Flight Line Study of Double-crested Cormorants, Preliminary Results

1. Flight Line Study of Double-crested Cormorants, Preliminary Results Richard Flamio, Eastchester High School

3. Review of Literature

4. Human-Cormorant Conflicts • DCCOs in the Mississippi Delta consume over $5 million of catfish fingerlings/year and depredation has led to a $25 million profit loss/year • Sports fisheries have persecuted cormorants for allegedly decreasing fish populations • Egg oiling, shooting, and harassment are controlling techniques

5. Determining Cormorant Diet • In order to determine cormorant diet, otoliths of their regurgitated pellets may be examined Otolith

6. Importance of Study The current study would serve as a basis for future studies done in the Barnegat Bay region of New Jersey in order to aid the research in determining if cormorants affect local fish populations

7. Purpose/ Hypothesis To understand how DCCO’s utilize their environment through studying roosting/loafing location preference and flight lines to and from these locations

8. Location • Barnegat Bay covers 75 square miles on the eastern seaboard of Southern New Jersey • Wide variety of wildlife and a large fishing community • Common roosting and loafing location April through October

9. Methods • Myer’s Hole • U.S. Coast Guard boats/ commercial fishing boats • Along LBI coast • Near inlet to ocean • Turtle Cove • In bay’s interior • Less disruption from boat traffic • Pilings • Important fishing sites • Marsh

11. Results at Myer’s Hole • 258 birds were observed(Avg. 23 birds/day) • 47% moved each day on average • 111 flocks were observed (Avg. flock size = 1.2 birds)

12. Myer’s Hole Flight Line

13. Results at Turtle Cove • 120 birds were observed (Avg. 30 birds/day) • 72% moved each day on average • 47 flocks observed (Avg. flock size = 1.9 birds)

14. Turtle Cove Flight Line

16. Discussion • Myer’s Hole fits the roosting location profile of a smaller, more sedentary population • Turtle Cove fit the loafing location profile of having larger, more active numbers • More research is needed to solidify if the birds’ behavior was due to location status

17. Statistical Significance No statistical tests or p-values were needed as all birds in sight were accounted for.

18. Conclusion • To understand how DCCO’s utilize their environment through studying roosting/loafing location preference and flight lines to and from these locations • The research study was highly successful in that flight lines were determined • Supports previous research that humans have enhanced cormorant problem by modifying the environment

19. Implications/ Future Research • There has been no research to date in this area on cormorants and observations on their activity will help future researchers determine if they have a definite impact on local fisheries • Fishermen chose the sites of study so that areas they believed were the sites of human-cormorant conflicts were directly studied • Movement patterns may be affected by weather • This is a preliminary study and research will continue next year

20. Acknowledgements • Colin Grubel, CUNY Graduate Center and Queens College • Christian Gorycki, Edward Gruber, Jean-Marie Woods-Ray, Eastchester High School • John A. Brancato, Barnegat Bay fisherman • My Family and fellow ASRians • Dr. John Waldman, Queens College

21. Flight Line Study of Double-crested Cormorants, Preliminary Results • Eye Opener • Review of Literature • Human-Cormorant Conflicts • Determining Cormorant Diet • Importance of Study • Purpose/ Hypothesis • Location • Methods • Methods Flow Chart • Results at Myer’s Hole • Myer's Hole Flight Line • Results at Turtle Cove • Turtle Cove Flight Line • Flock Size Graph • Discussion • Conclusion • Implications/ Future Research • Acknowledgements

22. My Summer 2011: Myer’s Hole

23. My Summer 2011: Turtle Cove, my boat, and my beach house