4.7 Article

Incidence of embedded shotgun pellets in Bewick's swans Cygnus columbianus bewickii and whooper swans Cygnus cygnus wintering in the UK

Journal

BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION
Volume 144, Issue 5, Pages 1630-1637

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.02.014

Keywords

Body condition; Illegal shooting; Long-term trends; Shotgun pellets; Swans; X-ray analysis

Funding

  1. Peter Scott Trust Fund for Education and Research in Conservation (PSTERIC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The migratory whooper swans (Cygnus cygnus) and Bewick's swans (Cygnus columbianus bewickii) have been protected by national and international legislation throughout their migratory ranges since the mid 20th century, yet illegal shooting of both species still occurs. X-rays taken of wild caught swans at several sites in the UK were inspected to determine: (1) the incidence of embedded pellets in live birds, (2) inter-specific differences in the level of illegal shooting, and (3) trends in the prevalence of shot-in pellets between the 1970s and the 2000s. A significantly higher proportion of Bewick's swans (31.2%) contained shot-in pellets than whooper swans (13.6%). The likelihood of a bird having been shot increased with its age for both species. The proportion of Bewick's swans with embedded shot was higher during the 1970s and 1980s than in the 1990s and 2000s but the incidence remains high, with 22.7% of Bewick's swans X-rayed in the 21st century containing shot. The prevalence of whooper swans with embedded shot did not change significantly over time (14.9% with pellets in the 1980s compared with 13.2% with pellets in the 2000s). As the swans follow different migration routes, the results not only have implications for consistent and effective implementation of legislation, but show that illegal shooting must be addressed at both national and international levels. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available