Review and Meta-analyses

INTRODUCTION

Among the loss of 2.9 billion North American birds in the last half-century (Rosenberg et al. 2019), coastal birds, defined here as shorebird, seabird, and wading bird species that use beach habitats for part or all of their annual cycle, have experienced pronounced declines. Between 1970 and 2017, 50% of breeding and 68% of non-breeding coastal bird species have declined (Rosenberg et al. 2019), with North American shorebird populations declining at an accelerated rate (Smith et al. 2023). Globally, coastal birds are primarily threatened by habitat loss and/or degradation due to drivers including human disturbance, development, predation, collisions with anthropogenic structures and vehicles, and climate change (Rosenberg et al. 2019, Wilson et al. 2019).

The northern Gulf of Mexico (nGoM) provides breeding and foraging coastal habitats for diverse shorebirds, seabirds, and wading birds (Withers 2002, Burger 2018, Wilson et al. 2019). At least 395 bird species use the nGoM during some portion of their annual life cycle, of which 154 (39%) species are coastal birds, including 52 shorebirds, 77 seabirds, and 25 wading birds, and 241 species are terrestrial and wetland birds (Gallardo et al. 2009). The nGoM is a critical breeding region for vulnerable coastal Birds of Conservation Concern such as Black Skimmers (Rynchops niger), and Least Terns (Sternula antillarum; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2021). Additionally, > 1 million shorebirds and wading birds use the nGoM coastline during migration and the stationary non-breeding season (Withers 2002), which includes the U.S. Endangered Species Act listed Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) and Red Knot (Calidris canutus).

Given the nGoM’s importance for coastal birds, the Gulf of Mexico Avian Monitoring Network (GoMAMN) was formed following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. This collaborative organization is composed of scientists and resource managers who developed priority species lists and synthesized threats facing shorebirds, seabirds, and wading birds, among other avian taxa, in the region (Wilson et al. 2019, Fournier et al. 2023). GoMAMN identified human disturbance and habitat loss and/or degradation as the two greatest threats facing nGoM coastal birds, followed by predation and extreme weather events (Burger 2017, Burger 2018, Wilson et al. 2019). Consequently, they recommend effective stewardship, an umbrella term for a suite of management techniques to reduce the impacts of human disturbance, and habitat management, a set of techniques used to mitigate habitat loss and/or degradation, as essential tools for threat reduction within this key coastal region.

Human disturbance affects coastal birds throughout the annual cycle (Mengak and Dayer 2020) and is among the most pervasive and impactful threats in the nGoM (Brush et al. 2019), North America (Rosenberg et al. 2019), and globally (Croxall et al. 2012). With 40% of the U.S. population concentrated along coasts (Crossett et al. 2014), human activity increasingly overlaps with shoreline habitats (Neumann et al. 2015), making coastal birds vulnerable to reduced survival or productivity from human disturbances (e.g., walking, driving, or allowing unleashed dogs near breeding, roosting, or foraging birds; Gibson et al. 2018, Brush et al. 2019). Coastal areas, especially beaches, are intensively used for recreation across the nGoM, attracting millions of tourists and local residents each year (Table 1). This leads to extensive and intensive human disturbance from a wide variety of activities that impact coastal birds, including beach recreation, ecotourism, fishing, and even wildlife monitoring (Wilson et al. 2019, Mengak and Dayer 2020).

Habitat management is essential to conserve coastal birds regionally because the nGoM has experienced extensive shoreline habitat loss and/or degradation due to natural (e.g., erosion, submergence, sediment reduction, severe tropical storms), and human (e.g., coastal development, excavation, transportation, river modification, anthropogenic climate change) activities (Morton 2003, Mendelssohn et al. 2017). For example, Louisiana has lost nearly 4900 square kilometers of coast to erosion since 1932 (Barnes et al. 2015), and the Texas coast is eroding at an average rate of > 1.2 meters annually (Texas General Land Office 2023). Climate change further accelerates habitat loss (e.g., erosion, habitat alteration) through sea level rise and storm surges (Walter et al. 2013, Cope 2016, Von Holle et al. 2019), with sea levels predicted to rise 10–15 cm by 2050 and 0.8–3.9 m by 2150 (Sweet et al. 2022). The nGoM states are also highly developed, with nearly 20% of the U.S. population, over half of the country’s petroleum and natural gas processing facilities (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2018), and 16% of the nation’s armored coastline (Gittman et al. 2015). Undeveloped coastal areas are subject to extensive degradation from human disturbance, non-compatible beach management (e.g., beach raking, allowing dense vegetation growth, dredge and fill), and non-compatible freshwater management (e.g., changes in flowing freshwater, salinity, and plant community), pollutants, and industrial development (Bricker et al. 1999, Defeo et al. 2009, Ward and Tunnell 2017, Wilson et al. 2019).

In order to evaluate progress toward implementation of GoMAMN’s priority actions to mitigate threats to coastal birds and identify gaps, we assessed the impacts of human disturbance and habitat loss and/or degradation on nGoM’s coastal birds, and discussed the effectiveness of stewardship techniques and habitat management strategies developed to address these threats. Our effort is distinct from previous reviews of coastal bird management (e.g., Defeo et al. 2009, Lamb 2015) in that we take a broad view of multiple concurrent threats, management actions, and guilds to inform multi-species management, as well as focus on the nGoM region. To target species of greatest conservation concern, we focused our review on the 35 priority species identified by GoMAMN (Wilson et al. 2019; Table 2), as well as their congeners. We structure our review by guild, using the same species groupings as GoMAMN: seabirds, shorebirds, and wading birds (Wilson et al. 2019).

METHODS

Focal species and region

We focused on coastal birds of conservation concern in the nGoM because of the importance of this region for North American coastal bird populations (Withers 2002, Gallardo et al. 2009, Burger 2018, Remsen et al. 2019, Wilson et al. 2019). Specifically, we focused on 34 focal species representing a subset of the 10 shorebird (Charadriiformes), 15 seabird (Pelecaniformes, Suliformes, Procellariiformes, and Charadriiformes), and 10 wading bird species (Gruiformes and Ciconiiformes) GoMAMN identified as species of special concern throughout the region (Wilson et al. 2019; Table 2). We excluded pelagic-foraging seabirds that do not use terrestrial coastal habitats because these species face a unique set of threats in the offshore environment. Additionally, because of the limited availability of studies from the nGoM we also included literature on these species or their congeners that occurred outside of the nGoM to inform management of our focal species.

Threats and threat management

Human-related disturbances to coastal birds were defined as activities that disturb normal avian behavior and increase energy expenditure during breeding, roosting, and/or foraging (Mengak and Dayer 2020). We considered habitat loss and/or degradation as anthropogenic or coupled natural and human-driven activities or events that removed or considerably reduced the quality of beach habitats used for breeding, roosting, or foraging, and could be mitigated through habitat management actions. As such we excluded threats such as water quality and oil spills that require non-habitat-based management. Our review consists of separate sections for these threats, each with an overview of threat impacts to shorebirds, seabirds, and wading birds. We then reviewed the suite of known stewardship and habitat management techniques used to address each threat and summarized impacts to multiple guilds concurrently.

Review methods

We located literature through Google Scholar, Wiley Online Library, BioOne, ResearchGate, Silverchair, JSTOR, Gale, and ScienceDirect. Literature searches used keywords containing each threat category and management strategy and coastal bird categories (i.e., “shorebirds,” “seabirds,” and “wading birds”), as well as all individual priority species (Table 2). Consequently, search terms included phrases such as “shorebird AND stewardship,” “seabird AND habitat,” and “‘wading bird’ AND degrad*.” Publications were not filtered by geographic region. Lastly, we identified additional studies by reviewing literature cited in these papers.

RESULTS

Our literature search produced a total of 213 studies addressing the impacts of human disturbance and/or habitat loss and degradation on coastal birds (Appendix 1). Of these, over one-third (86, or 40%) assessed impacts of human disturbance and management actions to mitigate it (Table 3), whereas nearly two-thirds (131, or 61%) evaluated habitat loss and/or degradation and the associated management actions (Table 4), and four studies (2%) addressed both threats. The majority (66%) of human disturbance studies and nearly half (42%) of habitat loss and/or degradation studies solely evaluated the impacts of the threats on coastal birds without assessing the effects of management actions.

Shorebirds were the most studied guild, featured in 65% of studies solely focused on human disturbance impacts, 76% of studies focused on associated management actions, 49% of studies solely focused on habitat loss/degradation, and 68% evaluating habitat loss/degradation management. Seabirds were included in 39% of human disturbance impact studies (45% of management assessments) and 45% of habitat loss/degradation studies (41% of management assessments). Wading birds accounted for just 16% of human disturbance impact studies (10% of management assessments) and 25% of habitat loss/degradation studies (11% of management assessments). The nGoM was underrepresented in human disturbance literature, accounting for 21% of studies only focused on impact and 17% of management-related studies (Table 3). However, a larger proportion of habitat loss/degradation-focused studies occurred in the nGoM, where 36% assessed impacts alone and 37% evaluated associated management actions (Table 4).

Piping Plovers and Least Terns were the most frequently studied species, appearing in 17% and 16% of all studies, respectively (Table 5). Among studies evaluating the impacts of management actions to mitigate human disturbance, Piping Plovers (31%) and Least Terns (28%) were also most frequently studied. Human disturbance management impact studies most frequently used reproductive success as a response metric (55%), followed by abundance (38%) and habitat quality (28%). Piping Plovers (24%) and Least Terns (20%) were also most frequently used as focal species in habitat management studies. Habitat quality (57%) was most frequently used as a response metric in habitat management studies, followed by reproductive success (34%) and abundance (28%; Table 5).

Human disturbance impacts on coastal birds

Human disturbance results in lethal (e.g., trampling, nest or chick abandonment) and sublethal impacts (e.g., exposure to predators, reduced foraging), threatening reproductive success and adult survival (Gibson et al. 2018, Brush et al. 2019; Fig. 1). Lethal effects were more common during the breeding season, whereas sublethal effects occur year-round. Both lethal and sublethal impacts pose serious threats to coastal bird survival and productivity, and consequently populations (Fig. 1).

Lethal effects: breeding season

Beach driving, dogs, direct harassment, construction activity, general beachgoing, social events, recreational fishing, watersports, commercial fishing/aquaculture, and drones are considered the most harmful human disturbances for shorebirds (Mengak and Dayer 2020). Yet human disturbance impacts on shorebirds vary greatly by season, type of disturbance, and species. In the breeding season, human trampling and vehicles have direct lethal impacts to eggs, chicks, and breeding adults of coastal birds, including reduced nest success of Piping Plovers (Gaines and Ryan 1988) and Malaysian Plovers (Anarhynchus peronii; Yasué and Dearden 2006), and Black Skimmers (e.g., Safina and Burger 1983). Human disturbance also increased chick mortality in Piping Plovers (Flemming et al. 1988, DeRose-Wilson et al. 2018, Stantial et al. 2021), herons (Burger et al. 1995), Sandhill Cranes (Antigone canadensis; Dwyer and Tanner 1992), and Wood Storks (Mycteria americana; Bouton et al. 2005). Beach vehicles have killed American Oystercatcher chicks (Haematopus palliatus; Davis et al. 2001), Snowy Plover chicks (Anarhynchus nivosus; Ruhlen et al. 2003), and adult and juvenile Piping Plovers (Melvin et al. 1994). Snowy Plover chick losses were three times greater during high-traffic weekends and holidays than weekdays (Ruhlen et al. 2003), and breeding Snowy Plovers (Pruner 2010) and American Oystercatchers (Virzi 2010) avoided heavily disturbed sites. Human disturbance caused colony failure and/or abandonment in Least Terns (Burger 1984) and Brown Pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis; Anderson and Keith 1980), and caused nest abandonment (Maslo and Lockwood 2009). Research activities (e.g., banding) also increased nest desertion rates (Brubeck et al. 1981), although this was minimized by trapping fewer times per year closer to hatching dates (Nisbet 1981, Hill and Talent 1990).

Sublethal effects: breeding season

Human disturbance also had sublethal effects that were particularly detrimental during the energy-intensive reproductive period (Durkin and Cohen 2021) by increasing vigilance and flushing behaviors (Hill et al. 1997, Rogers et al. 2006, Burger et al. 2010), reducing chick growth in European Storm-petrel (Hydrobates pelagicus; Watson et al. 2021), and causing crowding that reduced seabird productivity and survival (Safina and Burger 1983, Eggert 2012). Disturbance reduced adult incubation, feeding, and/or brooding time (Teal 1965, Safina and Burger 1983, Yalden and Yalden 1990), where decreased incubation and chick brooding time increased heat stress and nest failure (Teal 1965, Safina and Burger 1983). Disturbances also decreased chick foraging and brooding times, and increased nest-fleeing, attenuating chick growth rates and/or overall survival (Flemming et al. 1988, Strauss 1990, Goldin and Regosin 1998, DeRose-Wilson et al. 2018, Stantial et al. 2021). Human disturbance also increased rates of self-inflicted egg destruction in gulls (Robert and Ralph 1975) and infanticide in Black Skimmers (Forys et al. 2022) and Heerman’s Gulls (Larus heermanni; Anderson and Keith 1980). It has been suspected that increased flushing activity may leave nests exposed and vulnerable to higher predation rates (e.g., Ellison and Cleary 1978, Weston and Elgar 2007), though few studies could confirm this. Colonial seabirds and wading birds may adapt to disturbance (Nisbet 2000); for example, Black Skimmers on the Florida Gulf Coast flushed in response to natural disturbances (e.g., weather) more frequently than to human disturbance (Shope 2020), and White-fronted Plover (Charadrius marginatus) productivity was greater at disturbed sites, possibly because of reduced natural predators (Baudains and Lloyd 2007). However, chick habituation to human disturbance may increase predation rates via associated threats such as dogs (Baudains and Lloyd 2007). Some species have adapted to persistent human disturbance by using alternate nest sites, e.g., Least Terns nesting on gravel rooftops; however, gravel rooftop materials are increasingly being replaced with plastic, which is lower maintenance but less suitable for nesting (Krogh and Schweitzer 1999, Forys and Borboen-Abrams 2006).

Lethal and sublethal effects: nonbreeding season

Outside of the breeding season, shorebirds were generally less responsive to human disturbance (Yasué 2006, Hamza 2020) and were attracted to forage-related activities such as shell-fishing (Koch and Paton 2014), but human disturbance still reduced body condition and survival (Gibson et al. 2018). Human disturbance also impacted site selection, because migrating shorebirds delayed arrival and departed earlier (Fitzpatrick and Bouchez 1998) or abandoned sites altogether (Burger 1986) in response to human activity, particularly fast-moving activities such as running, biking, and dog-walking (Murchison et al. 2016, Hamza 2020). Shorebirds that remained in disturbed sites experienced negative sublethal effects (Gibson et al. 2018). Non-breeding season responses to existing disturbance or certain activities varied among species and disturbance types. Shorebirds, seabirds, and wading birds alike flushed when boats or jet skis approached from as far away as 46 m (Least Tern) to 156 m (Great Egret, Ardea alba; Rodgers and Schwikert 2002). Crested Terns (Thalasseus bergii) responded most strongly to motorized vehicles (Schlacher et al. 2013) whereas American Oystercatchers responded similarly to boating disturbance and predators (Peters and Otis 2005). Chronic disturbances (e.g., vehicles, fishing) also caused variable avoidance behaviors in wading birds; for example, Roseate Spoonbills (Platalea ajaja) were more sensitive to vehicles than were Little Blue Herons (Egretta caerulea), avoiding roads even with low activity (Klein et al. 1995). However, flushing may be indicative of a bird in good health, because birds at higher starvation risk flushed less frequently and at shorter distances (Stillman and Goss-Custard 2002). Although some foraging wading bird species may also avoid activities such as artisanal fishing resulting in non-lethal effects (Hamza 2020). Thus, although human disturbance had more intense and quantifiable lethal effects on coastal birds during the breeding season, the threat persists year-round.

Stewardship measures to mitigate human disturbance

Human disturbance impacts to coastal birds can be reduced by implementing one or more stewardship activities. Stewardship is an umbrella term that includes the use of signage, fencing, patrols by volunteer and/or professional “stewards” who speak to beachgoers near colonies, education and community involvement, and restrictions to human, vehicle, and dog access through permanent or temporary closures (Medeiros et al. 2007, Hevia and Bala 2018). Many managers use multiple stewardship techniques concurrently because a single action may be insufficient for reducing human disturbance (Hevia and Bala 2018, Darrah 2020, Comber et al. 2021).

Although coastal habitats can be protected (i.e., access restricted) to reduce disturbance, protection alone was often insufficient (Pouwels et al. 2017, Duckworth and Altwegg 2018). Active management, including stewardship techniques, was often necessary to prevent extirpation of birds and other wildlife (Bolam et al. 2021). On the nGoM and Atlantic coasts, populations of four species (Black Skimmer, Least Tern, Brown Pelican, and Piping Plover) grew 2–34 times faster in areas with active stewardship than in protected areas without known efforts to reduce human disturbance (Michel et al. 2021). Here, we review individual and combined stewardship technique effectiveness in mitigating human disturbance.

Fencing

Fencing reduces disturbance by symbolically or physically barring human activities. Fencing reduced flushing behavior in multiple species (Ikuta and Blumstein 2003), increased fledging success in heronries (Carlson and McLean 1996), and improved productivity and initial nesting success in shorebirds (e.g., Piping Plovers; McIntyre et al. 2010). Fencing also reduced predation stimulated by human activity, such as ghost crabs (subfamily Ocypodinae) that prey on Snowy Plover chicks when adults flush from human disturbance and make conspicuous displays (Pruner 2010). Fencing effectiveness varies with disturbance rate and concurrent stewardship strategies. For example, fences improved Black Skimmer hatching and fledging success in areas with daily disturbance, but lowered fledging success with weekly disturbance (Safina and Burger 1983), suggesting that fencing benefits chicks only when disturbance is high. Least Tern nest daily survival rates improved when fencing was paired with signs and steward patrols in the nGoM (Darrah 2020), and populations increased when fencing was paired with habitat manipulation, predator protection, and decoy attraction (Burger 1989). However, Least Terns were still impacted by human disturbance at sites where people continuously walked along the fenceline (Jefferson et al. 2022). Symbolic fencing paired with closures reduced disturbance and restored coastal bird foraging habitat in the Atlantic (Kelly 2014).

Overall, fencing improved reproductive success (e.g., hatching, fledgling, nest daily survival) across all three guilds, and was frequently paired with other stewardship measures (e.g., signage, closures, steward patrols). Additionally, fencing reduced disturbance and potentially human-associated predation in shorebirds, and increased seabird populations when paired with additional management techniques. The positive or ineffective impact of fencing on seabird productivity was measured in the nGoM (Pruner 2010, Darrah 2020, Jefferson et al. 2022), but no other studies quantified productivity in other guilds or abundance in any guild in the region.

Stewards

Volunteer stewards and/or law enforcement near beach nesting bird colonies can discourage disturbance and may improve future visitor behavior through education. Typically, steward patrols are combined with other stewardship techniques such as signage and/or fencing. Pairing steward patrols with other stewardship techniques has improved tern daily nest survival rates in the nGoM (Darrah 2020) and nest success elsewhere (Medeiros et al. 2007). In herons, this combined approach likely prevented detrimental impacts as a comparatively unpatrolled heronry suffered 15–28% nest losses after a single human disturbance event (Burger et al. 1995). The Australian “Plover Watch” volunteer program combined ranger patrols with signs, fencing, closures, and other educational campaigns and improved reproductive success of Hooded Plovers (Thinornis cucullatus; Dowling and Weston 1999). However, major downsides to this approach include the labor-intensive requirements and difficulty obtaining enough resources to maintain a constant, widespread patrol (Dowling and Weston 1999).

Steward patrols improved productivity across all three guilds. However, most steward patrols were paired with other stewardship measures (e.g., signage, fencing, closures), making it difficult to assess the effectiveness of this technique independently. Positive impacts of steward patrols on seabird productivity were measured in the nGoM in one study (Darrah 2020), but did not assess impacts on wading birds.

Signs and public education

Signage near beach-nesting colonies can provide education and a symbolic barrier to visitors (Medeiros et al. 2007). Many programs used signage campaigns to engage the public (e.g., having students create signs) while encouraging beachgoers to avoid disturbing nesting colonies. Examples of these programs include Audubon South Carolina’s “Let ‘em Rest, Let ‘em Nest” program (Audubon South Carolina 2024), Audubon New York’s “Be a Good Egg” (Comber and Dayer 2019), and Audubon-led “#ShareTheShore” campaigns (e.g., Audubon New York 2021). Signs may indirectly increase coastal bird population size and productivity via reduced human disturbance, but their effectiveness is variable. Signs are also often used with other stewardship techniques, making their impact difficult to isolate. For example, signage paired with other stewardship efforts increased Atlantic coast Piping Plover, Least Tern, and American Oystercatcher abundance (Hecker 2008, Mass Audubon 2023) and productivity (Mass Audubon 2023), as well as nesting success of Little Terns (Sternula albifrons; Medeiros et al. 2007). In the nGoM, Least Tern nest daily survival rates increased with a combination of signs, stewards, and fencing (Darrah 2020).

The effects of signs on human behavior often did not extend beyond where they were physically posted (Comber et al. 2021) and were sometimes insufficient to limit human disturbance (Hevia and Bala 2018). Effectiveness of signage also depends on the match between sign type and audience (Comber et al. 2021). For example, signs that explained potential sanctions were more effective for people with a high sense of social responsibility (Gramann et al. 1995), but these were not always successful (Rimmer et al. 2013). Another study found that signs with narratives were more effective than normative messaging (i.e., signaling social norms) at changing behavior, but visitors still recreated within Snowy Plover habitat (Schoenleber et al. 2022). Additional recommendations to improve messaging and public reception included use of consistent wording, messaging in multiple languages, leveraging social norms, offering alternative pathways if possible, and emphasizing legal consequences if enforced (Comber and Dayer 2019). However, we found few studies of the most effective sign designs and placement, and stewardship efforts could benefit from a more thorough investigation (Ballantyne and Hughes 2006).

Other forms of public education used in stewardship included media coverage, pamphlets, and posters (Burger 1989, Dowling and Weston 1999, Medeiros et al. 2007). These strategies were sometimes combined with outreach campaigns, such as community-based social marketing (CBSM) that uses psychology and marketing to develop campaigns promoting a behavior change (Comber et al. 2021, Comber and Dayer 2024). In more isolated locations where enforcement strategies (e.g., signs, fences, stewards) are ineffective, strategies may include designing education and outreach around mindfulness (Laycock 2023). Education and outreach effectiveness depends on how well it considers messaging, local social environment (e.g., culture, beach use perceptions), and site-specific threats. Human perceptions and behavior were influenced by communication type (e.g., social marketing, signage, community involvement; Hecker 2008, Burger et al. 2021, Comber et al. 2021, Schillerstrom 2021), beachgoer familiarity with the shoreline (Schillerstrom 2021), collaborating interest groups (e.g., birdwatchers, fishermen, recreationists; Burger et al. 2021), demographics (e.g., age, gender; Burger et al. 2021, Burger et al. 2023), and socioeconomics (Corre et al. 2013). On the Atlantic coast, for example, fishermen and recreationists had higher ratings of steward importance than visitors interested in shorebirds and/or crabs (Burger et al. 2021), and those with greater existing familiarity with the beach had more of a positive impact on giving shorebirds space than education-related efforts (Schillerstrom 2021). To incorporate these different perspectives of human behavior and effectively implement education-based changes, several studies encouraged involving a diverse local community representation in education development and stewardship planning, as well as soliciting feedback for improvement over time (Hecker 2008, Corre et al. 2013). Education was also an important contributor to successful coastal bird stewardship programs, because it was included in most multi-stewardship efforts where beach nesting bird populations or productivity improved (Burger 1989, Dowling and Weston 1999, Medeiros et al. 2007, Hecker 2008, Hevia and Bala 2018). However, education and outreach campaigns’ isolated impact on bird populations and/or productivity is difficult to ascertain and not completely understood.

Public education, when paired with other stewardship techniques (e.g., fencing, stewards, closures) improved productivity and/or beach nesting populations in shorebirds (Dowling and Weston 1999, Hecker 2008, Hevia and Bala 2018) and seabirds (Burger 1989, Medeiros et al. 2007). Signage was found in one study to improve productivity in wading birds (Burger et al. 1995). Few education-related studies took place in the nGoM, finding improved productivity in Least Terns when signs were combined with stewards providing education and fencing (Darrah 2020).

Beach closures

Permanent and/or temporary beach closures successfully limited major sources of human disturbance in multiple management programs. Reduced human disturbance from closures supported increased nest density, hatching success, and fledging success of Black Skimmers (Safina and Burger 1983), high fledgling success and increased abundance of Snowy Plovers (Lafferty et al. 2006), and increased multiple shorebird species populations (Comber et al. 2021, Lewis et al. 2022). Restricting off-road vehicle use improved Piping Plover breeding pair abundance, productivity, and habitat (MacIvor 1990; Goldin 1990, unpublished data). Vehicle restrictions also significantly increased Piping Plover, American Oystercatcher, and Least Tern abundance when paired with signs, habitat management, and predator exclosures (Hecker 2008). Prevention and/or restricted access of dogs to beaches significantly increased Hooded Plover nesting success relative to beaches with no dog restrictions (Dowling and Weston 1999). Temporary closures of a New Jersey beach to recreationists, largely anglers, joggers, dog walkers, and drivers, allowed Red Knots to spread out across the beach, rather than concentrating in a small relatively undisturbed area (Burger and Niles 2013a).

Local community support for beach closures varied, even when closures were temporary. Although birdwatchers and, in some cases, anglers in New Jersey tended to support and be compliant with temporary closures, joggers and dog walkers were less supportive, occasionally non-compliant, and feared closure expansion (Burger and Niles 2013a, b). Involving diverse collaborators early in the process and understanding and addressing concerns by beach recreationist type increased compliance and, consequently, success of beach closures in protecting birds (Burger and Niles 2013b). Additionally, providing consistent temporary closure status messaging and optimizing closed protected areas for roosting and nesting birds while granting recreationists alternative access helped ensure beach closure success (Burger and Niles 2013b).

Closures (e.g., vehicle restrictions, dog restrictions, temporary closures) also improved shorebird and seabird abundances when paired with signs, habitat management, and predator exclosures. Additionally, closures improved productivity, increased habitat size, reduced disturbance, and restored foraging habitat for shorebirds. Comparatively little is known about the efficacy of closures in protecting wading birds, and no studies were found in nGoM.

Summary of stewardship measures to mitigate human disturbance effects on multiple guilds in the nGoM

When managing human disturbance, a combination of signage, fencing, and stewards may be most effective, with positive impacts on reproductive success across all three guilds, and abundance in at least shorebirds and seabirds. The addition of closures may also improve abundance, reduce disturbance, and restore foraging habitat for shorebirds, but currently less is known for seabirds and wading birds. Within the nGoM specifically, the effects of volunteer stewardship, fencing, and fencing paired with signs and steward patrols positively impacted reproductive success and reduced human-stimulated predation of shorebirds (Pruner 2010, Darrah 2020). However, little is known for wading birds in this region, and we did not identify any nGoM studies that measured impacts of closures on productivity, or of any management practice on abundance of any coastal bird guild.

Habitat loss and degradation impacts on coastal birds

Coastal development impacts

Shoreline habitat loss and degradation from natural and anthropogenic causes, as well as feedback among these drivers, has both displaced coastal birds from breeding and stopover habitat and reduced population and health metrics (e.g., nest success, survival, body condition) of birds that persist (Galbraith et al. 2014, Von Holle et al. 2019, Vitale et al. 2021). Loss and/or degradation of coastal breeding, migratory, and wintering habitat due to development is one of the largest contributors to population declines of Least Terns (Burger 1984, 1989, Zambrano et al. 1997, Devries and Forys 2004) and other shorebirds (Galbraith et al. 2002, 2014, Zöckler et al. 2003, Thomas et al. 2006, Aharon-Rotman et al. 2016, Ruthberg-Campagna 2021), especially on bottleneck migratory routes (Studds et al. 2017). Coastal development also increased foraging effort and overall energy requirements in seabirds (Kavelaars et al. 2020) and consequently threatened populations (Hunter et al. 2006, Jodice et al. 2019). The extent of impact varied among seabird species in response to degree of site fidelity (Mackin 2016) and adaptability (Jodice et al. 2007, Lopes et al. 2015), but obligate beach-nesters (e.g., Laridae) were particularly vulnerable (Hunter et al. 2006).

Even where coastal habitat remains, development increased other threats such as beach erosion, monocultural vegetation, and consequently increased shorebird nest storm surge loss and predation rates (Yasué and Dearden 2006) and exacerbated impacts of erosion and sea level rise on wading birds (Hunter et al. 2006, Wilson et al. 2019, Collins et al. 2021). Many seabirds accepted novel habitats such as dredge-spoil islands (e.g., Guilfoyle et al. 2024) and rooftops (e.g., Devries and Forys 2004), though suitable rooftop availability declined, and future availability is uncertain (Jiménez et al. 2023). Moreover, long-term development-related disturbance suppressed shorebird abundance and richness more than acute events (e.g., red tides and storms; Ruthberg-Campagna 2021).

Beach management impacts

Incompatible anthropogenic beach management also impacted birds on less-developed shorelines. Beach raking or grooming is commonly used to make beaches more aesthetically pleasing and accessible to recreationists (Defeo et al. 2009) and address excessive algal blooms (Lapointe and Bedford 2007). However, raking exacerbated erosion (Williams et al. 2008), and caused lethal (e.g., collisions, running over nests) and sublethal (e.g., flushing, habitat removal, productivity) effects on shorebirds (Schultz Schiro et al. 2017). Beach grooming also significantly decreased prey availability for shorebirds by removing beach wrack and associated invertebrates (Lleywellyn and Shackley 1996, Dugan et al. 2003). Shorebirds especially rely on beach wrack for foraging (Lott et al. 2009), such as Snowy Plovers in California (Dugan et al. 2003), Atlantic and nGoM Piping Plovers (Nordstrom et al. 2000, Darrah et al. 2021), and nGoM Red Knots and Semipalmated Sandpipers (Calidris pusilla; Darrah et al. 2021). In Pensacola, Florida, Sargassum wrack was used by 11 out of 22 shorebird species for foraging, resting, and hiding (Schultz Schiro et al. 2017). Consequently, beach grooming increased shorebird mortality rates, especially during migration (Goss-Custard et al. 1995)

Vegetation management impacts

Vegetation control that fails to consider habitat preferences of coastal birds and their predators—which varies among bird species (DeRose-Wilson et al. 2013, Page et al. 2023, Zdravkovic et al. 2023), predator identity, and egg crypsis (Lauro and Nol 1995)—often had lethal and sublethal effects on coastal birds. Increased vegetation density was associated with higher nest predation rates in Wilson’s (Anarhynchus wilsonia), Piping, and Snowy Plovers (Page et al. 1985, Powell and Collier 2000, Murphy et al. 2003, Hood and Dinsmore 2007), higher predation rates on adult and young Least Terns (Burger 1989) and Wood Storks (Rodgers 1987), and reduced habitat quality for Least and Royal Terns (Thalasseus maximus; Soots and Parnell 1975, Jackson and Jackson 1985, Emslie et al. 2009). However, dense vegetation also benefited breeding shorebirds and seabirds by providing camouflage from aerial predators (Burger 1987, Saliva and Burger 1989, Corbat 1990), reducing heat stress (Borboroglu and Yorio 2007), and protecting nests from erosion and storms (Burger and Lesser 1978, Burger and Gochfeld 1990, Raynor et al. 2012). Consequently, Brown Pelicans preferred breeding sites with dense vegetation (Walter et al. 2013), and Sandwich (Thalasseus sandvicensis) and Common Tern (Sterna hirundo) and Black Skimmer productivity increased with vegetation density (Burger and Lesser 1978, Burger and Gochfeld 1990, Raynor et al. 2012). Yet in other studies, vegetation density did not affect shorebird nesting success (Corbat 1990, DeRose-Wilson et al. 2013, Zdravkovic 2013).

Invasive plants introduced for aesthetics or dune management also degraded breeding habitat and reduced shorebird populations (Zarnetske et al. 2010, Dinsmore et al. 2014). Breeding seabirds were also threatened by invasive plant encroachment as well as succession, lack of fire suppression, or conversely vegetative loss (Nesbitt and Hatchitt 2008, Billodeaux et al. 2010). These effects varied depending on habitat characteristics, local predator type, other hazards (e.g., erosion and storm surges), and nesting ecology (Kotliar and Burger 1986, Brinker et al. 2007, Walter et al. 2013, Lamb 2015, Cope 2016).

Impacts of coupled natural and anthropogenic processes

Anthropogenic climate change-driven sea level rise was implicated in loss and/or degradation of coastal bird habitats (Hunter et al. 2006, Reynolds et al. 2015, Jodice et al. 2019, Von Holle et al. 2019). Some coastal birds, including nGoM Snowy Plovers and Atlantic American Oystercatchers, selectively nested in lower areas exposed to frequent storm surges (Convertino et al. 2011, Sterling 2017). Sea level rise, erosion, and habitat loss following storm surges drove Atlantic seabird population declines (Erwin et al. 2011), substantial nesting habitat loss in the nGoM (Walter et al. 2013, Cope 2016), breeding site abandonment (Walter et al. 2013), and increased nest storm surge loss risk, threatening up to 70% of seabird breeding habitat (Von Holle et al. 2019). Habitat losses from sea level rise and erosion were in turn exacerbated by both natural and anthropogenic processes, including existing and expanding coastline development (Hunter et al. 2006, Wilson et al. 2019, Collins et al. 2021), beach driving (Houser et al. 2013), and subsidence (Sweet et al. 2022). Management to mitigate natural processes such as erosion and sea level rise also impacted coastal bird populations. The installation of “hard” structures (e.g., bulkheads, seawalls, shore-perpendicular groin structures, and jetties) to protect erosion-prone beaches displaced and sometimes removed entire intertidal zones used for foraging (Farrell et al. 2016). This led to reduced breeding shorebird diversity (Dugan et al. 2011) and American Oystercatcher abundance in Florida (Hodgson et al. 2008, Farrell et al. 2016) but not Louisiana (Zenzal et al. 2023). Erosion control measures that impacted beach structure and waterflow also reduced wading bird food supply (Ruetz et al. 2005, Herring et al. 2010, Beerens et al. 2015), thus decreasing productivity (Lorenz et al. 2009, Herring et al. 2010).

Predation impacts

Finally, above and beyond the impacts of vegetation on predation rates, reviewed above, human-adapted coastal bird predators (e.g., raccoons [Procyon lotor], coyotes [Canis latrans], and domestic, semi-feral, and feral cats [Felis catus]) are more abundant near settlements (Davis et al. 2001, Cove et al. 2018). Nests and chicks are threatened by other major predators as well including (but not limited to) American Crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos; Rimmer and Deblinger 1992, Nesbitt and Badger 1995, Pearson and Colwell 2014), gulls, a variety of mammals, (Rimmer and Deblinger 1992), and ghost crabs (Ocypode quadrata; Sabine et al. 2006). Predators may consume eggs, chicks, and adult birds, reducing survival at all life stages (Jenks-Jay 1982, Murphy et al. 2003, Engeman et al. 2010, St Clair et al. 2010, Wilson et al. 2019) and causing nest failure, including of Snowy Plovers (Pearson et al. 2016), Piping Plovers (Patterson et al. 1991) and American Oystercatchers (Davis et al. 2001, Sabine et al. 2006, Jodice et al. 2014). Moreover, mammalian predator presence may increase flushing distances and consequently energetic costs and predation risk of nesting shorebirds, as observed in Two-banded Plovers (Anarhynchus falklandicus; St Clair et al. 2010).

Management actions to mitigate habitat loss and/or degradation

Restoration through vegetation management and wetland creation

Coastal bird habitat restoration plans often focused on maintaining a suitable balance of open habitat, vegetation, and wrack materials, especially for shorebirds. Vegetation management effectively maintained or enhanced shorebird and seabird population size and productivity in the nGoM and beyond (Jackson and Jackson 1985, Burger 1989, Samways et al. 2010, Gamblin et al. 2023, Johnston et al. 2023). Reducing beach grass plantings and adding dredged materials also increased Atlantic Piping Plover breeding populations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996, Hecker 2008). In the Pacific, Snowy Plover populations increased following invasive beachgrass removal (Zarnetske et al. 2010), as well as vegetation management paired with reduced beach raking (Johnston et al. 2023). Vegetation management in the form of marsh terracing effectively slowed erosion, vegetation loss, and flooding, and increased waterbird density by 3.8 times and richness by 1.4 times in Louisiana (O’Connell and Nyman 2010) and increased availability of habitat and prey in the nGoM (Brusati et al. 2001). Vegetated wetland creation increased populations of all three guilds (O’Connell and Nyman 2010), along with food provisioning for shorebirds and wading birds (Brusati et al. 2001).

Vegetation management effectiveness in the nGoM was influenced by predation rates, flooding, and timing of nest initiation, and was augmented when additional stewardship strategies are used in tandem (Visser et al. 2005, Walter et al. 2013). Vegetation management strategies also need to maintain native species; for example, invasive plant removal increased Snowy Plover nest success and recruitment (Powell and Collier 2000, Dinsmore et al. 2014, Leja 2015) and wildlife diversity and abundance (Russell et al. 2009) outside the nGoM, whereas native vegetation was beneficial for sheltering chicks (Powell and Collier 2000).

Restoration through beach nourishment

Beach nourishment, the application of dredge spoils to extend and elevate beaches, addresses shoreline losses due to sea level and increasing storm intensity and frequency in the nGoM without hardening and exacerbating erosion as seawalls and groins do, maintaining recreational access and providing some ecological benefits (Bush et al. 2004, Peterson and Bishop 2005, Farrell et al. 2016). When used strategically, nourishment increased coastal bird habitat extent by reducing vegetation (Farrell et al. 2016), improving foraging habitat and food provisioning (Smith et al. 2020), and reducing threat of nest loss to storm surges (Lankford et al. 2018). The addition of dredged material in the Atlantic increased Piping Plover abundance (Hecker 2008) and Red Knot prey abundance (e.g., horseshoe crab [Limulus polyphemus] eggs) through high coarse grain application (Smith et al. 2020). Increasing beach height benefited species that prefer nesting at higher elevations and move upslope (Zinsser et al. 2017), such as Wilson’s Plover in the Atlantic (DeRose-Wilson et al. 2013, Sterling 2017, Zinsser et al. 2017) and Least Terns (Gochfeld 1983, Mazzocchi and Forys 2005), Brown Pelicans (Visser et al. 2005), and Black Skimmers (Owen and Pierce 2013) in the nGoM by reducing erosion and nest storm surge loss, managing over-vegetation, and controlling predation intensity (Owen and Pierce 2013). Renourished beaches were used by breeding and wintering Snowy Plovers and wintering Piping Plovers in southwest Florida (Lott 2009). Least Terns, specifically, were attracted to nGoM sites with added shell material to dredged islands and successfully reproduced (Mallach and Leberg 1999).

However, when applied without consideration of beach-nesting birds, application of dredged materials disturbed foraging and nesting shorebirds including Snowy and Piping Plovers and reduced prey availability (Peterson and Manning 2001, Speybroeck et al. 2006), and if left unmaintained converted to unsuitable upland habitat (Drake et al. 2001). Similarly, nourishment facilitated access for terrestrial coastal bird predators (Guilfoyle et al. 2006, Lankford et al. 2018).

Restoration through dredge spoil habitat creation

New islands and sandbars created by dredge spoil supported all guilds of coastal birds. In Mississippi, numbers of Wilson’s Plovers nesting on New Round Island (a dredge spoil island) increased following vegetation regrowth (Gamblin et al. 2023). Similarly, Florida’s dredge spoil Barge Canal Islands supported 11% of Florida’s population of American Oystercatchers in 2019 (Selman and Davis 2015). Dredge spoil islands in the Atlantic supported larger American Oystercatcher breeding populations than nearby barrier islands because of lower predation and disturbance rates (McGowan et al. 2005, Virzi et al. 2016), and supported wintering Piping Plovers (Cohen et al. 2008). Piping Plovers also had higher nest success on engineered Missouri River sandbars for the first few years, until nesting density increased and vegetation encroached (Catlin et al. 2015), and created habitat was essential to the species’ metapopulation persistence in the region (Catlin et al. 2016). Seabirds also benefited from the habitat created by dredge-spoil islands, including Black Skimmers, Brown Pelicans, and Least, Royal, and Sandwich Terns across the nGoM (Jackson and Jackson 1985, Gore 1991, Owen and Pierce 2013, Hackney et al. 2016) and Atlantic coastlines (Erwin 1977, Burger 1984, Kotliar and Burger 1986, Erwin et al. 2003, 2007). Wading birds including Tricolored (Egretta tricolor) and Little Blue Herons, and Reddish (E. rufescens), Snowy (E. thula), and Western Cattle-Egrets (Ardea ibis), and Roseate Spoonbills benefited from dredge spoil islands in the Laguna Madre of Texas (Smith 2002). Reddish Egret conservation plans in Texas call for dredge spoil islands where breeding habitat is limited or of low quality (Krainyk et al. 2020), and 11 species of wading birds in Louisiana use dredge spoil islands or open depositional areas during the breeding season (Guilfoyle et al. 2024).

The benefits of dredge spoil islands may not persist long term without habitat and predation management. Climatic events (e.g., flooding, droughts) and predation rates threatened nest survival of ibis and heron colonies on Atlantic dredge spoil islands without ongoing management, which may result in colony abandonment (Post 1990). Increased erosion rates due to oyster reef declines in the nGoM shrunk both natural and dredge spoil islands, generating ecological traps (Vitale et al. 2021). To preserve dredge-spoil islands for breeding birds facing substantial erosion risk in the nGoM (Hackney et al. 2016), islands’ dunes and beaches could be nourished and managed for protective breakwaters, mindful of down-shore erosional shadow (Visser et al. 2005, Walter et al. 2013).

Beach raking

Reducing beach raking and increasing coastline wrack has become an important management tool for increasing shorebird, seabird, and wading bird prey availability in the nGoM (Williams et al. 2008, Lott et al. 2009, Darrah et al. 2021). Cessation of beach grooming restored dune habitat in the Pacific and increased abundance of roosting shorebirds and breeding Snowy Plover (Johnston et al. 2023). In terms of prey availability, increasing the amount of wrack present improved Atlantic Piping Plover fledgling output (McIntyre and Heath 2011), though entirely ceasing beach raking was often infeasible, especially during algal blooms (Lapointe and Bedford 2007). Closing off raking near breeding colonies and setting a 10-day recovery minimum prior to fall migrant arrival reduced food resource losses in Texas (Engelhard and Withers 1997). However, shorebirds, seabirds (e.g., Least Tern, Caspian Tern [Hydroprogne caspia]), and wading birds (e.g., Reddish Egret) in the nGoM primarily rely on fresh wrack deposits, such that beach raking targeting old Sargassum wrack did not have adverse impacts (Williams et al. 2008). Moreover, moderately cleaned beaches had comparable biodiversity and community structure as natural beaches unlike intensively cleaned shorelines with reduced wildlife abundance (e.g., Baltic Sea; Malm et al. 2004). Finally, signs and stewards successfully improved public perception of beach wrack in the nGoM, reducing aesthetic concerns of tourists and improving habitat for multiple shorebird and seabird species (Feagin et al. 2014, Schultz Schiro et al. 2017).

Predation management

Predation management benefited coastal birds by mitigating the impacts of increased predation pressure on human-developed and -managed coastlines. The Atlantic Flyway Shorebird Initiative (Hunt et al. 2019) found trapping and shooting were effective techniques for decreasing predator abundance/occupancy and increasing shorebird hatching, fledging, adult survival, population size, and recolonization. In the nGoM, predator removal successfully controlled Reddish Egret predators (e.g., feral hogs [Sus scrofa] and coyotes) on islands (Wilson et al. 2012). Among nonlethal techniques, predator exclusion and harassment were considered the most successful (Hunt et al. 2019). Overall, proactive management during the early, pre-hatch nesting period was more effective than reactive management (Struthers and Ryan 2005, Cohen et al. 2009), though less is known specifically in the nGoM.

Predation management may interact with other management activities to strengthen or weaken their effects (Hecker 2008). For example, shorebird nest exclosures largely had a positive impact on productivity across many species such as Piping, Wilson’s, Snowy Plovers, and other shorebirds (e.g., Isaksson et al. 2007, Smith et al. 2011, Pearson et al. 2016, Hunt et al. 2019, Darrah et al. 2020, Anteau et al. 2022), though some studies found no productivity gains (e.g., Burns et al. 2013). Moreover, in the Atlantic, nest exclosures increased nest abandonment and lowered survival, because local predators learned to take advantage of exclosures targeting chicks and incubating adults (e.g., Niehaus et al. 2004, Isaksson et al. 2007, McIntyre et al. 2010, Burns et al. 2013). Similarly, Least Tern shelters helped chicks avoid extreme heat and aerial predators such as Northern Harriers [Circus hudsonius] in the Atlantic (Jenks-Jay 1982) but also attracted unwanted vandalism and human disturbance to nests (Maguire et al. 2011). Many predation management strategies exist (e.g., removal, exclusion, habitat management, nest exclosures, chick shelters) and chosen implementation considerations include local characteristics such as the target species, predator type(s), habitat, and ecology.

Summary of management actions to mitigate habitat loss and/or degradation effects on multiple guilds in the nGoM

Across the nGoM and beyond, habitat loss and degradation were most frequently and effectively managed using vegetation management, beach nourishment, and reduced beach raking to maintain wrack. Habitat creation through dredge spoil islands and wetland restoration either improved or were critical in supporting healthy populations across all three guilds, whereas beach nourishment and reducing beach raking benefited populations, productivity, and/or habitat in shorebirds, seabirds, and wading birds. Habitat loss and degradation mitigation practices were reported as most effective when managers assessed species- and site-specific factors such as coastal bird habitat requirements and preferences, impact on predator and prey communities, interaction with human disturbance, and public perceptions.

However, information surrounding the impacts of habitat management practices on coastal birds in the nGoM was often limited. We found no studies documenting beach nourishment benefits for wading birds in the nGoM or beyond, nor studies assessing impacts of nourishment or dredge spoil islands on coastal bird abundance or productivity. In the nGoM, the positive impacts of vegetation management on abundance and productivity were measured for shorebirds, but not for seabirds or wading birds, though the impact of wetland creation on abundance and creating important habitat was measured across all three guilds. Predation management impacts were also evaluated for all three guilds, though most studies, particularly on the impacts of nest exclosures, whose effects varied regionally, were from outside the nGoM. We also found no studies evaluating impacts of raking management on coastal bird abundance or productivity in the nGoM. Overall, most studies evaluating the impacts of habitat restoration focused on the breeding season.

CONCLUSIONS

Although coastal bird populations face many threats across the nGoM and beyond, human disturbance and habitat loss and/or degradation both have among the largest negative impacts and are feasible to address through on-the-ground management. Effective, scientifically based threat mitigation supports nGoM resident and migratory bird species that rely on the remaining coastal habitat in the region. Here, we reviewed the literature on management effectiveness to mitigate these threats with an eye toward identifying research gaps and informing multi-guild management across the nGoM. We acknowledge the likely publication bias toward studies with positive results as opposed to neutral or negative outcomes, though negative and neutral outcomes were reported. Yet we found that although stewardship (e.g., fencing, patrols, education) and habitat management techniques have demonstrably improved coastal bird abundance, productivity, and/or habitat in the nGoM and elsewhere, considerable research gaps exist.

Notably, few studies have measured abundance or productivity responses to stewardship actions that reduce human disturbance for any of the three coastal bird guilds (shorebirds, seabirds, and wading birds). Although rarely assessed robustly, all five broad stewardship techniques aimed at reducing human disturbance (i.e., signage, fencing, stewards, education, closures) contributed to improved productivity, population size, or both across all three guilds because the majority of studies evaluating stewardship impacts (76%) focused on a single guild (shorebirds), and only 17% of the studies of human disturbance management efficacy were conducted in the nGoM. Considerable gaps remain in terms of stewardship impacts on abundance, impacts on productivity for other focal species in the nGoM (especially wading birds), and studies measuring the impact of beach closures.

Similarly, the three primary habitat management techniques (i.e., vegetation management and wetland creation, beach nourishment and dredge-spoil island creation, and reduced or managed beach raking) benefited all three coastal bird guilds when implemented appropriately. Vegetation management effectiveness depended on local forces (e.g., predation, flooding, species requirements, nest timing) and required on-going maintenance such as vegetation removal to sustain long-term positive impacts, whereas beach nourishment depended on whether its application disturbed birds, reduced prey abundance, or increased predator access. This line of research was better represented in the nGoM compared to stewardship (37% of the total studies) and all three guilds were more evenly represented, though there were still fewer studies on wading birds (11%) than shorebirds (68%) or seabirds (41%).

There is no one-size-fits-all approach to address human disturbance and habitat loss across multiple guilds. Although most studies documenting beneficial impacts of threat mitigation focused on shorebirds, in most cases these best management and stewardship practices can also be applied across guilds if local factors (e.g., species-specific habitat preferences, local stressors, types of human disturbance) are accounted for (e.g., Burger et al. 1995, 2021). Our review found that the most effective management plans for increasing population sizes and productivity of coastal birds have used a suite of simultaneous stewardship efforts across large regions (e.g., Burger 1989, Dowling and Weston 1999, Cohen et al. 2009, McIntyre et al. 2010, Catlin et al. 2015, Darrah 2020). Furthermore, our review found that management actions were more effective when applied over long periods of time and paired with monitoring in an adaptive management framework to maintain positive impacts and respond to environmental changes (e.g., Burger 1989, Russell et al. 2009, Engeman et al. 2010, Leja 2015). Implementing these strategies requires substantial investment and could be supported by expanding existing volunteer stewardship programs similar to those run by conservation groups and state organizations across the nGoM. Ultimately, strategically employing simultaneous complementary techniques that take into account site and species-specific characteristics described in this review may effectively recover coastal bird populations along the nGoM and beyond.

LITERATURE CITED

Aharon-Rotman, Y., K. L. Buchanan, N. J. Clark, M. Klaassen and W. A. Buttemer. 2016. Why fly the extra mile? Using stress biomarkers to assess wintering habitat quality in migratory shorebirds. Oecologia 182:385-395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-016-3679-1

Anderson, D., and J. Keith. 1980. The human influence on seabird nesting success: conservation implications. Biological Conservation 18(1):65-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(80)90067-1

Anteau, M. J., R. J. Swift, M. H. Sherfy, D. N. Koons, K. S. Ellis, T. L. Shaffer, D. L. Toy, and M. M. Ring. 2022. Experimental evaluation of predator exclosures on nest, chick, and adult survival of Piping Plovers. Journal of Wildlife Management 86:e22139. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22139

Audubon New York. 2021. Share the love, #ShareTheShore. National Audubon Society, New York, New York, USA. https://ny.audubon.org/conservation/share-love-sharetheshore

Audubon South Carolina. 2024. Let ‘em rest, let ‘em nest. Audubon South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA. https://sc.audubon.org/conservation/let-em-rest-let-em-nest

Ballantyne, R., and K. Hughes. 2006. Using front-end and formative evaluation to design and test persuasive bird feeding warning signs. Tourism Management 27(2):235-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2004.09.005

Barnes, S., C. Bond, N. Burger, K. Anania, A. Strong, S. Weilant, and S. Virgets. 2015. Economic evaluation of coastal land loss in Louisiana. E. J. Ourso College of Business, Economics & Policy Research Group, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA. https://coastal.la.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/LSU-Rand-Report-on-Economics-of-Land-Loss.pdf

Baudains, T. P., and P. Lloyd. 2007. Habituation and habitat changes can moderate the impacts of human disturbance on shorebird breeding performance. Animal Conservation 10(3):400-407. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2007.00126.x

Beerens, J. M., P. C. Frederick, E. G. Noonburg, and D. E. Gawlik. 2015. Determining habitat quality for species that demonstrate dynamic habitat selection. Ecology and Evolution 5(23):5685-5697. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1813

Billodeaux, L., S. Hereford, and S. Gray. 2010. The response of nesting Mississippi Sandhill Cranes to growing season prescribed fires. Page 195 in B. K. Hartup, editor. Proceedings of the eleventh North American crane workshop, Sep 23-27, 2008, Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin, USA.

Bolam, F. C., L. Mair, M. Angelico, T. M. Brooks, M. Burgman, C. Hermes, M. Hoffmann, R. W. Martin, P. J. K. McGowan, A. S. L. Rodrigues, et al. 2021. How many bird and mammal extinctions has recent conservation action prevented? Conservation Letters 14(1):e12762. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12762

Borboroglu, P. G., and P. Yorio. 2007. Breeding habitat requirements and selection by Olrog’s Gull (Larus atlanticus), a threatened species. Auk 124(4):1201-1212. https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/124.4.1201

Bouton, S. N., P. C. Frederick, C. D. Rocha, A. T. B. D. Santos, and T. C. Bouton. 2005. Effects of tourist disturbance on Wood Stork nesting success and breeding behavior in the Brazilian Pantanal. Waterbirds 28(4):487-497. https://doi.org/10.1675/1524-4695(2005)28[487:EOTDOW]2.0.CO;2

Bricker, S. B., C. G. Clement, D. E. Pirhalla, S. P. Orlando, and D. R. G. Farrow. 1999 National estuarine eutrophication assessment: effects of nutrient enrichment in the nation’s estuaries. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Special Projects Office and the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.

Brinker, D. F., J. M. McCann, B. Williams, and B. D. Watts. 2007. Colonial-nesting seabirds in the Chesapeake Bay region: where have we been and where are we going? Waterbirds 30(sp1): 93-104. https://doi.org/10.1675/1524-4695(2007)030[0093:CSITCB]2.0.CO;2

Brubeck, M. V., B. C. Thompson, and R. D. Slack. 1981. The effects of trapping, banding, and patagial tagging on the parental behavior of Least Terns in Texas. Colonial Waterbirds 4:54-60. https://doi.org/10.2307/1521112

Brusati, E. D., P. J. DuBowy, and T. E. Lacher. 2001. Comparing ecological functions of natural and created wetlands for shorebirds in Texas. Waterbirds 24(3):371-380. https://doi.org/10.2307/1522067

Brush, J. M., R. A. Pruner, and M. J. Driscoll. 2019. GoMAMN strategic bird monitoring guidelines: shorebirds. Pages 171-202 in R. R. Wilson, A. M. V. Fournier, J. S. Gleason, J. E. Lyons, and M. S. Woodrey, editors. Strategic bird monitoring guidelines for the northern Gulf of Mexico. Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station Research Bulletin 1228, Mississippi State University, Starkville, Mississippi, USA.

Burger, J. 1984. Colony stability in Least Terns. Condor 86(1):61-67. https://doi.org/10.2307/1367347

Burger, J. 1986. The effect of human activity on shorebirds in two coastal bays in northeastern United States. Environmental Conservation 13(2):123-130. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892900036717

Burger, J. 1987. Physical and social determinants of nest-site selection in Piping Plover in New Jersey. Condor 89(4):811-818. https://doi.org/10.2307/1368529

Burger, J. 1989. Least Tern populations in coastal New Jersey: monitoring and management of a regionally-endangered species. Journal of Coastal Research 5(4):801-811.

Burger, J. 2017. Avian resources of the northern Gulf of Mexico. Pages 1353-1488 in C. H. Ward, editor. Habitats and biota of the Gulf of Mexico: before the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Volume 2. Springer, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3456-0_4

Burger, J. 2018. Birdlife of the Gulf of Mexico. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, Texas, USA.

Burger, J., A. Dey, G. Dillingham, S. Feigin, K. Ng and L. Niles. 2021. Beach stewards and information needs for shorebird stopover sites vary as a function of visitor interests: improving stewardship programs in coastal landscapes. Natural Science 13(12):537-557. https://doi.org/10.4236/ns.2021.1312047

Burger, J., and M. Gochfeld. 1990. The Black Skimmer: social dynamics of a colonial species. Columbia University Press, New York, New York, USA.

Burger, J., M. Gochfeld, C. D. Jenkins, and F. Lesser. 2010. Effect of approaching boats on nesting Black Skimmers: using response distances to establish protective buffer zones. Journal of Wildlife Management 74(1):102-108. https://doi.org/10.2193/2008-576

Burger, J., M. Gochfeld, and L. J. Niles. 1995. Ecotourism and birds in coastal New Jersey: contrasting responses of birds, tourists, and managers. Environmental Conservation 22(1):56-65. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892900034081

Burger, J., and F. Lesser. 1978. Selection of colony sites and nest sites by Common Terns Sterna hirundo in Ocean County, New Jersey. Ibis 120(4):433-449. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.1978.tb06810.x

Burger, J., and L. J. Niles. 2013a. Shorebirds and stakeholders: effects of beach closure and human activities on shorebirds at a New Jersey coastal beach. Urban Ecosystems 16:657-673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-012-0269-9

Burger, J., and L. J. Niles. 2013b. Closure versus voluntary avoidance as a method of protecting migrating shorebirds on beaches in New Jersey. Wader Study Group Bulletin 120(1):20-25.

Burger, J., L. Niles, G. Dillingham, A. Dey, S. Feign, and K. Ng. 2023. Information needed for coastal management: perceptions of research and protection of shorebirds on a coastal beach are influenced by visitor type, age and gender. Urban Ecosystems 26:233-248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-022-01282-z

Burns, F., N. McCulloch, T. Szekely, and M. Bolton. 2013. No overall benefit of predator exclosure cages for the endangered St. Helena Plover Charadrius sanctaehelenae. Ibis 155:397-401. https://doi.org/10.1111/ibi.12021

Bush, D. M., W. J. Neal, N. J. Longo, K. C. Lindeman, D. F. Pilkey, L. S. Esteves, J. D. Congleton, and O. H. Pilkey. 2004. Living with Florida’s Atlantic beaches: coastal hazards from Amelia Island to Key West. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina, USA.

Carlson, B. A., and E. B. McLean. 1996. Buffer zones and disturbance types as predictors of fledging success in Great Blue Herons, Ardea herodias. Colonial Waterbirds 19:124-127. https://doi.org/10.2307/1521816

Catlin, D. H., J. D. Fraser, and J. H. Felio. 2015. Demographic responses of Piping Plovers to habitat creation on the Missouri River. Wildlife Monographs 192(1):1-42. https://doi.org/10.1002/wmon.1016

Catlin, D. H., S. L. Zeigler, M. B. Brown, L. R. Dinan, J. D. Fraser, K. L. Hunt, and J. G. Jorgensen. 2016. Metapopulation viability of an endangered shorebird depends on dispersal and human-created habitats: Piping Plovers (Charadrius melodus) and prairie rivers. Movement Ecology 4:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40462-016-0072-y

Cohen, J. B., L. M. Houghton, and J. D. Fraser. 2009. Nesting density and reproductive success of Piping Plovers in response to storm- and human-created habitat changes. Wildlife Monographs 173(1):1-24. https://doi.org/10.2193/2007-553

Cohen, J. B., S. M. Karpanty, D. H. Catlin, J. D. Fraser, and R. A. Fischer. 2008. Winter ecology of Piping Plovers at Oregon Inlet, North Carolina. Waterbirds 31(3):472-479. https://doi.org/10.1675/1524-4695-31.3.472

Collins, S. A., W. Selman, M. C. Green, and W. T. Strong. 2021. Reproductive ecology and nest success of Reddish Egrets (Egretta rufescens) on a natural marsh island in southwestern Louisiana, USA. Waterbirds 44(1):1-12. https://doi.org/10.1675/063.044.0101

Comber, C. A., and A. A. Dayer. 2019. Evaluating the effectiveness of children’s signs at reducing human disturbance threats to coastal birds. Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation, College of Natural Resources & Environment, Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA.

Comber, C. A., and A. A. Dayer. 2024. Beach recreationists perceive a lack of knowledge about shorebirds’ needs as a constraint to walking around shorebird flocks. Ornithological Applications 126(1):duad050. https://doi.org/10.1093/ornithapp/duad050

Comber, C. A., A. A. Dayer, D. Reynolds, J. Everly, N. Schillerstrom, L. Bartlett, K. L.Hunt, D. Gibson, D. H. Catlin, C. Fury, et al. 2021. Guide to applying science and management insights and human behavior change strategies to address beach walking and dog disturbance along the Atlantic Flyway. Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation, College of Natural Resources & Environment, Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA.

Convertino, M., J. B. Elsner, R. Muñoz-Carpena, G. A. Kiker, C. J. Martinez, R. A. Fischer, and I. Linkov. 2011. Do tropical cyclones shape shorebird habitat patterns? Biogeoclimatology of Snowy Plovers in Florida. PLoS ONE 6(1):e15683. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0015683

Cope, R. 2016. Disturbance and recovery of Sooty Tern nesting colony in Dry Tortugas National Park. Thesis. Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.

Corbat, C. A. 1990. Nesting ecology of selected beach-nesting birds in Georgia. Thesis. University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA.

Corre, N., I. Peuziat, L. Brigand, G. Gelinaud, and C. Meur-Ferec. 2013. Wintering waterbirds and recreationists in natural areas: a sociological approach to the awareness of bird disturbance. Environmental Management 52:780-791. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0118-5

Cove, M. V., B. Gardner, T. R. Simons, R. Kays and A. F. O’Connell. 2018. Free-ranging domestic cats (Felis catus) on public lands: estimating density, activity, and diet in the Florida Keys. Biological Invasions 20:333-344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1534-x

Crossett, K., B. Ache, P. Pacheco, and K. Haber. 2014. National coastal population report: population trends from 1970 to 2020. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C., USA.

Croxall, J. P., S. H. M. Butchart, B. Lascelles, A. J. Stattersfield, B. Sullivan, A. Symes, and P. Taylor. 2012. Seabird conservation status, threats and priority actions: a global assessment. Bird Conservation International 22(1):1-34. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959270912000020

Darrah, A. J. 2020. Mixed evidence for effects of stewardship on Least Tern reproductive success in coastal Mississippi. Ornithological Applications 122(4):duaa050. https://doi.org/10.1093/condor/duaa050

Darrah, A. J., J. B. Cohen, and P. M. Castelli. 2020. A decision support tool to guide the use of nest exclosures for Piping Plover conservation. Wildlife Society Bulletin 44(3):480-492. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.1115

Darrah, A. J., T. D. Meehan, and N. L. Michel. 2021. Status, distribution, and habitat use of coastal waterbirds along the Mississippi Gulf Coast, USA. Waterbirds 44:135-152. https://doi.org/10.1675/063.044.0201

Davis, M. B., T. R. Simons, M. J. Groom, J. L. Weaver, and J. R. Cordes. 2001. The breeding status of the American Oystercatcher on the east coast of North America and breeding success in North Carolina. Waterbirds 24(2):195-202. https://doi.org/10.2307/1522030

Defeo, O., A. McLachlan, D. S. Schoeman, T. A. Schlacher, J. Dugan, A. Jones, M. Lastra, and F. Scapini. 2009. Threats to sandy beach ecosystems: a review. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 81(1):1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2008.09.022

DeRose-Wilson, A., J. D. Fraser, S. M. Karpanty, and D. H. Catlin. 2013. Nest-site selection and demography of Wilson’s Plovers on a North Carolina barrier island. Journal of Field Ornithology 84(4):329-344. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofo.12033

DeRose-Wilson, A. L., K. L. Hunt, J. D. Monk, D. H. Catlin, S. M. Karpanty, and J. D. Fraser. 2018. Piping Plover chick survival negatively correlated with beach recreation. Journal of Wildlife Management 82(8):1608-1616. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21552

Devries, E. A., and E. A. Forys. 2004. Loss of tar and gravel rooftops in Pinellas County, Florida and potential effects on Least Tern populations. Florida Field Naturalist 32(1):1-41.

Dinsmore, S. J., D. J. Lauten, K. A. Castelein, E. P. Gaines, and M. A. Stern. 2014. Predator exclosures, predator removal, and habitat improvement increase nest success of Snowy Plovers in Oregon, USA. Condor 116(4):619-628. https://doi.org/10.1650/CONDOR-14-7.1

Dowling, B., and M. A. Weston. 1999. Managing a breeding population of the Hooded Plover Thinornis rubricollis in a high-use recreational environment. Bird Conservation International 9(3):255-270. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959270900003440

Downs, P., J. St. Germain, and R. Anglin. 2019. The beaches of Fort Myers & Sanibel, Lee County. Calendar year 2019 visitor tracking, occupancy, & economic impact study. Lee County Visitor & Convention Bureau, Fort Myers, Florida, USA. https://www.visitfortmyers.com/sites/default/files/images/2019-visitor-tracking-report.pdf

Drake, K. R., J. E. Thompson, K. L. Drake, and C. Zonick. 2001. Movements, habitat use, and survival of nonbreeding Piping Plovers. Condor 103(2):259-267. https://doi.org/10.1093/condor/103.2.259

Duckworth, G. D., and R. Altwegg. 2018. Effectiveness of protected areas for bird conservation depends on guild. Diversity and Distributions 24(8):1083-1091. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12756

Dugan, J. E., L. Airoldi, M. G. Chapman, S. J. Walker, and T. Schlacher. 2011. Estuarine and coastal structures: environmental effects, a focus on shore and nearshore structures. Treatise on Estuarine and Coastal Science 8:17-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374711-2.00802-0

Dugan, J. E., D. M. Hubbard, M. D. McCrary, and M. O. Pierson. 2003. The response of macrofauna communities and shorebirds to macrophyte wrack subsidies on exposed sandy beaches of southern California. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 58:25-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7714(03)00045-3

Durkin, M. M., and J. B. Cohen. 2021. Responses of imperiled Snowy Plovers (Charadrius nivosus) to anthropogenic and natural disturbance in the Florida Panhandle. Waterbirds 44:509-525. https://doi.org/10.1675/063.044.0412

Dwyer, N. C., and G. W. Tanner. 1992. Nesting success in Florida Sandhill Cranes. Wilson Bulletin 104(1):22-31.

Eggert, L. 2012. Conservation needs of nearshore seabirds in the Southeastern U.S. addressed through habitat use surveys and assessments of health and mercury concentrations. Thesis. Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA.

Ellison, L. N., and L. Cleary. 1978. Effects of human disturbance on breeding of double-crested cormorants. Auk 95:510-517.

Emslie, S. D., J. S. Weske, M. M. Browne, S. Cameron, R. Boettcher, D. F. Brinker, and W. Golder. 2009. Population trends in Royal and Sandwich Terns along the mid-Atlantic seaboard, USA, 1975–2005. Waterbirds 32(1):54-63. https://doi.org/10.1675/063.032.0106

Engelhard, G. H., and K. Withers. 1997. Biological effects of mechanical beach raking in the upper intertidal zone on Padre Island National Seashore, Texas. Center for Coastal Studies, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, Texas, USA.

Engeman, R. M., A. Duffiney, S. Braem, C. Olsen, B. Constantin, P. Small, J. Dunlop, and J. C. Griffin. 2010. Dramatic and immediate improvements in insular nesting success for threatened sea turtles and shorebirds following predator management. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 395(1-2):147-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2010.08.026

Erwin, R.M. 1977. Black Skimmer breeding ecology and behavior. Auk 94(4):709-717. https://doi.org/10.2307/4085267

Erwin, R. M., D. H. Allen, and D. Jenkins. 2003. Created versus natural coastal islands: Atlantic waterbird populations, habitat choices, and management implications. Estuaries 26:949-955. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02803353

Erwin, R. M., D. F. Brinker, B. D. Watts, G. R. Costanzo, and D. D. Morton. 2011. Islands at bay: rising seas, eroding islands, and waterbird habitat loss in Chesapeake Bay (USA). Journal of Coastal Conservation 15:51-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-010-0119-y

Erwin, R. M., J. Miller, and J. G. Reese. 2007. Poplar Island environmental restoration project: challenges in waterbird restoration on an island in Chesapeake Bay. Ecological Restoration 25(4):256-262. https://doi.org/10.3368/er.25.4.256

Farrell, C., M. Korosy, and J. Wraithmell. 2016. The role of coastal engineering in American Oystercatcher conservation. Audubon Florida, Miami, Florida, USA. https://fl.audubon.org/sites/default/files/the_role_of_coastal_engineering_in_american_oystercatcher_conservation.pdf

Feagin, R. A., A. M. Williams, M. L. Martínez, and O. Pérez-Maqueo. 2014. How does the social benefit and economic expenditures generated by a rural beach compare with its sediment replacement cost? Ocean & Coastal Management 89:79-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.12.017

Fitzpatrick, S., and B. Bouchez. 1998. Effects of recreational disturbance on the foraging behaviour of waders on a rocky beach. Bird Study 45(2):157-171. https://doi.org/10.1080/00063659809461088

Flemming, S. P., R. D. Chiasson, P. C. Smith, P. J. Austin-Smith, and R. P. Bancroft. 1988. Piping Plover status in Nova Scotia related to its reproductive and behavioral responses to human disturbance. Journal of Field Ornithology 59(4):321-330.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2022. Florida circumnavigational saltwater paddling trail segments & information: Segment 2: Santa Rosa Sound/Emerald Coast. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, Florida, USA. https://floridadep.gov/parks/ogt/content/florida-circumnavigational-saltwater-paddling-trail-segments-information

Forys, E. A., S. K. Beres, A. L. Mckay, and O. N. Spicer. 2022. Infanticide in highly urbanized colonies of Black Skimmers Rynchops niger. Marine Ornithology 50:43-47.

Forys, E. A., and M. Borboen-Abrams. 2006. Roof-top selection by Least Terns in Pinellas County, Florida. Waterbirds 29(4):501-506. https://doi.org/10.1675/1524-4695(2006)29[501:RSBLTI]2.0.CO;2

Fournier, A. M. V., R. R. Wilson, J. S. Gleason, E. M. Adams, J. M. Brush, R. J. Cooper, S. J. DeMaso, M. J. L. Driscoll, P. C. Frederick, P. G. R. Jodice, M. A. Ottinger, D. B. Reeves, M. A. Seymour, S. M. Sharuga, J. M. Tirpak, W. G. Vermillion, T. J. Zenzal Jr., J. E. Lyons, and M. S. Woodrey. 2023. Structured decision making to prioritize regional bird monitoring needs. INFORMS Journal on Applied Analytics 53:207-217. https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.2022.1154

Gaines, E. P., and M. R. Ryan. 1988. Piping Plover habitat use and reproductive success in North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 52(2):266-273. https://doi.org/10.2307/3801233

Galbraith, H., D. W. DesRochers, S. Brown, and J. M. Reed. 2014. Predicting vulnerabilities of North American shorebirds to climate change. PLoS ONE 9:e108899. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0108899

Galbraith, H., R. Jones, R. Park, J. Clough, S. Herrod-Julius, B. Harrington, and G. Page. 2002. Global climate change and sea level rise: potential losses of intertidal habitat for shorebirds. Waterbirds 25(2):173-183. https://doi.org/10.1675/1524-4695(2002)025[0173:GCCASL]2.0.CO;2

Gallardo, J., V. Macias and E. Velarde. 2009. Birds (Vertebrata: Aves) of the Gulf of Mexico. Pages 1321-1342 in D. L. Felder and D. K. Camp, editors. Gulf of Mexico origin, water, and biota. Biodiversity. Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA.

Gamblin, A. E., A. J. Darrah, M. S. Woodrey, and R. B. Iglay. 2023. Coastal bird community response to dredge-spoil tidal marsh restoration at New Round Island, Mississippi, U.S.A. Restoration Ecology 31(4):e13775. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13775

Gibson, D., M. K. Chaplin, K. L. Hunt, M. J. Friedrich, C. E. Weithman, L. M. Addison, V. Cavalieri, S. Coleman, F. J. Cuthbert, J. D. Fraser, et al. 2018. Impacts of anthropogenic disturbance on body condition, survival, and site fidelity of nonbreeding Piping Plovers. Condor 120(3):566-580. https://doi.org/10.1650/CONDOR-17-148.1

Gittman, R. K., F. J. Fodrie, A. M. Popowich, D. A. Keller, J. F. Bruno, C. A. Currin, C. H. Peterson, and M. F. Piehler. 2015. Engineering away our natural defenses: an analysis of shoreline hardening in the US. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 13:301-307. https://doi.org/10.1890/150065

Gochfeld, M. 1983. Colony site selection by Least Terns: physical attributes of sites. Colonial Waterbirds 6:205-213. https://doi.org/10.2307/1520989

Goldin, M. R., and J. V. Regosin. 1998. Chick behavior, habitat use, and reproductive success of Piping Plovers at Goosewing Beach, Rhode Island. Journal of Field Ornithology 69(2):228-234.

Gore, J. 1991. Distribution and abundance of nesting Least Terns and Black Skimmers in Northwest Florida. Florida Field Naturalist 19(3):65-72.

Goss-Custard, J. D., R. T. Clarke, K. B. Briggs, B. J. Ens, K.-M. Exo, C. Smit, A. J. Beintema, R. W. G. Caldow, D. C. Catt, N. A. Clark, et al. 1995. Population consequences of winter habitat loss in a migratory shorebird. I. Estimating model parameters. Journal of Applied Ecology 32(2):320-336. https://doi.org/10.2307/2405099

Gramann, J. H., R. L. Bonifield, and Y. Kim. 1995. Effect of personality and situational factors on intentions to obey rules in outdoor recreation areas. Journal of Leisure Research 27(4):326-343. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1995.11949753

Guilfoyle, M. P., A. N. Anderson, S. S. Jackson, J. F. Jung, T. J. Zenzal, Jr., B. C. Suedel, and J. M. Corbino. 2024. Coastal breeding bird phenology on the dredged-material islands of the Baptiste Collette Bayou, US Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, Louisiana. ERDC/EL TR-24-7. US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA. https://doi.org/10.21079/11681/48473

Guilfoyle, M. P., R. A. Fischer, D. N. Pashley, and C. A. Lott. 2006. Summary of first regional workshop on dredging, beach nourishment, and birds on the south Atlantic coast. Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Lab TR-06-10. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C., USA.

Gulf Shores & Orange Beach Tourism. 2022. 2022 Annual report. Alabama Gulf Coast Convention & Visitors Bureau, Gulf Shores, Alabama, USA. https://www.gulfshores.com/sites/default/files/2024-05/9.7%202022%20Annual%20Report.pdf

Hackney, A., V. Vazquez, I. Pena, D. Whitley, D. Dingli, and C. Southwick. 2016. Predicted waterbird habitat loss on eroding Texas rookery islands. Audubon Texas, National Audubon Society, Austin, Texas, USA. https://www.glo.texas.gov/sites/default/files/coastal-grants/_documents/grant-project/15-049-final-rpt.pdf

Hamza, F. 2020. Impacts of human activities on diversity of wintering waterbirds: assessment in Mediterranean coastal area. Ocean & Coastal Management 198:105317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105317

Hecker, S. 2008. The Piping Plover as an umbrella species for the barrier beach ecosystem. Pages 59-74 in R. A. Askins, G. D. Dreyer, G. R. Visgilio, and D. M. Whitelaw, editors. Saving biological diversity: balancing protection of endangered species and ecosystems. Springer US, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09565-3_6

Herring, G., D. E. Gawlik, M. I. Cook, and J. M. Beerens. 2010. Sensitivity of nesting Great Egrets (Ardea alba) and White Ibises (Eudocimus albus) to reduced prey availability. Auk 127(3):660-670. https://doi.org/10.1525/auk.2010.09144

Hevia, G. D., and L. Bala. 2018. The role of human compliance for management actions to protect breeding shorebirds in coastal ecosystems. International Wader Study Group Bulletin 125(2):83-89. https://doi.org/10.18194/ws.00110

Hill, D., D. Hockin, D. Price, G. Tucker, R. Morris, and J. Treweek. 1997. Bird disturbance: improving the quality and utility of disturbance research. Journal of Applied Ecology 34(2):275-288. https://doi.org/10.2307/2404876

Hill, L. A., and L. G. Talent. 1990. Effects of capture, handling, banding, and radio-marking on breeding Least Terns and Snowy Plovers. Journal of Field Ornithology 61(3):310-319.

Hodgson, A. B., A. F. Paul, and M. L. Rachal. 2008. American Oystercatcher nesting in Hillsborough Bay, Florida: population trends 1990-2007 and management recommendations. Sovereign Lands Management Initiatives Program 2006. Tampa Port Authority, Florida Coastal Islands Sanctuaries, Tampa, Florida, USA.

Hood, S. L., and S. J. Dinsmore. 2007. The influence of habitat on nest survival of Snowy and Wilson’s Plovers in the lower Laguna Madre region of Texas. Studies in Avian Biology 34:124-135.

Houser, C., B. Labude, L. Haider, and B. Weymer. 2013. Impacts of driving on the beach: case studies from Assateague Island and Padre Island National Seashores. Ocean & Coastal Management 71:33-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.09.012

Hunt, K. L., S. M. Karpanty, K. L. Davis, A. Wilke, N. Myers, C. Spiegel, S. Shulte, D. H. Catlin, and J. D. Fraser. 2019. Guidance and best practices for coordinated predation management to benefit temperate breeding shorebirds in the Atlantic Flyway. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Washington, D.C., USA.

Hunter, W., W. Golder, S. Melvin, and J. Wheeler. 2006. Southeast United States regional waterbird conservation plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5bb3865d2727be6f94acf2fc/t/5c79a2efe5e5f0214c34c48c/1551475442564/SE_US_Waterb_Plan_2006.pdf

Ikuta, L. A., and D. T. Blumstein. 2003. Do fences protect birds from human disturbance? Biological Conservation 112(3):447-452. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00324-5

Isaksson, D., J. Wallander, and M. Larsson. 2007. Managing predation on ground-nesting birds: the effectiveness of nest exclosures. Biological Conservation 136(1):136-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.11.015

Jackson, J. A., and B. J. S. Jackson. 1985. Status, dispersion, and population changes of the Least Tern in coastal Mississippi. Colonial Waterbirds 8(1):54-62. https://doi.org/10.2307/1521194

Jefferson, C. N., M. M. Brown, L. M. Koczur, C. E. Weatherby, and F. D. Batchelor. 2022. Disturbances to Least Tern (Sternula antillarum) along the Alabama coast. Alabama Birdlife 68(1):1-13.

Jenks-Jay, N. 1982. Chick shelters decrease avian predation in Least Tern colonies on Nantucket Island, Massachusetts. Journal of Field Ornithology 53(1):58-60.

Jiménez, A., J. Brush, R. Zambrano, N. Warraich and M. Korosy. 2023. Using double sampling to estimate the population of Least Terns (Sternula antillarum) nesting on Florida’s rooftops. Waterbirds 45:440-449. https://doi.org/10.1675/063.045.0408

Jodice, P. G., E. M. Adams, J. Lamb, Y. Satgé, and J. S. Gleason. 2019. GoMAMN strategic bird monitoring guidelines: seabirds. Strategic bird monitoring guidelines for the northern Gulf of Mexico: seabirds. Pages 129-169 in R. R. Wilson, A. M. V. Fournier, J. S. Gleason, J. E. Lyons, and M. S. Woodrey, editors. Strategic bird monitoring guidelines for the northern Gulf of Mexico. Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station Research Bulletin 1228, Mississippi State University, Starkville, Mississippi, USA.

Jodice, P. G. R., T. M. Murphy, F. J. Sanders, and L. M. Ferguson. 2007. Longterm trends in nest counts of colonial seabirds in South Carolina, USA. Waterbirds 30(1):40-51. https://doi.org/10.1675/1524-4695(2007)030[0040:LTINCO]2.0.CO;2

Jodice, P. G. R., J. M. Thibault, S. A. Collins, M. D. Spinks, and F. J. Sanders. 2014. Reproductive ecology of American Oystercatchers nesting on shell rakes. Condor 116(4):588-598. https://doi.org/10.1650/CONDOR-14-35.1

Johnston, A., E. Matechou, and E. B. Dennis. 2023. Outstanding challenges and future directions for biodiversity monitoring using citizen science data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 14:103-116. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13834

Kavelaars, M. M., J. M. Baert, E. W. M. Stienen, J. Shamoun-Baranes, L. Lens, and W. Müller. 2020. Breeding habitat loss reveals limited foraging flexibility and increases foraging effort in a colonial breeding seabird. Movement Ecology 8:45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40462-020-00231-9

Kelly, J. F. 2014. Effects of human activities (raking, scraping, off-road vehicles) and natural resource protections on the spatial distribution of beach vegetation and related shoreline features in New Jersey. Journal of Coastal Conservation 18:383-398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-014-0324-1

Klein, M. L., S. R. Humphrey, and H. F. Percival. 1995. Effects of ecotourism on distribution of waterbirds in a wildlife refuge. Conservation Biology 9(6):1454-1465. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1995.09061454.x

Koch, S. L., and P. W. C. Paton. 2014. Assessing anthropogenic disturbances to develop buffer zones for shorebirds using a stopover site. Journal of Wildlife Management 78(1):58-67. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.631

Kotliar, N. B., and J. Burger. 1986. Colony site selection and abandonment by Least Terns Sterna antillarum in New Jersey, USA. Biological Conservation 37(1):1-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(86)90031-5

Krainyk, A., L. M. Koczur, and B. M. Ballard. 2020. A spatial model for the beneficial use of dredge spoil deposition: creation and management of breeding habitat for Reddish Egrets in Texas. Journal of Environmental Management 260:110022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.110022

Krogh, M. G., and S. H. Schweitzer. 1999. Least Terns nesting on natural and artificial habitats in Georgia, USA. Waterbirds 22(2):290-296. https://doi.org/10.2307/1522218

Lafferty, K. D., D. Goodman, and C. P. Sandoval. 2006. Restoration of breeding Snowy Plovers following protection from disturbance. Biodiversity & Conservation 15:2217-2230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-004-7180-5

Lamb, J. S. 2015. Review of vegetation management in breeding colonies of North Atlantic terns. Conservation Evidence 12 :53-59.

Lankford, K., J. Hebert, N. L. Michel, K. Hyun, D. Meffert, D. O’Neill, V. Vasquez, E. J. Johnson, S. Pacyna, A. Darrah, et al. 2018. Audubon’s vision: restoring the Gulf of Mexico for birds and people. National Audubon Society, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. https://nas-national-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/audubon_gulfwaterbirdreport_2018_web.pdf

Lapointe, B. E., and B. J. Bedford. 2007. Drift rhodophyte blooms emerge in Lee County, Florida, USA: evidence of escalating coastal eutrophication. Harmful Algae 6(3):421-437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2006.12.005

Lauro, B., and E. Nol. 1995. Patterns of habitat use for Pied and Sooty Oystercatchers nesting at the Furneaux Islands, Australia. Condor 97(4):920-934. https://doi.org/10.2307/1369531

Laycock, B. 2023. Investigating the effectiveness of mindfulness on coastal recreationist to mitigate waterbird disturbance. Thesis. Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas, USA.

Leja, S. D. 2015. Habitat selection and response to restoration by breeding Western Snowy Plovers in coastal Northern California. Thesis. California State Polytechnic University, Humboldt, California, USA.

Lewis, J., J. Collison, and D. Pillay. 2022. Effects of COVID-19 lockdowns on shorebird assemblages in an urban South African sandy beach ecosystem. Scientific Reports 12:5088. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-09099-8

Lleywellyn, P., and S. E. Shackley. 1996. The effects of mechanical beach-cleaning on invertebrate populations. British Wildlife 7(3):147-155.

Lopes, C. S., J. A. Ramos, and V. H. Paiva. 2015. Changes in vegetation cover explain shifts of colony sites by Little Terns (Sternula albifrons) in coastal Portugal. Waterbirds 38(3):260-268. https://doi.org/10.1675/063.038.0306

Lorenz, J. J., B. Langan-Mulrooney, P. E. Frezza, R. G. Harvey, and F. J. Mazzotti. 2009. Roseate Spoonbill reproduction as an indicator for restoration of the Everglades and the Everglades Estuaries. Ecological Indicators 9(6):S96-S107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.10.008

Lott, C. A. 2009. Distribution and abundance of Piping Plovers (Charadrius melodus) and Snowy Plovers (Charadrius nivosus) on the west coast of Florida before and after the 2004/2005 hurricane seasons. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, USA.

Lott, C. A., C. S. Ewell, and K. L. Volansky. 2009. Habitat associations of shoreline-dependent birds in Barrier Island ecosystems during fall migration in Lee County, Florida. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, USA.

Louisiana House of Representatives. 2023. Fiscal year 2024 executive budget review. Louisiana House of Representatives, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA. https://house.louisiana.gov/housefiscal/DOCS_APP_BDGT_MEETINGS/DOCS_AppBudgetMeetings2023/FY%2024%20Culture%20Recreation%20Tourism.pdf

MacIvor, L. H. 1990. Population dynamics, breeding ecology, and management of Piping Plovers on outer Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Thesis. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA.

Mackin, W. A. 2016. Current and former populations of Audubon’s Shearwater (Puffinus lherminieri) in the Caribbean region. Condor 118(3):655-673. https://doi.org/10.1650/CONDOR-16-2.1

Maguire, G. S., A. K. Duivenvoorden, M. A. Weston, and R. Adams. 2011. Provision of artificial shelter on beaches is associated with improved shorebird fledging success. Bird Conservation International 21(2):172-185. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959270910000420

Mallach, T. J., and P. L. Leberg. 1999. Use of dredged material substrates by nesting terns and Black Skimmers. Journal of Wildlife Management 63(1):137-146. https://doi.org/10.2307/3802494

Malm, T., S. Råberg, S. Fell, and P. Carlsson. 2004. Effects of beach cast cleaning on beach quality, microbial food web, and littoral macrofaunal biodiversity. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 60(2):339-347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2004.01.008

Maslo, B., and J. L. Lockwood. 2009. Evidence-based decisions on the use of predator exclosures in shorebird conservation. Biological Conservation 142(12):3213-3218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.07.034

Mass Audubon. 2023. Coastal Waterbird Program 2023 Field Highlights. Mass Audubon, Lincoln, Massachusetts, USA. https://www.massaudubon.org/content/download/66417/file/CWP_2023Highlights.pdf?inLanguage=eng-US&version=1

Mazzocchi, A., and E. Forys. 2005. Nesting habitat selection of the Least Tern on the Gulf Coast of Florida. Florida Field Naturalist 33(3):71-113.

McGowan, C. P., T. R. Simons, W. Golder, and J. Cordes. 2005. A comparison of American Oystercatcher reproductive success on barrier beach and river island habitats in coastal North Carolina. Waterbirds 28(2):150-155. https://doi.org/10.1675/1524-4695(2005)028[0150:ACOAOR]2.0.CO;2

McIntyre, A. F., and J. A. Heath. 2011. Evaluating the effects of foraging habitat restoration on shorebird reproduction: the importance of performance criteria and comparative design. Journal of Coastal Conservation 15:151-157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-010-0128-x

McIntyre, A. F., J. A. Heath, and J. Jannsen. 2010. Trends in Piping Plover reproduction at Jones Beach State Park, NY, 1995-2007. Northeastern Naturalist 17(3):493-504. https://doi.org/10.1656/045.017.0309

Medeiros, R., J. Ramos, V. Paiva, A. Almeida, P. Pedro, and S. Antunes. 2007. Signage reduces the impact of disturbance on Little Tern nesting success in Portugal. Biological Conservation 135(1):99-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.10.001

Meet Corpus Christi. 2024. What is the value of Corpus Christi tourism (and why does it matter?). Meet Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, Texas, USA. https://www.visitcorpuschristi.com/corpus-christi-value-of-tourism

Melvin, S. M., A. Hecht, and C. R. Griffin. 1994. Piping Plover mortalities caused by off-road vehicles on Atlantic coast beaches. Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973-2006) 22(3):409-414.

Mendelssohn, I. A., M. R. Byrnes, R. T. Kneib, and B. A. Vittor. 2017. Coastal habitats of the Gulf of Mexico. Pages 369-640 in C. H. Ward, editor. Habitats and biota of the Gulf of Mexico: before the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Volume 1. Springer, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3447-8_6

Mengak, L., and A. A. Dayer. 2020. Defining human disturbance to shorebirds using manager and scientist input. Environmental Management 65:62-73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-019-01230-2

Michel, N. L., S. P. Saunders, T. D. Meehan, and C. B. Wilsey. 2021. Effects of stewardship on protected area effectiveness for coastal birds. Conservation Biology 35(5):1484-1495. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13698

Morton, R. A. 2003. An overview of coastal land loss: with emphasis on the Southeastern United States. Open File Report 03-337. U.S. Geological Survey Center for Coastal and Watershed Studies, St. Petersburg, Florida, USA. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr03337

Murchison, C. R., Y. Zharikov, and E. Nol. 2016. Human activity and habitat characteristics influence shorebird habitat use and behavior at a Vancouver Island migratory stopover site. Environmental Management 58:386-398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0727-x

Murphy, R. K., I. M. G. Michaud, D. R. C. Prescott, J. S. Ivan, B. J. Anderson, and M. L. French-Pombier. 2003. Predation on adult Piping Plovers at predator exclosure cages. Waterbirds 26(2):150-155. https://doi.org/10.1675/1524-4695(2003)026[0150:POAPPA]2.0.CO;2

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Understanding the long-term evolution of the coupled natural-human coastal system: the future of the U.S. Gulf Coast. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Nesbitt, S. A., and L. C. Badger. 1995. Coyote preys on young Florida sandhill crane. Florida Field Naturalist 23(1):15-16.

Nesbitt, S., and J. Hatchitt. 2008. Trends in habitat and population of Florida Sandhill Cranes. Pages 40-41 in M. J. Folk and S. A. Nesbitt, editors. Proceedings of the Tenth North American Crane Workshop, Feb 7-10, 2006, Zacatecas City, Zacatecas, Mexico.

Neumann, B., A. T. Vafeidis, J. Zimmermann, and R. J. Nicholls. 2015. Future coastal population growth and exposure to sea-level rise and coastal flooding - a global assessment. PLoS ONE 10:e0118571. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118571

Niehaus, A. C., D. R. Ruthrauff, and B. J. McCaffery. 2004. Response of predators to Western Sandpiper nest exclosures. Waterbirds 27:79-82. https://doi.org/10.1675/1524-4695(2004)027[0079:ROPTWS]2.0.CO;2

Nisbet, I. C. T. 1981. Behavior of Common and Roseate Terns after trapping. Colonial Waterbirds 4:44-46. https://doi.org/10.2307/1521110

Nisbet, I. C. T. 2000. Disturbance, habituation, and management of waterbird colonies. Waterbirds 23(2):312-332.

Nordstrom, K. F., R. Lampe, and L. M. Vandemark. 2000. Reestablishing naturally functioning dunes on developed coasts. Environmental Management 25:37-51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002679910004

O’Connell, J. L., and J. A. Nyman. 2010. Marsh terraces in coastal Louisiana increase marsh edge and densities of waterbirds. Wetlands 30:125-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-009-0009-y

Owen, T. M., and A. R. Pierce. 2013. Hatching success and nest site characteristics of Black Skimmer (Rynchops niger) on the Isles Dernieres Barrier Island Refuge, Louisiana. Waterbirds 36(3):342-347. https://doi.org/10.1675/063.036.0311

Page, G. W., L. E. Stenzel, and C. A. Ribic. 1985. Nest site selection and clutch predation in the Snowy Plover. Auk 102(2):347-353. https://doi.org/10.2307/4086778

Page, G. W., L. E. Stenzel, J. S. Warriner, J. C. Warriner, and P. W. Paton. 2023. Snowy Plover (Anarhynchus nivosus), version 1.1. In A. F. Poole, editor. Birds of the world. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.snoplo5.01.1

Patterson, M. E., J. D. Fraser, and J. W. Roggenbuck. 1991. Factors affecting Piping Plover productivity on Assateague Island. Journal of Wildlife Management 55(3):525-531. https://doi.org/10.2307/3808985

Pearson, W. J., and M. A. Colwell. 2014. Effects of nest success and mate fidelity on breeding dispersal in a population of Snowy Plovers Charadrius nivosus. Bird Conservation International 24(3):342-353. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959270913000403

Pearson, S. F., S. M. Knapp, and C. Sundstrom. 2016. Evaluating the ecological and behavioural factors influencing Snowy Plover Charadrius nivosus egg hatching and the potential benefits of predator exclosures. Bird Conservation International 26(1):100-118. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959270914000331

Peters, K. A., and D. L. Otis. 2005. Using the risk-disturbance hypothesis to assess the relative effects of human disturbance and predation risk on foraging American Oystercatchers. Condor 107(3):716-725. https://doi.org/10.1093/condor/107.3.716

Peterson, C. H., and M. J. Bishop. 2005. Assessing the environmental impacts of beach nourishment. BioScience 55(10):887-896. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0887:ATEIOB]2.0.CO;2

Peterson, C. H., and L. Manning. 2001. How beach nourishment affects the habitat value of intertidal beach prey for surf fish and shorebirds and why uncertainty still exists. Pages 1-2 in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, editor. Proceedings of the Coastal Ecosystems and Federal Activities Training Symposium, Aug 20-22, 2001, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

Post, W. 1990. Nest survival in a large ibis-heron colony during a three-year decline to extinction. Colonial Waterbirds 13(1):50-61. https://doi.org/10.2307/1521420

Pouwels, R., H. Sierdsema, R. P. B. Foppen, R. J. H. G. Henkens, P. F. M. Opdam, and M. van Eupen. 2017. Harmonizing outdoor recreation and bird conservation targets in protected areas: applying available monitoring data to facilitate collaborative management at the regional scale. Journal of Environmental Management 198(1):248-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.04.069

Powell, A. N., and C. L. Collier. 2000. Habitat use and reproductive success of Western Snowy Plovers at new nesting areas created for California Least Terns. Journal of Wildlife Management 64(1):24-33. https://doi.org/10.2307/3802971

Pruner, R. A. 2010. Conservation and management of the Snowy Plover along the Florida Gulf Coast: habitat selection and the consequent reproductive performance. Thesis. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.

Raynor, E. J., A. R. Pierce, C. M. Leumas, and F. C. Rohwer. 2012. Breeding habitat requirements and colony formation by Royal Terns (Thalasseus maximus) and Sandwich Terns (T. sandvicensis) on barrier islands in the Gulf of Mexico. Auk 129(4):763-772. https://doi.org/10.1525/auk.2012.11181

Remsen, J. V., Jr., B. P. Wallace, M. A. Seymour, D. A. O’Malley, and E. I. Johnson. 2019. The regional, national, and international importance of Louisiana’s coastal avifauna. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 131:221-434. https://doi.org/10.1676/18-111

Reynolds, M. H., K. N. Courtot, P. Berkowitz, C. D. Storlazzi, J. Moore, and E. Flint. 2015. Will the effects of sea-level rise create ecological traps for Pacific island seabirds? PLoS ONE 10(9):e0136773. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0136773

Rimmer, D. W., and R. D. Deblinger. 1992. Use of fencing to limit terrestrial predator movements into Least Tern colonies. Colonial Waterbirds 15(2):226-229. https://doi.org/10.2307/1521456

Rimmer, J. M., G. S. Maguire, and M. A. Weston. 2013. Perceptions of effectiveness and preferences for design and position of signage on Victorian beaches for the management of Hooded Plovers Thinornis rubricollis. Victorian Naturalist 130(2):75-80.

Robert, H. C., and C. J. Ralph. 1975. Effects of human disturbance on the breeding success of gulls. Condor 77(4):495-499. https://doi.org/10.2307/1366103

Rodgers, J. A. 1987. On the antipredator advantages of coloniality: a word of caution. Wilson Bulletin 99(2):269-271.

Rodgers, J. A., Jr., and S. T. Schwikert. 2002. Buffer-zone distances to protect foraging and loafing waterbirds from disturbance by personal watercraft and outboard-powered boats. Conservation Biology 16(1):216-224. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00316.x

Rogers, D. I., T. Piersma, and C. J. Hassell. 2006. Roost availability may constrain shorebird distribution: exploring the energetic costs of roosting and disturbance around a tropical bay. Biological Conservation 133(2):225-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.06.007

Rosenberg, K. V., A. M. Dokter, P. J. Blancher, J. R. Sauer, A. C. Smith, P. A. Smith, J. C. Stanton, A. Panjabi, L. Helft, M. Parr, and P. P. Marra. 2019. Decline of the North American avifauna. Science 366(6461):120-124. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw1313

Ruetz, C. R., J. C. Trexler, F. Jordan, W. F. Loftus, and S. A. Perry. 2005. Population dynamics of wetland fishes: spatio-temporal patterns synchronized by hydrological disturbance? Journal of Animal Ecology 74(2):322-332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2005.00926.x

Ruhlen, T. D., S. Abbott, L. E. Stenzel, and G. W. Page. 2003. Evidence that human disturbance reduces Snowy Plover chick survival. Journal of Field Ornithology 74(3):300-304. https://doi.org/10.1648/0273-8570-74.3.300

Russell, W., J. Shulzitski, and A. Setty. 2009. Evaluating wildlife response to coastal dune habitat restoration in San Francisco, California. Ecological Restoration 27(4):439-448. https://doi.org/10.3368/er.27.4.439

Ruthberg-Campagna, R. J. 2021. Shorebird response to human-induced changes at three Pinellas County Beaches. Thesis. University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA.

Sabine, J. B., S. H. Schweitzer, and J. M. Meyers. 2006. Nest fate and productivity of American Oystercatchers, Cumberland Island National Seashore, Georgia. Waterbirds 29(3):308-314. https://doi.org/10.1675/1524-4695(2006)29[308:NFAPOA]2.0.CO;2

Safina, C., and J. Burger. 1983. Effects of human disturbance on reproductive success in the Black Skimmer. Condor 85(2):164-171. https://doi.org/10.2307/1367250

Saliva, J. E., and J. Burger. 1989. Effect of experimental manipulation of vegetation density on nest-site selection in Sooty Terns. Condor 91(3):689-698. https://doi.org/10.2307/1368121

Samways, M. J., P. M. Hitchins, O. Bourquin, and J. Henwood. 2010. Restoration of a tropical island: Cousine Island, Seychelles. Biodiversity and Conservation 19:425-434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9524-z

Schillerstrom, N. R. H. 2021. Social marketing as a tool to reduce human disturbance to federally threatened Rufa Red Knot. Thesis. College of Charleston, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.

Schlacher, T. A., T. Nielsen, and M. A. Weston. 2013. Human recreation alters behaviour profiles of non-breeding birds on open-coast sandy shores. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 118:31-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2012.12.016

Schoenleber, C., A. D’Antonio, and T. E. Hall. 2022. Are signs enough? Using normative and narrative messaging to protect the Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius nivosus) in coastal Oregon. Journal for Nature Conservation 69:126251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2022.126251

Schultz Schiro, J. A., K. J. Meyer-Arendt, and S. K. Schneider. 2017. Sargassum on Santa Rosa Island, Florida: faunal use and beachgoer perception. Journal of Coastal Conservation 21:63-83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-016-0472-6

Selman, W., and B. E. Davis. 2015. First nesting records in southwestern Louisiana for American Oystercatchers (Haematopus palliatus) and Reddish Egrets (Egretta rufescens), with implications for Dredge Spoil Island restoration. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 127(2):326-332. https://doi.org/10.1676/wils-127-02-326-332.1

Shope, K. 2020. The relative impact of anthropogenic and environmental disturbances on a Black Skimmer nesting colony within a critical wildlife area on Marco Island, Florida. Thesis. Florida Gulf Coast University, Fort Myers, Florida, USA.

Smith, E. H. 2002. Barrier islands. Pages 127-136 in J.W. Tunnell, Jr., and F. W. Judd, editors. The Laguna Madre of Texas and Tamaulipas. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, Texas, USA.

Smith, J., L. Niles, S. Hafner, A. Modjeski, and T. Dillingham. 2020. Beach restoration improves habitat quality for American horseshoe crabs and shorebirds in the Delaware Bay, USA. Marine Ecology Progress Series 645:91-107. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps13371

Smith, P. A., A. C. Smith, B. Andres, C. M. Francis, B. Harrington, C. Friis, R. I. G. Morrison, J. Paquet, B. Winn, and S. Brown. 2023. Accelerating declines of North America’s shorebirds signal the need for urgent conservation action. Ornithological Applications 125:duad003. https://doi.org/10.1093/ornithapp/duad003

Smith, R. K., A. S. Pullin, G. B. Stewart, and W. J. Sutherland. 2011. Is nest predator exclusion an effective strategy for enhancing bird populations? Biological Conservation 144:1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.05.008

Snyder, B. 2023. Tourism numbers trend upward coming out of 2022. WLOX, 13 March. https://www.wlox.com/2023/03/13/tourism-numbers-trend-upward-coming-out-2022/

Soots, R. F., Jr., and J. F. Parnell. 1975. Ecological succession of breeding birds in relation to plant succession on dredge islands in North Carolina. University of North Carolina Sea Grant Program, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA.

Speybroeck, J., D. Bonte, W. Courtens, T. Gheskiere, P. Grootaert, J.-P. Maelfait, M. Mathys, S. Provoost, K. Sabbe, E. W. M. Stienen, et al. 2006. Beach nourishment: an ecologically sound coastal defense alternative? A review. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 16(4):419-435. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.733

St Clair, J. J. H., G. E. García-Peña, R. W. Woods, and T. Székely. 2010. Presence of mammalian predators decreases tolerance to human disturbance in a breeding shorebird. Behavioral Ecology 21(6):1285-1292. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arq144

Stantial, M. L., J. B. Cohen, A. J. Darrah, S. Farrell, and B. Maslo. 2021. Habitat-specific behavior, growth rate, and survival of Piping Plover chicks in New Jersey, USA. Ecosphere 12(10):e03782. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3782

Sterling, A. V. 2017. Modeling productivity for American Oystercatchers (Haematopus palliatus) and Wilson’s Plovers (Charadrius wilsonia) in a highly dynamic environment. Thesis. University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA.

Stillman, R. A., and J. D. Goss-Custard. 2002. Seasonal changes in the response of Oystercatchers Haematopus ostralegus to human disturbance. Journal of Avian Biology 33(4):358-365. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-048X.2002.02925.x

Strauss, E. 1990. Reproductive success, life history patterns, and behavioral variation in a population of Piping Plovers subjected to human disturbance. Thesis. Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, USA.

Struthers, K., and P. Ryan. 2005. Predator control for the protection of the federally endangered Great Lakes Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) at Dimmick’s Point, North Manitou Island. Pages 294-303 in D. L. Nolte and K. A. Fagerstone, editors. Proceedings of the 11^th Wildlife Damage Management Conference, May 16-19, 2005, Traverse City, Michigan, USA.

Studds, C. E., B. E. Kendall, N. J. Murray, H. B. Wilson, D. I. Rogers, R. S. Clemens, K. Gosbell, C. J. Hassell, R. Jessop, D. S. Melville, et al. 2017. Rapid population decline in migratory shorebirds relying on Yellow Sea tidal mudflats as stopover sites. Nature Communications 8:14895. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14895

Sweet, W. V., B. D. Hamlington, R. E. Kopp, C. P. Weaver, P. L. Barnard, D. Bekaert, W. Brooks, M. Craghan, G. Dusek, T. Frederikse, et al. 2022. Global and regional sea level rise scenarios for the United States: updated mean projections and extreme water level probabilities along U.S. coastlines. NOAA Technical Report NOS 01. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA. https://aambpublicoceanservice.blob.core.windows.net/oceanserviceprod/hazards/sealevelrise/noaa-nos-techrpt01-global-regional-SLR-scenarios-US.pdf

Teal, J. M. 1965. Nesting success of Egrets and Herons in Georgia. Wilson Bulletin 77:257-263.

Texas General Land Office. 2023. Coastal erosion. Texas General Land Office, Austin, Texas, USA. https://www.glo.texas.gov/coastal/protecting-coast/coastal-erosion

Thomas, G. H., R. B. Lanctot, and T. Székely. 2006. Can intrinsic factors explain population declines in North American breeding shorebirds? A comparative analysis. Animal Conservation 9(3):252-258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2006.00029.x

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Piping Plover Atlantic Coast population revised recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, Massachusetts, USA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2021. Birds of conservation concern 2021. United States Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds, Falls Church, Virginia, USA. https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/birds-of-conservation-concern-2021.pdf

Virzi, T. 2010. The effect of human disturbance on the local distribution of American Oystercatchers breeding on barrier island beaches. Wader Study Group Bulletin 117(1):19-26.

Virzi, T., J. Lockwood, D. Drake, S. Grodsky, and T. Pover. 2016. Conservation implications of reproductive success of American Oystercatchers in an urbanized barrier island complex. Wader Study 123(3):202-212. https://doi.org/10.18194/ws.00049

Visit Galveston. 2023. 2022 Tourism economic impact report. Visit Galveston, Galveston, Texas, USA. https://galvestonparkboard.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/272

Visser, J. M., W. G. Vermillion, D. E. Evers, R. G. Linscombe, and C. E. Sasser. 2005. Nesting habitat requirements of the Brown Pelican and their management implications. Journal of Coastal Research 2005(212). https://doi.org/10.2112/04-0176.1

Vitale, N., J. Brush, and A. Powell. 2021. Loss of coastal islands along Florida’s Big Bend region: implications for breeding American Oystercatchers. Estuaries and Coasts 44:1173-1182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-020-00811-3

Von Holle, B., J. L. Irish, A. Spivy, J. F. Weishampel, A. Meylan, M. H. Godfrey, M. Dodd, S. H. Schweitzer, T. Keyes, F. Sanders, et al. 2019. Effects of future sea level rise on coastal habitat. Journal of Wildlife Management 83(3):694-704. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21633

Walter, S. T., M. R. Carloss, T. J. Hess, and P. L. Leberg. 2013. Hurricane, habitat degradation, and land loss effects on Brown Pelican nesting colonies. Journal of Coastal Research 29(6a):187-195. https://doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-13-00018.1

Ward, C. H., and J. W. Tunnell. 2017. Habitats and biota of the Gulf of Mexico: an overview. Pages 1-54 in C. H. Ward, editor. Habitats and biota of the Gulf of Mexico: before the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Volume 1. Springer, New York, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3447-8_1

Watson, H., P. Monaghan, B. J. Heidinger, and M. Bolton. 2021. Effects of human disturbance on postnatal growth and baseline corticosterone in a long-lived bird. Conservation Physiology 9(1):coab052. https://doi.org/10.1093/conphys/coab052

Weston, M. A., and M. A. Elgar. 2007. Responses of incubating Hooded Plovers (Thinornis rubricollis) to disturbance. Journal of Coastal Research 2007:569-576. https://doi.org/10.2112/04-0151.1

Williams, S. E., L. P. Shoo, J. L. Isaac, A. A. Hoffmann, and G. Langham. 2008. Towards an integrated framework for assessing the vulnerability of species to climate change. PLoS Biology 6(12):e325. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060325

Wilson, R., A. M. V. Fournier, J. Gleason, J. E. Lyons, and M. S. Woodrey. 2019. Strategic bird monitoring guidelines for the northern Gulf of Mexico. Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station Bulletin, Mississippi State University, Starkville, Mississippi, USA.

Wilson, T. E., J. Wheeler, M. C. Green and E. Palacios. 2012. Reddish Egret conservation action plan. Reddish Egret Conservation Planning Workshop, Corpus Christi, Texas, USA.

Withers, K. 2002. Shorebird use of coastal wetland and Barrier Island habitat in the Gulf of Mexico. Scientific World Journal 2:514-536. https://doi.org/10.1100/tsw.2002.112

Yalden, P. E., and D. W. Yalden. 1990. Recreational disturbances of breeding Golden Plovers Pluvialis apricarius. Biological Conservation 51(4):243-262. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(90)90111-2

Yasué, M. 2006. Environmental factors and spatial scale influence shorebirds’ responses to human disturbance. Biological Conservation 128(1):47-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.09.015

Yasué, M., and P. Dearden. 2006. The potential impact of tourism development on habitat availability and productivity of Malaysian Plovers Charadrius peronii. Journal of Applied Ecology 43(5):978-989. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01204.x

Zambrano, R., M. S. Robson, D. Y. Charnetzky, and H. T. Smith. 1997. Distribution and status of Least Tern nesting colonies in Southeast Florida. Florida Field Naturalist 25(3):85-116.

Zarnetske, P. L., E. W. Seabloom, and S. D. Hacker. 2010. Non-target effects of invasive species management: beachgrass, birds, and bulldozers in coastal dunes. Ecosphere 1(5):1-20. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES10-00101.1

Zdravkovic, M. G. 2013. Conservation Plan for the Wilson’s Plover (Charadrius wilsonia). Version 1.0. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, Massachusetts, USA.

Zdravkovic, M. G., C. A. Corbat, and P. W. Bergstrom. 2023. Wilson’s Plover (Anarhynchus wilsonia), version 1.1. In P. G. Rodewald, editor. Birds of the world. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.wilplo.01.1

Zenzal, T .J., Jr., A. N. Anderson, and D. LeBlanc. 2023. Evaluating if abundance and behavior of shorebird species are related to restoration and habitat at Whiskey Island and Caminada Headland, Louisiana from 2012 to 2020. U.S. Geological Survey data release.

Zinsser, E., F. J. Sanders, P. Gerard, and P. G .R. Jodice. 2017. Daily survival rate and habitat characteristics of nests of Wilson’s Plover. Southeastern Naturalist 16(2):149-156. https://doi.org/10.1656/058.016.0203

Zöckler, C., S. Delany, and W. Hagemeijer. 2003. Wader populations are declining - how will we elucidate the reasons? Wader Study Group Bulletin 100:202-211.