130 research outputs found
Management of sternebral osteomyelitis in a horse
No full textRE: 16 ref.; SC: 0I; ZA; VE; HE; CASource type: Electronic(1) http://upei-resolver.asin-risa.ca?sid=SP:CABI&id=pmid:&id=&issn=0932-0814&isbn=&volume=14&issue=2&spage=111&pages=111-114&date=2001&title=Veterinary%20and%20Comparative%20Orthopaedics%20and%20Traumatology&atitle=Management%20of%20sternebral%20osteomyelitis%20in%20a%20horse.&aulast=Rhoads&pid=%3Cauthor%3ERhoads%2c%20W%20S%3bNeuwirth%2c%20L%3bGull%2c%20T%3bPack%2c%20L%20A%3C%2Fauthor%3E%3CAN%3E20013082123%3C%2FAN%3E%3CDT%3EJournal%20article%3C%2FDT%3
Cytochrome oxidase subunit VI of Trypanosoma brucei is imported without a cleaved presequence and is developmentally regulated at both RNA and protein levels
No full textMitochondrial respiration in the African trypanosome undergoes dramatic developmental stage regulation. This requires co-ordinated control of components encoded by both the nuclear genome and the kinetoplast, the unusual mitochondrial genome of these parasites. As a model for understanding the co-ordination of these genomes, we have examined the regulation and mitochondrial import of a nuclear-encoded component of the cytochrome oxidase complex, cytochrome oxidase subunit VI (COXVI). By generating transgenic trypanosomes expressing intact or mutant forms of this protein, we demonstrate that COXVI is not imported using a conventional cleaved presequence and show that sequences at the N-terminus of the protein are necessary for correct mitochondrial sorting. Analyses of endogenous and transgenic COXVI mRNA and protein expression in parasites undergoing developmental stage differentiation demonstrates a temporal order of control involving regulation in the abundance of, first, mRNA and then protein. This represents the first dissection of the regulation and import of a nuclear-encoded protein into the cytochrome oxidase complex in these organisms, which were among the earliest eukaryotes to possess a mitochondrion
State-Level Culture and Workplace Diversity Policies: Evidence from US Firms
No full textThis paper examines the effect of state-level culture in the US on the adoption of firms’ workplace diversity policies. Using firm-level panel data (1592 firm-year observations) over the period 2011–2014, we document that firms in highly individualistic states are less likely to adopt workplace diversity policies, which in turn negatively affects firm performance. Our results are robust to alternative variables and econometric specifications. Our findings provide insights into the contemporary debate on the economic aspects of workplace diversity policies for firms operating in different cultural backgrounds
Disruption of the developmental programme of Trypanosoma brucei by genetic ablation of TbZFP1, a differentiation-enriched CCCH protein
No full textThe regulation of differentiation is particularly important in microbial eukaryotes that inhabit multiple environments. The parasite Trypanosoma brucei is an extreme example of this, requiring exquisite gene regulation during transmission from mammals to the tsetse fly vector. Unusually, trypanosomes rely almost exclusively on post-transcriptional mechanisms for regulated gene expression. Hence, RNA binding proteins are potentially of great significance in controlling stage-regulated processes. We have previously identified TbZFP1 as a trypanosome molecule transiently enriched during differentiation to tsetse midgut procyclic forms. This small protein (101 amino acids) contains the unusual CCCH zinc finger, an RNA binding motif. Here, we show that genetic ablation of TbZFP1 compromises repositioning of the mitochondrial genome, a specific event in the strictly regulated differentiation programme. Despite this, other events that occur both before and after this remain intact. Significantly, this phenotype correlates with the TbZFP1 expression profile during differentiation. This is the first genetic disruption of a developmental regulator in T. brucei. It demonstrates that programmed events in parasite development can be uncoupled at the molecular level. It also further supports the importance of CCCH proteins in key aspects of trypanosome cell function
Environmental and Parental Influences on Offspring Health and Growth in Great Tits (Parus major)
No full textPMCID: PMC3728352This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited
An Analysis of Pakistan Studies BISE Lahore Question Papers at Secondary Level
No full textThe subject of Pakistan Studies mainly covers the history of Pakistan, with a brief on civics, geography, and astronomy. It discusses the ideological, political, economic, and socio-cultural norms and values of the country. The purpose of the present studywas to assess question papers (2015-2017) of Pakistan Studies at the secondary level in the context of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. To assess question papers of BISE Lahore for the year (2015-2017) a checklist was administered. The results of this study revealed that the maximum focus in Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) was on knowledge level. Short answer and long questions emphasized only knowledge and comprehension of cognitive levels. The students’ “application”, “analysis”, “synthesis” and “evaluation” abilities were not truly assessed through the BISE question papers at the secondary level. Therefore this study recommendsthe need for training teachers/paper setters to include subjective type questions of higher cognitive abilities
The developmental cell biology of Trypanosoma brucei
No full textTrypanosoma brucei provides an excellent system for studies of many aspects of cell biology, including cell structure and morphology, organelle positioning, cell division and protein trafficking. However, the trypanosome has a complex life cycle in which it must adapt either to the mammalian bloodstream or to different compartments within the tsetse fly. These differentiation events require stage-specific changes to basic cell biological processes and reflect responses to environmental stimuli and programmed differentiation events that must occur within a single cell. The organization of cell structure is fundamental to the trypanosome throughout its life cycle. Modulations of the overall cell morphology and positioning of the specialized mitochondrial genome, flagellum and associated basal body provide the classical descriptions of the different life cycle stages of the parasite. The dependency relationships that govern these morphological changes are now beginning to be understood and their molecular basis identified. The overall picture emerging is of a highly organized cell in which the rules established for cell division and morphogenesis in organisms such as yeast and mammalian cells do not necessarily apply. Therefore, understanding the developmental cell biology of the African trypanosome is providing insight into both fundamentally conserved and fundamentally different aspects of the organization of the eukaryotic cell
景徐周麟の詩文における「鷗」 : その隠逸の性格について
No full textIn the Chinese literature, the character of " the gull " has taken root after a long development process, especially from the Tang dynasty to the Song dynasty. Shurin Keijyo is a late literary author of Literature of the Five Mountains(Gozan bunngaku), in whose works " the gull " and its related terms often appeared. Shurin Keijyo 's work shows the taste of concealment and expresses his ideal intention of " Retire into books ", and with a longing for concealment, he embraced the eagle. This paper tries to clarify a part of the hidden thought by examining the image of " the gull " in the literary works of Shurin Keijyo based on the previous research. This paper will be divided into three parts for further study. First of all, from the noble and unsullied image, the spirit of the cold and clear character is clarified. Next, we will focus on the character of“Bouki（with a mind free of schemes）” especially the expressions of “surprised gull” and “no gull” in Shurin Keijyo 's literary works, and clarify the appearance of a hermit who is entrusted to eagle and who has left the world. Lastly, I will mainly examine his literary works related to "rivers and lakes ", clarify the image of “idle gull ”and “discerning gull”, and examine the aspect of hermit in Shurin Keijyo 's own spiritual world. In the latter half of Gozan Zenrin, Shurin Keijyo had a high position in political affairs, temple affairs, and literary affairs, and in reality it was impossible to retire, so he could maintain his mental equilibrium even in the mundane world. It is a unique retirement method. As an important temporary deposit, "the gull" had become a herald in the world of calligraphy and painting, and made him aware of the the way to retire into books.departmental bulletin pape
Status review and conservation recommendations for the gull-billed tern (gelochelidon nilotica) in North America Biological Technical Publication BTP-R1013-2010
No full textTernRpt_2010.pdfStatus Review and Conservation Recommendations
for the Gull-billed Tern (Gelochelidon nilotica) in North America
Biological Technical Publication
BTP-R1013-2010
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Larry Ditto©i
Kathy C. Molina1
R. Michael Erwin2
Eduardo Palacios3
Eric Mellink4
Nanette W. H. Seto5, 6
1 Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, CA
2 U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
3 Centro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada (CICESE Unidad La Paz), Pronatura Noroeste, A.C., La Paz, B.C.S. México
4 Centro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada (CICESE), Ensenada, B.C., México
5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds and Habitat Programs, Portland, OR
6 Current Address: Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, VA
Status Review and Conservation Recommendations
for the Gull-billed Tern (Gelochelidon nilotica) in North America
Biological Technical Publication
BTP-R1013-2010
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Cover image: Gull-billed Tern
Photo credit: Larry Ditto©ii Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern
For additional copies or information, contact:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Pacific Southwest Region, Migratory Birds Program
2800 Cottage Way
Sacramento, CA 95825
Recommended citation:
Molina, K. C., R. M. Erwin, E. Palacios, E. Mellink, and N. W. H. Seto. 2010. Status review and conservation recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern (Gelochelidon nilotica) in North America. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Technical Publication, FWS/BTP-R1013-2010, Washington, D.C.
Series Senior Technical Editor:
Stephanie L. Jones
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6
Nongame Migratory Bird Coordinator
P.O. Box 25486
Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225-0486
Author contact information:
Kathy C. Molina
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
Section of Ornithology
900 Exposition Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90007
Phone: (213) 763-3368
E-mail: [email protected]
R. Michael Erwin
U.S. Geological Survey
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center
Department of Environmental Sciences
University of Virginia
291 McCormick Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22904
Phone: (434) 924-3207
E-mail: [email protected]
Eduardo Palacios
Centro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada
(CICESE Unidad La Paz)
Pronatura Noroeste
A.C., Miraflores 334 e/ Mulegé y La Paz. Fracc.
Bella Vista
La Paz, B.C.S. 23050
México
Phone: (612) 121-3031, Ext. 111
E-mail: [email protected]
Eric Mellink
Centro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada
(CICESE)
Km 107 Carr. Tijuana-Ensenada
Ensenada, B.C.
México
U.S. Mailing Address:
P. O. Box 434844
San Diego, CA 92143-4844
Phone: (646) 175-0500
E-mail: [email protected]
Nanette W. H. Seto (Current Address):
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Migratory Bird Management
4401 N Fairfax Drive, MBSP 4107
Arlington, VA 22203
Phone: (703) 358-1835
E-mail: [email protected] of Contents iii
Table of Contents
List of Figures v
List of Tables vi
Executive Summary viii
Acknowledgments ix
Taxonomy 1
Legal Status 2
United States 2
Mexico 2
Central America and West Indies 2
Description 3
Geographic Distribution 4
Breeding 4
Gelochelidon nilotica aranea 4
Gelochelidon nilotica vanrossemi 4
Subspecies undetermined 4
Wintering 4
Gelochelidon nilotica aranea 4
Gelochelidon nilotica vanrossemi 5
Subspecies undetermined 5
Migration and Vagrancy 5
Gelochelidon nilotica aranea 5
Gelochelidon nilotica vanrossemi 5
Summer Non-breeding 5
Natural History 6
Breeding 6
Colonies, nests, and nest spacing 6
Reproductive phenology 6
Breeding site fidelity 6
Demography and limiting factors 6
Predators 7
Diet 7
Foraging Behavior 7
Post-breeding Dispersal 7
Population Estimates and Trends 8
Estimates 8
Gelochelidon nilotica aranea 8
Gelochelidon nilotica vanrossemi 8
Trends 10
Gelochelidon nilotica aranea 10
Gelochelidon nilotica vanrossemi 10
Monitoring Activities 11
Breeding Bird Survey 11
Regional and State Surveys 11
iv Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern
Habitat Requirements 12
Breeding Season 12
Winter and Summer Non-breeding Seasons 12
Threats 13
Habitat Loss and Degradation 13
Overutilization 13
Disease and Predation 14
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms 14
Other Natural or Manmade Factors 14
Storm events and other natural disturbances 14
Pesticides or other contaminants 14
Population size and colony distribution 15
Introduced species 15
Conflicts with other species 15
Other interspecific interactions 15
Other conflicts 16
Disturbance to nesting sites 16
Management and Conservation 17
Habitat Management 17
Predator Management 17
Artificial Nesting Habitat 18
Education 18
Conservation Recommendations 19
Monitoring 19
Habitat Management and Protection 19
Research 20
Conclusion 20
Literature Cited 21
Appendix A. State and Regional Summaries of Gelochelidon nilotica aranea Status within the Breeding Range in the U.S., Mexico, and Caribbean 26
United States 26
Alabama 26
Delaware and Maryland 27
Florida 28
Georgia 30
Louisiana 31
Mississippi 34
New Jersey and New York 35
North Carolina 38
South Carolina 42
Texas 45
Virginia 53
Caribbean 55
Mexico 56
Literature Cited, Appendix A 57
Appendix B. State Summaries of Gelochelidon nilotica vanrossemi Status within the Breeding Range in the U.S. and Mexico 61
Mexico
Baja California and Baja California Sur 61
Colima, Nayarit, Sinaloa, and Sonora 63
United States
California 65
Literature Cited, Appendix B 67
Appendix C. State and Regional Contacts and Contributors 69List of Figures v
List of Figures
Figure 1. North American distribution of the Gull-billed Tern 1
Figure A-1. Locations and sizes of Gull-billed Tern colonies in Alabama, 2004 27
Figure A-2. Locations and sizes of Gull-billed Tern colonies in Florida, 2000 29
Figure A-3. Locations and sizes of Gull-billed Tern colonies in Georgia, 2003 30
Figure A-4. Locations and sizes of Gull-billed Tern colonies in Louisiana, 2001 33
Figure A-5. Locations and sizes of Gull-billed Tern colonies in Mississippi, 2003 33
Figure A-6. Locations and sizes of Gull-billed Tern colonies in New Jersey, 2001 37
Figure A-7. Locations and sizes of Gull-billed Tern colonies in New York, 2003 37
Figure A-8. Locations and sizes of Gull-billed Tern colonies in North Carolina, 2001 38
Figure A-9. Locations and sizes of Gull-billed Tern colonies South Carolina, 2003 44
Figure A-10. Locations and sizes of Gull-billed Tern colonies in the upper coast of Texas, 2003 45
Figure A-11. Locations and sizes of Gull-billed Tern colonies in central coast of Texas, 2003 48
Figure A-12. Locations and sizes of Gull-billed Tern colonies in the lower coast of Texas, 2003 51
Figure A-13. Locations and sizes of Gull-billed Tern colonies in Virginia, 2003 55
Figure B-1. Locations and sizes of Gull-billed Tern colonies in coastal northwest Mexico, 2003 62
Figure B-2. Locations and sizes of Gull-billed Tern colonies in coastal southwest Mexico, 2003 63
Figure B-3. Locations and sizes of Gull-billed Tern colonies in California, 2003 65
vi Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern
List of Tables
Table 1. State agency status of Gull-billed Terns in North America (continental United States only),
and National Heritage Status (NatureServe Explorer 2006). “No status” indicates that the state
has not it given the species a specific conservation status. 2
Table 2. Number of breeding pairs and colony sites of G. n. aranea in the continental
United States for years in which comprehensive state-wide censuses were conducted. 9
Table 3. Number of breeding pairs and colony sites of G. n. vanrossemi in the Pacific Coast
of the United States and Mexico in years surveys were conducted. 10
Table A-1. Number of Gull-billed Tern breeding pairs at colonies in Mobile County, Alabama,
1988–2004 (R. B. Clay, pers. comm.). Dash (—) indicates data are insufficient to discern
site availability, occupancy, or extent of survey coverage for a particular site and year. 26
Table A-2. Number of breeding pairs of Gull-billed Terns at colonies in Florida 1973–1977,
1979, 1985, 1995, 1998–2000a. Dash (—) indicates data are insufficient to discern site availability,
occupancy, or extent of survey coverage for a particular site and year. Data from Clapp et al.
1983, Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission 2003, Loftin and Sutton 1979, Ogden 1974, 1975, 1979,
Portnoy et al. 1981, Smith and Alvear 1997. 29
Table A-3. Numbers of breeding pairs of Gull-billed Terns in McIntosh County, Georgia
1993, 1995, 1999 and 2003 (B. Winn, pers. comm.). 30
Table A-4. Number of breeding pairs of Gull-billed Terns at colonies along the coast of Louisiana,
1976, 1990–1999 and 2001. Dash (—) indicates data are insufficient to discern site availability,
occupancy, or extent of survey coverage for a particular site and year. Topographic quad names
follow the Louisiana Natural Heritage Program (LNHP) colony identification numbers.
Data from Martin and Lester 1990, Michot et al. 2004, Portnoy 1977, G. D. Lester, pers. comm. 32
Table A-5. Number of Gull-billed Tern breeding pairs at colonies in Jackson County, Mississippi,
1988–2004 (M. P. Stevens, pers. comm.). Dash (—) indicates data are insufficient to discern
site availability, occupancy, or extent of survey coverage for a particular site and year. 34
Table A-6. Number of breeding pairs of Gull-billed Terns at colonies in New Jersey, 1977, 1985,
1995, and 2001 (Erwin and Korschgen 1979, R. Andrews and C. D. Jenkins, pers. comm.). 35
Table A-7. Number of breeding pairs of Gull-billed Terns at colonies in New York, 1975, 1984–1999,
and 2001–2003. Dash (—) indicates data are insufficient to discern site availability, occupancy,
or extent of survey coverage for a particular site and year. Data from Buckley et al. 1975,
Sommers et al. 1994, 2001, M. R. Wasilco, pers. comm. 36
List of Tables vii
Table A-8. Number of breeding pairs of Gull-billed Terns at colonies in North Carolina, 1976–1977, 1983–1993, 1995, 1997, 1999, and 2001. Surveys conducted statewide in 1976, 1977, 1985, and 1993
through 2001 were comprehensive. Dash (—) indicates data are insufficient to discern site availability, occupancy, or extent of survey coverage for a particular site and year. Data from Parnell
and Soots 1979, Parnell et al. 1995, Portnoy et al. 1981, D. H. Allen, pers. comm. 39
Table A-9. Number of breeding pairs of Gull-billed Terns at colonies in South Carolina, 1975–1976, 1979, 1986–1990, and 1992–2003 (Portnoy et al. 1981, T. M. Murphy, pers. comm.). Statewide
census effort begins about 1987; earliest censuses may not have been comprehensive.
Dash (—) indicates data are insufficient to discern site availability, occupancy, or extent of
survey coverage for a particular site and year. 43
Table A-10. Number of breeding pairs of Gull-billed Terns at colonies along the upper coast of Texas, 1988–2003 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004). Dash (—) indicates data are insufficient to discern site availability, occupancy, or extent of survey coverage for a particular site and year. 46
Table A-11. Number of breeding pairs of Gull-billed Terns at colonies along the central coast of Texas, 1988–2003 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004). Dash (—) indicates data are insufficient
to discern site availability, occupancy, or extent of survey coverage for a particular site and year. 49
Table A-12. Number of breeding pairs of Gull-billed Terns at colonies along the lower coast of Texas, 1988–2003 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004, D. S. Stolley, pers. comm.).
Dash (—) indicates data are insufficient to discern site availability, occupancy, or extent of
survey coverage for a particular site and year. 52
Table A-13. Number of breeding pairs of Gull-billed Terns at colonies in Virginia, 1975–1977, 1984, and 1993–2003 (Williams et al. 1990, R. Andrews, B. R. Truitt and B. D. Watts, pers. comm.). Comprehensive surveys conducted statewide in 1977, 1984, 1998, and 2003. 54
Table B-1. Number of breeding pairs of Gull-billed Terns at colonies in Baja California and Baja California Sur, México, 1992–1994, 1996–2005. Dash (—) indicates no survey was
conducted; n/a = birds were present but not counted. Data from Danemann and Carmona 2000,
Molina and Garrett 2001, Palacios and Mellink 1993, 2007, EM, KCM, EP. 61
Table B-2. Number of breeding pairs of Gull-billed Terns at colonies in western Mexico (Sinaloa through Colima), 2000–2005. Dash (—) indicates no survey was conducted.
Data from Palacios and Mellink 2007, X. Vega and M. A. Gonzalez, pers. comm., EM, EP. 64
Table B-3. Number of breeding pairs of Gull-billed Terns at colonies in California, 1992–2006 (Molina 2004, R. T. Patton, pers. comm., KCM). 66viii Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern
Executive Summary
The Gull-billed Tern (Gelochelidon nilotica) is a medium-sized tern that breeds in small, scattered, often ephemeral colonies, typically in habitat devoid of vegetation near marine waters or saline lakes. In North America, the species breeds along the Atlantic coast south of New York, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Pacific coast of California and Mexico. Its distribution has contracted from known historic range along the Atlantic Coast, but has expanded along the Pacific Coast. Range changes in Mexico are unknown due to fragmentary knowledge of historical colony locations, but some range contraction may have occurred. Two subspecies
(G. n. aranea and G. n. vanrossemi) occur in North America. The current population of
G. n. aranea in the United States is estimated to be approximately 3610 pairs, over 60% of which occur in Texas. The number of birds in Texas appears stable, but the number of individuals has declined in Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, and possibly Georgia. G. n. vanrossemi has 737 to 808 pairs breeding in western Mexico and southern California.
Gull-billed Terns are designated as a Bird of Conservation Concern by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. G. n. aranea is designated as endangered, threatened or of management concern in nine states and G. n. vanrossemi is designated as a Bird Species of Special Concern in California.
The main causes of population declines in North America are disturbance of nesting colonies, loss of natural nesting islands, and development or modification of upland foraging habitats. This species often nests on artificially deposited substrates, suggesting it could respond to management of breeding habitat.
Management priorities for Gull-billed Terns are: (1) protection of known nesting colony sites; (2) enhancement and conservation of potential nesting and foraging areas; (3) predator control; (4) development of population viability models; and (5) resolution of conflicts with other species and aquaculture. Research and monitoring needs are: (1) resolution of the subspecific identity of birds breeding in North America; (2) demographic studies addressing population viability; (3) the identification and linkage of breeding and non-breeding ranges; (4) studies of habitat use and ecology during the breeding and non-breeding seasons, especially in Mexico and Central America; (5) continued monitoring of breeding colonies, particularly in the Gulf Coast of Mexico; and (6) the establishment of monitoring efforts in the West Indies.Acknowledgements ix
W. McFarlane, David J. Newstead, Robert D.
Purrington, Mary P. Stevens, Dorie S. Stolley and
Jennifer K. Wilson for responding to numerous
requests and providing additional information.
We are particularly grateful for the help provided
by Roger B. Clay, Philip Glass, Paul L. Leberg,
Thomas C. Michot, and William J. Vermillion. We
thank Michael T. Green and Tara S. Zimmerman
for their support, guidance and editorial advice.
We thank Geoff Sanders for assistance in data
compilation. We thank Elizabeth Cruz, National
Wildlife Refuge System, Pacific Region, Portland,
Oregon for assistance in development of figures. We
thank David Blankinship, Jenny Hoskins, William
H. Howe, William J. Vermillion, and a number of
anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions
on earlier drafts and particularly Kimball L.
Garrett for many insightful discussions, help with
literature references and suggestions on an earlier
draft of the manuscript. We thank Patricia Worthing
for her editorial assistance. Funding for this status
assessment was provided by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Regions 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 nongame
migratory bird programs.
We thank the following colonial waterbird survey
coordinators, database managers, breeding bird
atlas managers and researchers for graciously
providing unpublished information: David H. Allen
(North Carolina), David F. Brinker (Maryland),
J. Steve Calver (Georgia), Susan E. Cameron
(North Carolina), Roger B. Clay (Alabama), Brian
E. Collins (California), Michelle L. Gibbons (New
York), Philip Glass (Texas), Joe A. Halbrook
(Texas), Howard Horne (Alabama), C. David
Jenkins (New Jersey), Paul L. Leberg and Gary
D. Lester (Louisiana), Tim Manolis (California),
Robert W. McFarlane (Texas), Thomas C. Michot
(Louisiana), Thomas M. Murphy (South Carolina),
James F. Parnell (North Carolina), Robert T. Patton
(California), Elisa Peresbarbosa (Mexico), Robert
D. Purrington (Louisiana), James A. Rodgers
(Florida), Martha Roman (Mexico), Henry “Hank”
T. Smith (Florida), Todd Stefanic (California),
Mary P. Stevens (Mississippi), Jenny Thompson
(Mississippi), Barry R. Truitt (Virginia), Vincent
V. Turner (New Jersey), Xicotencatl Vega Picos
(Mexico), Michael R. Wasilco (New York), Bryan
D. Watts and Bill Williams (Virginia), Jennifer K.
Wilson (Texas), and Brad Winn (Georgia). We are
grateful to Steven W. Cardiff, Mark A. Goodman,
William H. Howe, Gregory D. Jackson, Robert
Acknowledgments
Taxonomy 1
Class: Aves
Order: Charadriiformes
Family: Laridae
Scientific name: Gelochelidon nilotica Gmelin 1789
Common name: Gull-billed Tern
The Gull-billed Tern has a cosmopolitan but
discontinuous distribution (Fig. 1) with six
subspecies described based on variation in size
and coloration of dorsal plumage. Two subspecies,
Gelochelidon nilotica aranea and G. n. vanrossemi,
occur in North America. The nominate subspecies
G. n. nilotica breeds in small numbers in northern
Germany and Denmark, and in scattered colonies
across southern Europe south to northwestern
Africa and east through Turkey and the Middle East
Taxonomy
to Asia Minor, India and southern Mongolia (Cramp
1985, Urban et al. 1986, Hagemeijer and Blair
1997); it winters mainly in Africa and India. Poorly
differentiated from nominate birds, the subspecies
G. n. addenda (“G. n. affinis” of many authors is a
synonym; Dickinson 2003) breeds in coastal China
and perhaps elsewhere in eastern Asia, wintering
south to southeast Asia and possibly northern
Australia (Higgins and Davies 1996, Wells 1999).
Australian breeding birds are the largest and palest
subspecies, G. n. macrotarsa (Higgins and Davies
1996). G. n. groenvoldi breeds locally in eastern
South America from Brazil to northern Argentina
(Blake 1977). The subspecific identity of breeding
birds in southwestern Ecuador is unknown, though
measurements are consistent with the subspecies
G. n. aranea (Ridgely and Greenfield 2001).
Figure 1. North American distribution of the Gull-billed Tern.
Breeding only
Year-round (Breeding and wintering)
2 Status Review and Conservation Recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern
Legal StatusSouth Carolina, but has no specific conservation status in the remaining five states in its range (Appendices A and B). The National Heritage Status ranking for Gull-billed Terns is “Critically Imperiled” or “Imperiled” in 10 of the 14 states in its range (Table 1). The National Conservation status of Gull-billed Terns in the United States is “Apparently Secure” and its Global Heritage Status is “Secure” (NatureServe Explorer 2006).
Mexico
Gull-billed Terns are protected under the 1936 Convention between the United States and Mexico for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Mammals, but have no special legal status in Mexico (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales 2002).
Central America and West Indies
Gull-billed Terns appear to have no legal status in Central America or the West Indies.
United States
Gull-billed Terns are federally protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918) (MBTA) in the United States (16 U.S.C. 703-712; Ch. 128; July 13, 1918; 40 Stat. 755). The MBTA is the primary federal law that implements international treaties mandating the conservation and management of migratory birds jointly with Great Britain, Mexico, Japan, and Russia (16 U.S.C. 703-712, as amended). The species is listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as a Bird of Conservation Concern at the national scale and in four USFWS Regions (Regions 2, 4, 5, and 8) and seven Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, and 37) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). These designations identify Gull-billed Terns as a species in need of conservation.
At the state level, Gull-billed Terns are listed as Endangered in Maryland and Threatened in Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia (Table 1). It is a Species of Special Concern or equivalent in Alabama, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, and
Table 1. State agency status of Gull-billed Terns in North America (continental United States only), and National Heritage Status (NatureServe Explorer 2006). “No status” indicates that the state has not it given the species a specific conservation status.
State Legal Status National Heritage Status
Alabama Protected Imperiled
California Species of special concern Critically imperiled
Delaware No status Possibly extirpated
Plastic and non-plastic debris ingestion in three gull species feeding in an urban landfill environment
No full text- …
