su área de distribución reproductiva hacia el sur en New South Wales. Las tasas reproductivas y las densidades poblacionales para las poblaciones en expansión en la costa este son equivalentes a las registradas para las poblaciones en recuperación de P. haliaetus luego de las disminuciones causadas por pesticidas en el hemisferio norte. A la inversa, la densidad poblacional es significativamente más baja en el sur de Australia donde, comparativamente, una baja productividad más el aislamiento geográfico sugieren que P. haliaetus podría estar en riesgo en el extremo sur de su distribución reproductiva en Australia.
This study reports on aspects of the breeding biology of Ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) on Kangaroo Island from data collected over 18 breeding seasons between 1985 and 2004. Over this period an average of nine pairs were located each year, and a total of 145 occupied territory years were monitored for breeding activity and outcomes. Of these, active breeding occurred in 103 ( 71%), with 60% of these successfully fledging young. Productivity was found to average 0.66 young fledged per year per occupied territory, and 0.92 young fledged per year per active nest. This level of productivity, while similar to that of other studies in Australia, is below the minimum recruitment levels needed to maintain migratory Osprey populations in the northern hemisphere. However, such high rates may not be needed in the non-migratory population of Australia. Although some early dispersal was recorded among marked Osprey young, strong philopatric recruitment was also evident, with 22% of survivors either remaining on the island, or returning at maturity to join the breeding population. Through the re-identification of individuals, Osprey pairs were found to remain together over many seasons and to use the same primary nesting site. The breeding season began later than reported elsewhere in Australia, extending from August to February, with most laying occurring in September. Undetected nest predation and human disturbance was suspected at accessible nests as contributing to the high level of nest failures recorded. The apparent elongated nestling development period found is comparable to that determined in other studies where fluctuating prey availability directly influenced nestling growth and survival. These factors, plus geographical isolation, suggest the Osprey may be precariously balanced ecologically at the southern extent of its breeding range in Australia.
Technical Report
Technical report for the Consejería de Medio Ambiente y Ordenación Territorial del Gobierno de Canarias.
Where possible, human activity near nesting Pandion haliaetus should be minimized and not initiated after ospreys have commenced nesting. Logging operations should be designed to minimize disruption of nesting ospreys, possibly by delaying operations in the area until young have fledged. -from Authors
Identification of individual birds in the field is difficult, and usually requires capture and banding. With some species, capture can be impossible, harmful, or prohibited. In these cases, an alternative means of identification is warranted. We analyzed the pattern of black marks that appear on the dorsal aspect of the head in osprey (Pandion haliaetus). Variation existed among individuals, and it was possible to identify individuals because black marks were distinct in size, shape, and number. Head marks changed only slightly from year to year, which allowed individual identification in the field without disturbing birds.
An Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) population nesting in the vicinity of Cascade Reservoir in west-central Idaho was studied for three years. The area supported about 50 nesting pairs, which laid an average of 2.58 eggs and fledged an average of 1.37 young per active nest throughout the study. These productivity estimates suggest a healthy, increasing population. Most nests were atop snags (66%) and on private land (70%). Ospreys nesting on artificial sites and those nesting more than 1,500 m from human disturbances produced more offspring. Fish in the 11-30 cm range constituted the bulk of the diet (89%) with brown bullheads being the most important prey species (38%). Osprey captures reflected prey availability. Establishment of Cascade Reservoir increased the availability of fish, which, in turn, allowed the Osprey population to increase. Productivity of these hawks appears to be chiefly related to reservoir level and prey availability.
Factors affecting status and reproduction of ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) in Yellowstone National Park were studied during 1972-77. The population declined from an estimated 120 breeding pairs in 1917 to 100 adults (about 45 pairs) in 1974. Nest success at occupied nests averaged 44% and productivity averaged 0.73 young fledged per occupied nest. Reproduction was higher (P < 0.05) along streams with little human disturbance than on Yellowstone Lake which received more human use. Reproduction at active nests located more than 1 km from a backcountry campsite on Yellowstone Lake was comparable to that for stream nests. Reproduction in undisturbed nests was apparently sufficient to maintain an osprey population, whereas reproduction in disturbed nests was not. Residues of environmental pollutants present in osprey eggs did not appear to affect population stability. Proper management of human use of Yellowstone Lake should permit the osprey population to increase.