"

Aquaculture vs other anthropogenic disturbances: The effects on waterbirds on Carlingford Lough

Carrie Craven (Queens University Belfast)

Supervisor Dr. Dai Roberts

" " " " 1" "

A project supported by the European Union's INTERREG IVA Programme managed by the Special EU Programmes Body"

Statement of Copyright
The content of the IBIS website (including, but not limited to all text and artwork therein) is protected by copyright. The copyright is owned by IBIS or is otherwise licensed from a third party for use by the partners. You may view or download any content of the Site for private purposes, but you are not permitted, without our permission, to:

*

store the Site, or any content of the Site, for any other purpose; print copies of the Site, or any content of the Site, for any other purpose; reproduce, copy or transmit the Site, or any content of the Site, in any way, for any other purpose or in any other medium.

All other rights which are not specifically granted are reserved. IBIS makes available on its sites materials generated for IBIS by academic work at the University of Glasgow and at Queen's University Belfast, inter alia. Extracts must not be quoted without explicit permission. Permission may be sought by using the contact form www.loughs-agency.org/ibis/contact/
*

Site - www.loughs-agency.org/IBIS

Aquaculture vs Other Anthropogenic Disturbances: The effects on waterbirds on Carlingford Lough

Carrie Craven BSc (Hons) Student Number: 40002610

Supervisor: Dr D. Roberts MSc Sustainable Aquaculture and Inshore Fisheries

Submitted: October 2012 !

2" "

Non-technical Summary
!

AQUACULTURE VS OTHER ANTHROPOGENIC DISTURBANCES: THE EFFECTS ON WATERBIRDS ON CARLINGFORD LOUGH Information on the interactions between birds, aquaculture and other anthropogenic disturbances will inform statutory bodies required to undertake appropriate assessments in the context of commercial applications for aquaculture licences BACKGROUND
Carlingford Lough is an economically important area for the cultivation of Blue Museels (Mytilus edulis) and Pacific Oysters (Crassostrea gigas) and it is also an ecologically important area for many waterbird species, especially wintering birds. There is increasing demand to expand aquaculture in Carlingford Lough and elsewhere. Before an aquaculture licence can be granted, an appropriate assessment must be carried out, which is required by Article 6 of the EU Habitats Directive Managing and protecting Natura 2000 sites (1992). The current avian data, which exists for Carlingford Lough, is insufficient for use as an indicator of the interactions between aquaculture activity and waterbirds. Therefore, in order for the aquaculture sector to comply with the Habitats Directive, further supporting data is required. Information must be obtained on the distribution, abundance and assemblages of waterbirds, with particular attention on protected species, and also the interactions between waterbirds and aquaculture practices. This research examines the effects of aquaculture disturbance on waterbird assemblages in Carlingford Lough compared to other anthropogenic disturbances such as recreational activities and will also inform statutory bodies required to undertake appropriate assessments in this context and provide a baseline for further studies. MAIN FINDINGS A study was carried out over eight months, to examine what effect aquaculture activities had on waterbird assemblages compared to other anthropogenic disturbances in Carlingford Lough. Eleven sites were monitored along the shore of Carlingford Lough and these were divided into three categories (Aquaculture; Recreational and Undisturbed) depending on the level of anthropogenic disturbance on the foreshore. Sites were surveyed twice a month, at high tide and again at low tide. A total of 39 species of birds were observed over the duration of the study (January-August). The results of the study show that significant differences occur in bird assemblages at different sites on Carlingford Lough. However, overlaps occur between sites, which may be due to the relatively small area covered by the lough such that birds can move readily between sites. 3 ! ! !

Statement of Copyright
The content of the Site* (including, but not limited to all text and artwork) is protected by copyright. The copyright is owned by the IBIS or is otherwise licensed from a third party for use by the partners. You may view or download any content of the Site for private purposes, but you are not permitted, without our permission, to: ! ! ! store the Site, or any content of the Site, for any other purpose; print copies of the Site, or any content of the Site, for any other purpose; reproduce, copy or transmit the Site, or any content of the Site, in any way, for any other purpose or in any other medium.

All other rights which are not specifically granted are reserved. IBIS makes available on its sites materials generated for IBIS by academic work at the University of Glasgow and at Queen's University Belfast, inter alia. Extracts must not be quoted without explicit permission. Permission may be sought by using the contact form www.loughs-agency.org/ibis/contact/

"

Site - www.loughs-agency.org/IBIS "

I"

ABSTRACT
Carlingford Lough is an economically important area for the cultivation of Blue Museels (Mytilus edulis) and Pacific Oysters (Crassostrea gigas) and it is also an ecologically important area for many waterbird species, especially wintering birds. A study was carried out over eight months, to examine what effect aquaculture activities had on waterbird assemblages compared to other anthropogenic disturbances on the Lough. Eleven sites were chosen along the shore of Carlingford Lough and these were divided into three categories (Aquaculture, Recreational and Undisturbed) depending on the level of anthropogenic disturbance on the foreshore. Sites were surveyed twice a month, at high tide and again at low tide. A total of 39 species were observed over the duration of the study (JanuaryAugust). Primer analysis was carried out to test for differences in waterbird assemblages between sites and also months. The results of the study show that significant differences occur in bird assemblages at different sites on Carlingford Lough. However, the difference is not distinct and overlaps occur between sites. Due to Carlingford Lough being a relatively small lough, it is unlikely that there would be totally different groups of birds at different sites.

5" "

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Queens University, Belfast, in conjunction with the IBIS Project for the opportunity to work on this project. To IBIS for funding the project, and to the Loughs Agency (Carlingford) for allowing me to use their equipment, without which, the project would not have been possible. I would like to make a special thanks to Sarah McClean from the Loughs Agency in Carlingford for her ongoing support throughout this project. She sparked my interest in sea birds, and became a true friend. I would also like to thank Dai Roberts for his much appreciated feedback, and his general support of this project. And lastly, to my family, who had to endure me during the stress of writing this report, and also for the endless lifts up and down to Carlingford, even the occasional 6 a.m. starts. I appreciate everything more than I could ever tell them.

6" "

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1" INTRODUCTION!.....................................................................................................!10" 1.1" Aquaculture practices A brief review!....................................................................! 10" 1.1.1" Aquaculture on a worldwide scale"............................................................................."10" 1.1.2" Aquaculture in Ireland"................................................................................................."10" 1.1.3" Mussel cultivation" ........................................................................................................."10" 1.1.4" Oyster cultivation"........................................................................................................."11" 1.1.5" Aquaculture on Carlingford Lough"............................................................................."11" 1.2" Appropriate Assessment!............................................................................................! 12" 1.2.1" Designations"................................................................................................................."12" 1.3" Aim of the Study!..........................................................................................................! 14" 2" METHODS AND MATERIALS!...............................................................................!14" 2.1" Site Selection!...............................................................................................................! 14" 2.2" Summary of Sites!........................................................................................................! 15" 2.3" Survey Details!..............................................................................................................! 24" 2.3.1" Equipment"....................................................................................................................."24" 2.3.2" Data Recording Sheet"................................................................................................."25" 2.4" Data Analysis!...............................................................................................................! 26" 3" RESULTS!.................................................................................................................!28" 3.1" Individual Numbers!.....................................................................................................! 28" 3.2" Species Numbers!.........................................................................................................! 30" 3.3" Frequency of Occurrence!...........................................................................................! 32" 3.4" Percentage Abundance!..............................................................................................! 33" 3.5" Primer Analysis!............................................................................................................! 34" 3.5.1" Differences in bird assemblage between sites. (All data high and low tide)"......."34" 3.5.2" Differences in Bird Assemblage Low tide only"........................................................"37" 3.5.3" Differences in Bird Assemblage high tide only."......................................................."38" 3.5.4" Differences in bird assemblage between months at Low Tide".............................."40" 3.5.5" Differences in bird assemblage between months at High Tide"............................."42" 4" DISCUSSION!...........................................................................................................!44" 4.1" Impacts of aquaculture on waterbird species in Carlingford Lough!...................! 44" 4.2" Primer analysis!............................................................................................................! 45" 4.3" Future Studies!..............................................................................................................! 45" 4.3.1" Continuing and expanding the study"........................................................................."46" 4.3.2" Changes to the current survey method"...................................................................."46" 5" CONCLUSIONS!......................................................................................................!48" 6" REFERENCES!........................................................................................................!49" APPENDICES!...............................................................................................................!51"
"

7" "

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Figure 1. Natura 2000 designated nature conservation sites on Carlingford Lough (Louth City Council 2012) Figure 2. Maps of survey sites S1-N5, a k respectively Figure 3. Mean number of species observed per site at both high tide (HT) and low tide (LT) across the whole duration of the survey (January-August), including 95% error bars 13 19 31

Figure 4. Frequency of occurrence of all waterbird species observed on Carlingford Lough from 32 January to August Figure 5. Percentage abundance for the top five species (in terms of total bird numbers (Table 33 2)) across all sites from January to August Figure 6. Percentage abundance for the top five species (in terms of frequency of occurrence 34 (Table 4)) across all sites from January to August Figure 7. MDS plot showing Differences in bird assemblage between sites (all data high and low tide) Figure 8. MDS plot showing Differences in Bird Assemblage Low tide only Figure 9. MDS plot showing Differences in Bird Assemblage high tide only Figure 10. MDS plot showing Differences in bird assemblage between months at Low Tide Figure 11. MDS plot showing Differences in bird assemblage between months at High Tide Table 1. Key for recording duration of response to disturbances which occurred during the count period Table 2. BTO species codes for waterbird species on Carlingford Lough Table 3. Total and mean number of individuals observed at high tide and low tide per site from January to August (n=11) Table 4. The five most common species in terms of total individual numbers across all sites from January to August Table 5. Total and mean number of species observed per site at high tide, low tide and overall from January to August (n=11) Table 6. Top five most common species in terms of frequency of occurrence Table 7. ANOSIM to test for differences in bird assemblages between sites Table 8. ANOSIM to test for differences in bird assemblages between sites, at low tide only Table 9. ANOSIM to test for differences in bird assemblages between sites, at high tide only Table 10. ANOSIM to test for differences in bird assemblages between months at low tide only 35 37 39 41 42 26 27 29 30 31 32 35 37 39 41

8" "

Table 11. ANOSIM to test for differences in bird assemblages between months at high tide only Appendix 1. Map of Carlingford Lough Appendix 2. Recording sheet for survey details and weather conditions Appendix 3. Recording sheet for Bird counts

43 52 53 54

9" "

1
1.1 1.1.1

INTRODUCTION
Aquaculture practices A brief review Aquaculture on a worldwide scale

Aquaculture is defined as the farming of aquatic organisms, where the term farming implies some sort of intervention in the process such as feeding, stocking and protection from predators (FAO 1997). Aquaculture is currently the fastest growing food production method in the world, and is constantly evolving in technological innovation and adaption to meet the changing requirements of the global population (FAO 1997, 2012). Aquaculture is becoming increasingly more important due to the overexploitation of wild marine resources, which has been worsened by environmental degradation of many marine areas globally (Ferreira et. al 2007). In the past three decades (1980-2010) world food fish production in aquaculture has expanded by almost 12 times, with an average annual growth rate of 8.8% (FAO 2012). Food fish refers to finfish, crustaceans, molluscs, amphibians, aquatic reptiles and other aquatic animals (FAO 2012). Since 2006, aquaculture production has increased by 3.3 million tonnes to a record high of 60 million tonnes in 2010 (FAO 2012). Bivalve species, such as oysters, mussels, clams and scallops are grown without the need for artificial feeding, as they feed on food materials that occur naturally in their culture environment (FAO 2012). This type of production, with natural feed, accounts for one third of all farmed food fish equating to 20 million tonnes annually (FAO 2012). Molluscs account for 23.6% of the total worldwide aquaculture, second next to freshwater finfish which account for 56.4% of total production (FAO 2012). However, aquaculture production in marine waters has declined from over 40% in the 1980s to just over 30% in 2010; this is due to the increase in freshwater aquaculture in Asia following technological advances (FAO 2012). 1.1.2 Aquaculture in Ireland

Aquaculture in Ireland began in the 1970s and has grown into a viable industry providing Ireland with employment and revenue (BIM 2008). In 2007, almost 2,000 people were employed in the aquaculture sector, and the industry earned 105.7million, making it economically important for Ireland (BIM 2008). 1.1.3 Mussel cultivation

The blue mussel, Mytilus edulis, is the main species of mussel currently cultivated in Ireland with the Mediterranean mussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis) being cultivated in lesser quantities (Heffernan 1999). Mussels are ideal for culture as they can adapt to a variety of ecological situations, and are able to tolerate fluctuating salinities, growing best in 20-30ppt (Heffernan 1999). As filter feeders, mussels feed on organic matter and phytoplankton in the water column, making their food source

10" "

completely natural (BIM 1982). In Ireland, the main method for producing M. edulis is bottom cultivation (Heffernan 1999). Mussel production by bottom cultivation consists of the collection and transplantation of wild mussel spat to shallow, richer waters (Heffernan 1999). Once the mussels have reached a marketable size, which can take up to 18 months, they are harvested by dredger (Joyce 1992). As with any aquaculture practice, bottom cultivation has impacts on the surrounding environment, both localised and regional. In Northern Ireland, Belfast Lough dominates the mussel production; however Carlingford Lough is also important (Gascoigne & Huntington, 2007). As Carlingford Lough is a highly productive system, it is often used for finishing mussels from other loughs. Finishing mussels is a method of providing a spurt of growth in the latter stages of mussel production, in order for them to reach market size quicker and in good condition, of which Carlingford Lough is an ideal location (Gascoigne & Huntington, 2007). 1.1.4 Oyster cultivation

Oysters can be grown in a similar method to mussels, mentioned above, but this is more common for the Native Oyster (Ostrea edulis) (Heffernan 1999). More commonly cultivated in Ireland is the Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) where the main method of cultivation is on trestles in the intertidal zone of the shore (Heffernan 1999). The oyster spat is supplied by hatcheries and are grown in mesh bags supported by the trestles. Trestles are made from steel and are typically 0.5m above the seabed, and can hold up to six bags each (Heffernan 1999). The main function of the trestles is to keep the mesh bags off the seabed, and to help prevent predation by other organisms such as crabs and birds. Trestle cultivation is restricted to suitable habitats the foreshore must be firm enough to support a tractor, for planting, maintenance and harvesting of the oysters (Heffernan 1999). As the oysters are cultured in the intertidal, the trestles will be submerged twice a day, meaning that the available time for tending to the trestles is restricted to low tides only, typically the mean low-water mark of spring and heap tides (Heffernan 1999). Maintenance typically involves turning the oyster bags every spring tide and transferring larger oysters into bags with a larger mesh (Heffernan 1999). 1.1.5 Aquaculture on Carlingford Lough

Carlingford Lough has an area of 4900 ha, with a total active area of 1063 ha, which incorporates both the NI and ROI designations of the lough (Ferreira et. al 2007). The culture of mussels on the lough uses the bottom culture method, and covers an area of 868 ha (NI and ROI), whereas the culture of Pacific Oysters is carried out using trestles, which cover an area of 198 ha (NI and ROI) (Ferreira et. al 2007).

11" "

1.2

Appropriate Assessment

Before an aquaculture licence can be granted, an appropriate assessment must be carried out which is required by Article 6 of the EU Habitats Directive Managing and protecting Natura 2000 sites (1992). The current avian data which exists is insufficient for use as an indicator of the interactions between aquaculture activity and waterbirds, therefore, in order for the aquaculture sector to comply with the Habitats Directive, further supporting data is required. Information must be obtained on the distribution, abundance and assemblages of waterbirds, with particular attention on protected species, and also the interactions between waterbirds and aquaculture practices. 1.2.1 Designations

Almost the entire lengths of the North and South shores of Carlingford Lough fall into at least one nature conservation designation under Natura 2000, such as Ramsar site, Areas of Special Scientific Interest (ASSI), Special Protected Area (SPA) and Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) (Fig. 1). Ramsar designations are governed by an international convention in relation to wetland sites, which is mainly involved in the protection of wildfowl (Louth County Council, 2012). ASSIs are areas which are considered as being of high nature conservation value (Louth County Council, 2012). The ASSI on Carlingford Lough extends along the entire northern shore, including all habitats from the upper shoreline to the mean low water mark (Louth County Council 2012). The waterbird species that are highlighted in the ASSI designation on Carlingford Lough as being important for nature conservation include; Great Crested Grebe (Podiceps cristatus), Light bellied Brent Goose (Branta bernicla), Shelduck (Tadorna tadorna), Red-breasted Merganser (Mergus serrator), Oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus), Dunlin (Calidris alpine), Redshank (Tringa tetanus), Sandwich Tern (Sterna sandvicensis), Common Tern (Sterna hirundo) and Arctic Tern (Sterna paradisaea) (Louth City Council, 2012). The Carlingford Lough SPA extends from Carlingford harbour to Greenore point and includes all intertidal sand and mudflats to the low tide mark (Louth City Council, 2012). The SPA site is of particular importance as it supports a network of wintering Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo), as well as many other species, most notably; Light bellied Brent Goose (B. bernicla), Oystercatcher (H. ostralegus), Dunlin (C. alpine), Redshank (T. tetanus), Turnstone (Arenaria interpres) and Bar Tailed Godwit (Limosa lapponica). The SAC on Carlingford Lough was mainly implemented to protect certain flora species, but the area is also utilised by internationally important species of birds such as the Brent Goose (B. bernicla).

12" "

Figure 1. Natura 2000 designated nature conservation sites on Carlingford Lough (Louth City Council 2012)

13" "

1.3 Aim of the Study This research examines the effects of aquaculture disturbance on waterbird assemblages in Carlingford Lough compared to other anthropogenic disturbances such as recreational activities. This survey will also provide a baseline for further studies, as currently there is very limited information on waterbird assemblages on Carlingford Lough, and information on the interactions between waterbirds and aquaculture practices is currently limited. The results of this study will shed light onto the health of populations of waterbird species found on the Lough, especially those mentioned as important species for conservation. The project will also investigate tidal and seasonal patterns of bird assemblages throughout the study period.

2
2.1

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Site Selection

Eleven sites were selected for observation of waterbirds on the shores of Carlingford Lough. There were five sites on the northern shore (N1 N5), five sites on the southern shore (S1 S5), and one site which could be surveyed from both the northern and southern shores (SN6). Sites N1 and S1 were at the mouth of the lough and site SN6 was the furthest inland. Sites were chosen based on ease of access, anthropogenic use and the distance along the shore which could be easily surveyed from a mid-point vantage site. Sites were divided into three categories in terms of the anthropogenic use on the foreshore. Recreational sites were classed as sites that experienced heavy anthropogenic and commercial disturbances, undisturbed sites were subjected to light anthropogenic disturbance and aquaculture sites were classed depending on their use, such as trestles meaning the foreshore can be subject to heavy anthropogenic disturbances, or dredge meaning the disturbance was mainly subtidal. The exact position was recorded using a Global Positioning System (GPS) (Garmin 60CNX) at each end of the site. The survey was conducted from a vantage point at the most inland point of the shore. There was no boundary set out to sea. A habitat map for each site was then drawn up. Initially these were hand drawn, and comprised of estimations by eye of the main habitat types which occurred on the site and within the immediate vicinity. The habitat maps were drawn at low tide, and recorded notable features such as channels, man-made structures, aquaculture sites, natural mussel and cockle beds, eel grass and salt marsh, and mixed substratum and potential roosting sites. Digital habitat maps were then created using Microsoft Power Point, approximating the different features at each site based on the hand drawn estimations (Fig. 2).

14" "

2.2

Summary of Sites

The letters A and B on the maps refer to the land boundaries of the site, with A denoting the site limit to the right of the vantage point and B denoting the site limit to the left of the vantage point. SN6 was labelled from the northern shore vantage point. Notable features were identified at A and B on each site to aid identifying the site boundaries. Site S1 Ballagan Point Undisturbed S1A End of wave break: 53o59.757N 006o06.604W S1B Point of road: 53o59.998N 006o06.222W Ballagan Point is largely undisturbed by humans, although occasional unregulated hand picking of winkles and whelks takes place. The main habitat on this shore was boulders and seaweed with interspersed rock pools. There were two distinct sandy areas situated at the lower intertidal, and two in the higher intertidal zone divided by a channel. There was a fresh water input close to S1A, from private agriculture land (Fig. 2a). Site S2 Greenore Aquaculture site Aquaculture, trestles S2A Adjacent to last yellow marker pole towards the mouth of the lough: 54o008.875N 006o07.321W S2B Adjacent to last yellow marker pole towards the top of the lough by the factory: 54o01.710N 006o The foreshore on this site is used for extensive Crassostrea gigas aquaculture on trestles. The foreshore was mainly made up of sand and pebbles. At the mid-shore level there were patchy Enteromorpha sp beds which expanded across approximately two thirds of the shore. There was access on the shore for aquaculture vehicles at the time of the study by means of a concrete path extending to the lower intertidal. There was also a freshwater input near to the S2B boundary (Fig. 2b). Site S3 Greenore Beach Recreational S3A - Adjacent to end of carpark: 54o01.798N 006o07.741W

15" "

S3B Point with No Swimming sign: 54o02.006N 006o07.875W Greenore Beach is mainly used for anthropogenic activity including angling and scuba diving. There is a public slipway for watercraft access. This site did not have a high tidal range, making it suitable for most recreational activities on both high and low tides. The beach was mainly sand and gravel, with rocks and boulder in the lower intertidal zone (Fig 2c). Site S4 Carlingford Harbour Breakwater - Recreational S4A Shingle point adjacent to sailing club Club house: 54o04.270N 006o13.865W S4B Marina Breakwater: 54o03.013N 006o11.466W The harbour was frequently used for outdoor pursuits, such as kayaking and boat handling during the period of the survey, and the marina used for private moorings. Within the harbour walls the sediment was muddy with seaweed along the upper intertidal and cobbles in the supratidal zone. The shoreline between the harbour and the marina was mainly boulders and seaweed, with mud at the extreme low water mark. The harbour completely empties at low tide exposing extensive mud flats and wild mussel beds (Fig 2d). Site S5 Greers Quay Undisturbed S5A Land point towards lough mouth: 54o04.270N 006o13.865W S5B Land point at far side of slipway: 54o04.452N 006o14.192W The quay on this site was occasionally used by small commercial fishing boats during the period of the survey. The majority of the foreshore on this site was made up of boulders and seaweed from midlow-intertidal, with sand and cobbles on the upper shoreline. the quay, and the third by the slipway at boundary S5B (fig 2e). Site SN6 Narrow Water Aquaculture, dredge SN6A Below castle: 54o06.636N 006o16.642W SN6B End of trees on northern shore, end of break water on southern shore: 54o06.758N 006o17.083W 16" " Above the tide line were coarse terrestrial grasses, scrub and mature trees. There were three freshwater inputs, one at either side of

This site incorporates a public blue mussel fishery which is only accessible to small vessels. There was regular commercial dredging for blue mussels at this site, as well as some recreational boating. On the southern side, the shoreline was mainly rock and seaweed, with a muddy area to the left of the slipway. On the northern side, the shoreline was mainly made up of rocks and mussel beds, with coarse grasses above the high tide mark (Fig. 2f). Site N1 Cranfield Beach- Recreational N1A End of land at Lough mouth: 54o01.609N 006o03.815W N1B End of sand: 54o01.799N 006o04.750W This is a popular tourist beach for recreational activities, such as sailing and water sports. tide mark were cobbles and pebbles, with access to caravan parks and amenities (Fig. 2g). Site N2 Fairgreen Aquaculture trestles N2A End of beach: 54o01.815N 006o05.001W N2B End of Greencastle Pier: 54o02.396N 006o06.159W C. gigas are cultured in trestles at this site, with access to the beach for aquaculture vehicles. The shoreline was mainly sand with rock outcrops at the A and B boundaries. There were pebbles and seaweed at the high tide mark (Fig. 2h) Site N3 Mill Bay Salt Marsh Undisturbed N3A 54o06.145N 006o10.175W N3B 54o06.045N 006o09.231W This site is an extensive salt marsh, which is largely undisturbed by human activities. This site had a particularly large tidal range compared to the other sites. The habitat on this shore was varied, but consisted mainly of a muddy substrate, with large rock and boulder outcrops scattered across the intertidal. Enteromorphia beds extended from the upper to the mid intertidal zone, and Spartina grasses could be found at the high tide mark. There was a freshwater input at the mid intertidal zone, from agricultural land, just beyond the B boundary, and another freshwater input just beyond the A 17" " The

shoreline was mainly sand, with bedrock outcrops at both the A and B boundaries. Above the high

boundary. There were two distinct channels, one which forked at the mid intertidal zone, and

extended up the shore to the high water mark, and another which continued up shore to a bed of Zostrea in the upper intertidal zone (Fig.2i). Site N4 Ballyedmond Aquaculture trestles N4A Land point towards the lough mouth: 54o03.892N 006o08.839W N4B Land point towards Rostrevor: 54o03.933N 006o09.270W C .gigas trestle site. The main substratum on the shore was sand, with a significant boulder field at the lower intertidal zone. The low water mark was mainly muddy with dispersed rocks. (Fig 2j). Site N5 Ross Monument Bay Aquaculture dredge N5A Killowen Point: 54o04.481N 006o10.984W N5B Rocky outcrop at edge of shore: 54o05.900N 006o12.631W This site is adjacent to extensive licenced mussel beds which are frequently dredged with large mussel dredgers. As a result the majority of the macrofauna on the foreshore is comprised of mussel. There was little other human activity on the shore during the period of the study. The foreshore was mainly made up of rocks and seaweed with larger boulders at the low tide mark (Fig 2k). There were rocky outcrops at both the A and B boundaries. The slipway for aquaculture vehicles was made of pebbles and cobbles, and extended to the low water mark

18" "

(a)

(b)

19" "

(c)

(d)

20" "

(e)

(f)

21" "

(g)

(h)

22" "

(i)

(j)

23" "

(k)

Figure 2. Maps of survey sites S1-N5, a k respectively 2.3 Survey Details

The survey methodology was adapted from Waterbird Surveys within Irish Coastal Special Protection Area: Survey Methods and Guidance Notes (National Parks and Wildlife Service, 2011). Surveys were carried out twice a month, once at high tide and once low tide on both the north and south shores. Surveys were conducted over a four hour period, two hours before and two hours after the high or low tide. Low tide counts were carried out for 30 minutes per site, and high tide counts for 15 minutes per site. An acclimatisation period of five minutes was added to the beginning of each count to counteract the disturbance made by arriving and setting up equipment. 2.3.1 Equipment

Surveys were conducted using Swarovski 8x42 EL binoculars and a Swarovski Optik telescope (AT80, model G704632145). In order to capture photographs of large flocks for further assessment, photographs were taken using a Canon 60D. A variety of lenses were used in order to capture the best quality images for the conditions so as to enhance the accuracy of the count. A Manfrotto 055XPROB/804RC2 tripod and head was used in conjunction with a Canon EF 2X Extender (teleconverter) in order to increase stability. A Canon EF 70-200 mm F2.8L IS II was used for wide angle shots. The Sigma 10-20 mm F3.5 EX was used for long distance shots in tandem with the 24" "

teleconverter. A Canon EF 100 mm 2.8L IS Macro was also used for close up shots and was used for footprint identification on occasion. 2.3.2 Data Recording Sheet

A new data recording sheet was used for each survey (Appendix 1). Prior to the beginning of the survey count, the following details were recorded; counter name, survey type (High or Low tide), site, date, time and tidal state (Rising, high, falling or low). Weather was recorded with a rating from one to three. Cloud cover, rain, wind and visibility were rated depending on the condition, with a rating of one, being mild to three, being strong. A stopwatch was used to track the time. During the survey count, bird species, numbers, position on the shore and behaviour were recorded. The positions of the individuals were recorded as either intertidal, subtidal, supratidal or terrestrial, and the behaviour encompassed either feeding or roosting. Roosting was classed as any other behaviour apart from feeding, such as flying and nesting. A simple tally count was used to record this data. Photographs that were taken during the surveys were also recorded in the relevant box with the appropriate species. Disturbances were recorded along with the species affected, level of response and duration of response to the disturbance. A total of 14 different activities were included on the disturbance list (Appendix 2). The level of response was recorded as either; no response, weak response, moderate response or high response (N, W, M or H respectively). The duration of the response were recorded as either A, B , C or D, (Table 1 BELOW) where A denotes a short/discrete duration, B represents and activity that occurs for 50% of the count period, C represents a disturbance that lasts for more than 50%of the count but less than 100%, and D.

25" "

Table 1. Key for recording duration of response to disturbances which occurred during the count period

Description A B C D Activity was short/discrete Activity occurred for 50% of count period Activity occurred >50% <100% of count period Activity continued after count had finished

Large flocks of birds were recorded on the flock maps, (blank habitat maps) and photographed where possible to aid with the accurate counting of the flock. Disturbances which caused a significant perturbation of individuals or flocks were also recorded on disturbance maps (also blank habitat maps). 2.4 Data Analysis

The data collected from each survey was then transferred onto a Microsoft Excel document. The British Trust of Ornithology (BTO) species codes were used in place of species names during data analysis (Table 2). Tables and figures were used to calculate total numbers of birds and total number of species per site and also per month as well as mean number of birds and mean number of species per site and per month, this information was then used to produce tables and figures. The frequency of occurrence can be defined as the number of times a given event occurs at specified sample points during a defined period, or in this case, the number of times a species is observed across the total number of surveys at all sites for the duration of the study period (Jan Aug) (Biology-online.org, 2012) It was calculated by dividing the total number of surveys from January to August, by the number of times each species was observed, and dividing by 100 to get a percentage value. Percentage abundance was calculated by dividing the total number of times a species was observed at a site, by the total number of individuals of all species observed at that site, and multiplying by 100 to get a percentage value.

26" "

Table 2. BTO species codes for waterbird species on Carlingford Lough

BTO Species Code PB SU WN T. MA E. GN RM ND GG F. GX CA ET H. MH OC RP GP L. DN BA CU RK GK TT MU BH CM LB HG GZ GB TE CN Light Bellied Brent Shelduck Wigeon Teal Mallard Eider Goldeneye Red Breasted Merganser Great Northern Diver Great Crested Grebe Fulmar Gannet Cormorant Little Egret Grey Heron Moorhen Oystercatcher Ringed Plover Golden Plover Lapwing Dunlin Bar-Tailed Godwit Curlew Redshank Greenshank Turnstone Mediterranean Gull Black Headed Gull Common Gull Lesser Black Backed Gull Herring Gull Glaucous Gull Greater Black Backed Gull Sandwich Tern Common Tern Branta bernicla Tadorna tadorna Anas penelope Anas crecca Anas platyrhynchos Somateria mollissima Bucephala clangula Mergus serrator Gavia immer Podiceps cristatus Fulmarus glacialis Morus bassanus Phalacrocorax carbo Egretta garzetta Ardea cinerea Gallinula chloropus Haematopus ostralegus Charadrius hiaticula Pluvialis apricaria Vanellus vanellus Calidris alpina Limosa lapponica Numenius arquata Tringa totanus Tringa nebularia Arenaria interpres Larus melanocephalus Chroicocephalus ridibundus Larus canus Larus fuscus Larus argentatus Larus hyperboreus Larus marinus Sterna sandvicensis Sterna hirundo Common Name Scientific Name

27" "

AE GU RA TY

Arctic Tern Guillemot Razorbill Black Guillemot

Sterna paradisaea Uria aalge Alca torda Cepphus grylle

Multivariate analyses were used to examine if there were any dissimilarities between bird assemblages at different sites and in different months on Carlingford Lough between January and August 2012. The abundance of each bird species at each site and in each month at both high tide and low tide was analysed using multidimensional scaling (MDS) in addition to analysis of similarity (ANOSIM). Species abundance data were square root transformed. A resemblance matrix was generated using the Bray-Curtis similarity measure. The data from the Bray-Curtis similarity measure were used to construct the MDS plot with site as the grouping variable. MDS was used to graphically display and coordinate the differences between bird assemblages at each site and in each month at high tide and low tide. ANOSIM was used to test the null hypothesis that there were no differences between bird assemblages at any site or in any month at high tide or at low tide during the study period. ANOSIM generates an R statistic which lies between -1 and 1 with a 0 value representing no difference between groups and 1 representing no similarity between groups. Ecological communities rarely show R < 0. ANOSIM compares pair-wise R values to calculate how different groups are on a scale of 0-1 with 0 representing indistinguishable and 1 indicating that all similarities within groups are less than similarities between groups. An R statistic of R > 0.75 means groups are separate, R > 0.5 means groups are separate but show overlap and R < 0.25 means there is little difference between the groups (Clarke and Gorley, 2001). A significance value below 5% represents a significant difference between groups. The ANOSIM was calculated using site as the grouping variable for 9999 permutations.

3
3.1

RESULTS
Individual Numbers

Site N1 had the greatest number of individuals over the duration of the study (January August) with 2, 276 individuals in total (Table 3). The fewest number of individuals observed at one site over the duration of the survey was on site S3 (recreational) with a total of 322 individuals observed from January to August (Table 3).

28" "

Table 3. Total and mean number of individuals observed at high tide and low tide per site from January to August (n=11) No. of Individuals Site S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 SN6 N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 High Tide 471 770 112 60 84 520 991 398 813 390 196 Low Tide 881 1170 210 393 192 610 1285 785 695 577 451 Total 1352 1940 322 453 276 1130 2276 1183 1508 967 647 Mean 676 970 161 227 138 565 1138 592 754 484 324

The greatest number of birds observed on one survey was 494 birds on site N1 (recreational) at low tide in March. The species which mainly contributed to this number was the Light-bellied Brent Goose, of which there were 422 individuals in the intertidal zone. The minimum number of birds observed on any one survey was one individual bird which occurred on two occasions at site S2 (Aquaculture, trestle) on a high tide and S5 (Greers Quay, recreational) on a low tide. In terms of total numbers of individuals observed over the duration of the survey, the Brent goose (Branta bernicla) was the most common with 2,152 individuals observed from January to August across all sites (S1-N5) (Table 4). The least common species was the Great Northern diver (Gavia

immer) of which there was only one individual observed over the duration of the survey across all sites (S1-N5).

29" "

Table 4. The five most common species in terms of total individual numbers across all sites from January to August Rank 1 2 3 4 5 BTO Code PB OC CM CU BH Common Name Brent Goose Oystercatcher Common Gull Curlew Black Headed Gull Total No. 2152 1612 1461 1260 1018

3.2

Species Numbers

From January to August, a total of 39 species of water birds were observed and recorded on both the North and South shores of Carlingford Lough, including waders, divers, dabbling ducks and gulls. On the North shore, 36 species were observed, and 35 species were observed on the South shore. The highest number of species observed on a site from January to August, was 28 species at site N2 (Fairgreen, aquaculture trestle), and the lowest number of species were observed at sites S4 and S5 (Carlingford Harbour, recreational and Greers Quay, recreational respectively), with 18 species observed on both (Table 5). The mean number of species observed at low tide was greater than the mean number of species observed at high tide on all sites during the survey period (Fig. 3).

30" "

Table 5. Total and mean number of species observed per site at high tide, low tide and overall from January to August (n=11) No. of Species Site
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 SN6 N1 N2 N3 N4 N5

High Tide
20 16 12 10 12 16 17 21 20 15 14

Low Tide
20 20 19 17 17 19 19 22 21 19 17

Mean
20 18 16 14 15 18 18 22 21 17 16

Total
26 24 21 18 18 21 23 28 25 22 22

10" 9" 8" Mean!No.of!Species! 7" 6" 5" 4" 3" 2" 1" 0" S1" S2" S3" S4" S5" SN6" Site! N1" N2" N3" N4" N5" HT" LT"

Figure 3. Mean number of species observed per site at both high tide (HT) and low tide (LT) across the whole duration of the survey (January-August), including 95% error bars

31" "

3.3

Frequency of Occurrence

The species which occurred most frequently over the duration of the study was the Common gull (Larus canus), which was observed on 70% of surveys, followed by the Oystercatcher which was observed on 62% of surveys (Fig. 2) (Table 4). Although the Brent goose (B. bernicla) was the most common species in terms of individual observed (Table 2) they were only observed on 25% of surveys (Fig. 4).

Figure 4. Frequency of occurrence of all waterbird species observed on Carlingford Lough from January to August

Table 6. Top five most common species in terms of frequency of occurrence Frequency of Occurrence (%) 70 62 61 58 50

Rank 1 2 3 4 5

BTO Code CM OC CA HG BH

Common Name Common Gull Oystercatcher Cormorant Herring Gull Black Headed Gull

32" "

3.4 Percentage Abundance Figure 5 compares the five most common species, in terms of total individuals observed (Table 4), with the percentage abundance across all sites. Although the Brent goose (B. bernicla) was ranked first as the most common species in terms of individual numbers, on only five sites is it the most abundant species (S1, S3, S4, N1 and N3) (Fig. 5). The Curlew, (Numenius arquata) was ranked as the fourth most common species in term of total individual numbers (Table 4), yet it is not observed at all on site N1 (Fig 5.)
40" 35" 30"

%!Abundance!

25" 20" 15" 10" 5" 0" S1" S2" S3" S4" S5" SN6" N1" N2" N3" N4" N5"

PB" OC" CM" CU" BH"

Site!

Figure 5. Percentage abundance for the top five species (in terms of total bird numbers (Table 2)) across all sites from January to August

The Common Gull (L. canus) was the species which occurred most frequently during the survey period (Fig. 2) (Table 4), however its percentage abundance is overall quite low (Fig. 4; Table 6). The cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) was ranked third in terms of frequency of occurrence, yet it does not occur at site N3 at all (Fig. 6).

33" "

35" 30"

%!Abundance!

25" 20" 15" 10" 5" 0" S1" S2" S3" S4" S5" SN6" N1" N2" N3" N4" N5" CM" OC" CA" HG" BH"

Site!

Figure 6. Percentage abundance for the top five species (in terms of frequency of occurrence (Table 4)) across all sites from January to August 3.5 3.5.1 Primer Analysis Differences in bird assemblage between sites. (All data high and low tide)

When the data was considered as a whole and the differences in bird data between sites was examined, the MDS plot showed no obvious patterns between sites when all the high tide and low tide data was combined. The ANOSIM did however show some differences between sites (R= 0.24, P= 0.0001) (Fig. 7). Only S3/N3 (R = 0.645, P = 0.0001) and S3/SN6 (R = 0.596, P = 0.0001) show any separation between sites. This separation is with overlap. There are however significant differences between some sites (Table 7).

34" "

Figure 7. MDS plot showing Differences in bird assemblage between sites (all data high and low tide)

35" "

36" "

3.5.2

Differences in Bird Assemblage Low tide only

When the differences in bird assemblage between sites at low tide only were examined, there were very slight separations between sites observed. The ANOSIM showed some significant differences (R = 0.255, P = 0.0001) (Fig. 8). Again only S3/N3 (R = 0.607, P = 0.0002) and S3/SN6 (R = 0.569, P = 0.0001) show any separation between sites (Table 8). This separation is with overlap. There are significant differences (P<0.05) between some sites (Table 8).

Figure

8.

MDS

plot

showing

Differences

in

Bird

Assemblage

Low

tide

only

37" "

3.5.3

Differences in Bird Assemblage high tide only.

When we looked at the differences in bird assemblage between sites at high tide only there were very slight separations between sites observed. The ANOSIM showed some significant differences (R = 0.293, P = 0.0001) (Fig. 9).

38" "

At high tide there were 12 instances were sites were separate enough from each other that they could be considered as separate groups with some over laps all of the differences observed were significant (Table 9). Two of the comparisons S3/N3 and S4/N3 show R values which suggest they are almost totally different in terms of their bird assemblages.

Figure 9. MDS plot showing Differences in Bird Assemblage high tide only

39" "

Having considered the data by site very little difference was observed which could be explained by site and as such by foreshore usage. We then decided to consider the data by month to see if the differences observed could be explained by seasonality. 3.5.4 Differences in bird assemblage between months at Low Tide

The MDS plot showed some slight patterns between months at low tide (Figure 10). The May, June and July plots are in the bottom left of the plot whereas the Jan, Feb and Mar plots are in the top right corner. The ANOSIM did however show some significant differences between months (R= 0.287, P= 0.0001) (Table 10). Jan/May (R= 0.666, P= 0.0001), Jan/June (R= 0.69, P= 0.0001), Feb/May (R= 0.676, P= 0.0001), Feb/Jun (R= 0.727, P= 0.0001), Feb/Jul (R= 0.625, P= 0.0001), Mar/May (R= 0.564, P= 0.0001), Mar/Jun (R= 0.607, P= 0.0001), Mar/Jul (R= 0.59, P= 0.0001) all showed some degree of separation but there were over laps between the months (Appendix 2 Table 4). Significant differences (P0.05)

40" "

were observed between the winter months January, February and March and the summer months May June July and August (Table 10).

Figure 10. MDS plot showing Differences in bird assemblage between months at Low Tide

41" "

3.5.5 Differences in bird assemblage between months at High Tide The MDS plot showed less obvious patterns than the MDS plot for the low tide data between months. The ANOSIM did however show some significant differences (R = 0.147, P = 0.0001) (Fig. 11). There were significant differences between January and all months April July, February and all months April to August and April and July and August. None of these differences were observable as separate groups on the MDS plot Figure 11, Table 11).

Figure 11. MDS plot showing Differences in bird assemblage between months at High Tide

42" "

43" "

DISCUSSION

Aquaculture is a rapidly growing industry due to the demand of seafood, which has also driven the decline of wild stocks, and as a result, shellfish aquaculture is an important sector, which is practiced on Carlingford Lough (F AO 2004; F AO 2006; Naylor et. al 2000). The objective of this study was to investigate what effect aquaculture practices had on the waterbird assemblages on Carlingford Lough compared to other anthropogenic disturbances. The main aim was to try and infer patterns of bird assemblages between the three categories of sites selected: Aquaculture, Recreational and Undisturbed, and assess how disturbance affected species at each site category. 4.1 Impacts of aquaculture on waterbird species in Carlingford Lough

Site NI-Cranfield Beach, which was a recreational site, had the greatest number of individuals observed over the duration of the study. This high number is likely to be due to the location of site NI, which was at the mouth of the lough on the north shore, therefore birds which feed at open sea, or over wintering birds, such as Brent goose, B. berniela, are likely to be observed at site NI as they enter or leave the lough. The Brent Goose (B. berniela) was the most frequently observed species in terms of total individual numbers. Brent geese spend the winter in Western Europe, notably along the coasts of Great Britian, France and the Dutch Wadden Sea, and migrate to the Siberian tundra in the summer to reproduce (Ebbinge et. al 2002). The world population of Brent geese was estimated in 2002 to be fluctuating between 220,000 and 315,000 individuals (Ebbinge et. al 2002), and therefore Carlingford Lough is an important habitat for these birds during the winter months. The greatest number of species observed over the duration of the survey was 28 species at site N2, Fairgreen, which is an aquaculture trestle site. This site is quite close to NI (Appendix 1), except it is more sheltered and the beach is much quieter than NI, in terms of human disturbance. This may be one of the reasons why a high number of species were observed at this site, another could be the trestles themselves providing food for many birds, which was observed several times during the study. More species were observed at low tide than high tide across all sites observed. Many water bird species, especially waders, feed on molluscs that are exposed at low tide, therefore the higher species numbers observed at low tide are what would have been expected given this feeding observation. The common gull (L. canus) was the species which was most frequently observed over the duration of the study. The RSPB lists the common gull (L. canus) as 'amber' on the bird conservation list. Species which are on the amber list are classified as moderately threatened, meaning there has been a decline of up to 49% of the UK breeding population over the last 25 years, and at least 50% of the breeding 44" "

population can be found in approximately 10 sites across the UK (RSPB, 2012). The fact that the common gull (L. can us) was the most frequently observed species on Carlingford Lough is promising in terms of their conservation, however in terms of percentage abundance, the common gull (L. can us) is ranked third. This means that although the common gull (L. canus) was observed on 70% of counts, its overall abundance is actually quite low. The Brent goose (B. bernicla) was ranked first as the most abundant species, and this may be due to the fact that Brent geese tend to be in large flocks at anyone time, it is unusual to see them isolated, whereas the common gull is often sighted alone, which would therefore have lowered the percentage abundance. 4.2 Primer analysis

The results from this study period show that significant differences occur in bird assemblages at different sites on Carlingford Lough. However these differences are not distinct and overlaps occur between sites. This is what is expected as Carlingford is a relatively small lough and as such there are unlikely to be totally distinct groups of birds at one site none of which are observed at any other site. Of the differences that were observed between sites the greatest differences observed were between recreational use sites and undisturbed sites. A SIMPER analysis would be needed to distinguish exactly what the differences in bird species between the sites were. It seems that most of the differences in bird assemblages observed were as a result of seasonality rather than foreshore usage. More obvious dissimilarities in bird assemblages were observed between months at low tide than high tide. It is likely that this is due to the migratory patterns of ducks and divers when compared to wading birds. More time is needed to consider these results in depth to detail actual patterns`and similarities. In order to infer accurate patterns, the survey would need to be carried out for at least a year. 4.3 Future Studies

The current literature which exists on the effects of aquaculture on waterbird assemblages in Ireland is very limited. A report by Gitiings and O'Donoghue (2012) for the Marine Institute was published this year and it examined the effects of intertidal oyster culture on the spatial distribution of waterbirds on the shores of Dungarvan Harbour in Co. Waterford. A similar study was also carried out in Co. Cork by Hilgerloh et. al (2001), who investigated the effects of intertidal oyster culture on birds in a shelter lough in Co. Cork. Hilgerloh et. al (2001) also compared the effects of aquaculture to a nonaquaculture site, which is similar to this study, where aquaculture sites were compared to recreational sites and undisturbed sites. Gittings and O'Donoghue (2012) chose a total of six sites, in five different counties (Co. Waterford, Co. Cork, Co. Kerry, Co. Clare and Co. Wexford), and surveys were carried out at low tide only up to five times per site between January and March 2011. The method for the bird survey in the Gittings 45" "

and O'Donoghue (2012) study doesn't appear to be as comprehensive when compared to this study, which consisted of 11 sites, on one lough, with counts being carried out at high tide and low tide at each site from January to August 2012. Furthermore it only analyses one part of the year, the transition from winter to spnng, whereas this study on Carlingford has data for winter, spring and summer. 4.3.1 Continuing and expanding the study This study is necessary, and needs to continue for several reasons. It provides baseline data of waterbird species on Carlingford Lough, of which there is currently limited data. It is essential in order to assess management practices for aquaculture on the lough, taking appropriate assessment and the Natura 2000 designations into account. The data may also be an early indicator for declines in certain species, however the survey would need to continue for at least two years in order to have comparable data to assess this. Not only should this study continue, but there is also scope to expand the study, or to derive side projects from it. There is the possibility for experimental work to be carried out on the trestle sites. During the survey, it was noticed that many birds feed directly from the trestles, which is decreasing the yield of oysters harvested. Oystercatchers in particular were noticed to feed on trestles quite often. Experimental work could involve testing predation from oystercatchers with various mesh sizes, or including a deterrent on the trestles. Another study could be developed which could focus on certain species on the lough, such as the species listed in Natura 2000 (Section 1.2.1). Many of the species observed on the lough were categorised by the RSPB as amber status, meaning that there is need for conservation effort for these species, which this other study could solely focus on. Zydelis et. al (2008) focussed their study on molluscivorous ducks, as ducks tend to inhabit sheltered areas which are also favourable for aquaculture, and therefore aquaculture is more likely to affect ducks due to the increased interaction between ducks and aquaculture practices. Aquaculture structures have been studied and show an increase in recruitment of wild mussels, which has been suggested by Kirk et. al (2007) to constitute abundant prey for ducks, which will have a positive influence on the conservation of ducks on Carlingford Lough. 4.3.2 Changes to the current survey method There were a few minor issues that, if the survey were to be repeated, would need to be addressed. One of these issues lies with species identification. There were a few species that proved difficult to identify when they were in flight in the subtidal zone. For example, distinguishing between the common tern (Sterna hirundo) and the arctic tern (Sterna paradisaea) was very difficult if they were just beyond the range of the binoculars. It was possible to identify that they were in fact terns, but deriving the exact species was more difficult as they are very similar, with the main difference being 46" "

that the arctic tern has a slightly darker neck plumage, which was difficult to identify due to the glare from the water making the underside of light coloured birds look white. In order to rectify this issue, surveys from a boat could be carried out to ensure that all species that spend their time in the subtidal zone were accurately identified. Furthermore, the study would benefit greatly if surveys were conducted with an observer at sea and one on the shore also, mainly for low tide counts, this would ensure that all species on the shore and at sea were accurately counted. Zydelis et. al (2008) conducted surveys from a small inflatable boat whilst maintaining a distance of approximately 100m from the shore so as to not create a disturbance to the waterbirds, however this method of surveying would require an extra person to drive the boat. Surveying from a boat, or from a vantage point is more favourable than the method adopted by Gittings and O'Donoghue (2012). Gittings and Q'Donoghue (2012) carried out their surveys by walking along the stretch of the shoreline whilst maintaining a 200m distance from any bird activity, and moving closer to the waters edge as the tide receded, whereas in this study on Carlingford, birds were surveyed from one vantage point so as to not create a disturbance. This method of surveying from one vantage point is favourable as the observer is sure that their presence does not create a disturbance, whereas an observer walking the shore may inadvertently create a disturbance therefore skewing the results of that particular count. Cormorants (Phalacrocorax carbo) and shags (Phalacrocorax aristotelis) are two species which again are very similar and can prove difficult to distinguish between. Both species are very similar in size and colour, with the main difference being the lighter plumage on the cormorants head. This can be difficult to see when they are flying, and again, surveys carried out from a boat would help rectify this issue. There is room to expand the current survey to focus on cormorants and shags as a side project. Cormorant and shags could be counted at high tide when they are roosting and are easier to identify accurately and count, and this could be carried out one to two times a month. Surveyors could also attend a BTO bird identification training course in order to make sure that identification is as accurate as possible. The current methodology involves counting species for 30 minutes at each site. After several months following this method, the High tide counts were reduced to 15 minute survey periods as they were generally much quieter, in terms of total individual numbers, than low tide counts (Fig. 3). Another alternative could be to change the survey period seasonally. Winter counts could last for 30 minutes at both high and low tide due to the higher number of over wintering species, and this could then be reduced to 15 minutes in the summer as there are fewer species on the lough. With regards to data analysis, a SIMPER analysis would need to be carried out in order to enhance the Primer data. Primer was chosen as the data analysis program for several reasons which include availability and ease of use, however a SIMPER analysis was not carried out as the program was unavailable at the time of data analysis. 47" "

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this thesis suggest that there is a greater difference in bird assemblage between seasons compared to foreshore usage. Continuing the study may reveal more distinct patterns between bird assemblage and foreshore use in the future. The waterbirds observed on Carlingford Lough seem to be relatively habituated to constant disturbance, both recreational and aquaculture, however short bursts of disturbance such as dog walkers tended to cause a greater disturbance. The current literature that exists on the effect of aquaculture on waterbirds is very limited, so continuing this study is vital to add to this literature, and provide a greater insight into seasonal patterns of waterbirds on Carlingford Lough.

48" "

REFERENCES

Biology-online.org(2012).http://www.biologyonline.org/dictionary/Frequency_of_ occurrence. Last accessed 4th October 2012. Bord lascaigh Mhara. (1982). Suspended Culture of Mussels. Aquaculture explained, Bord lascaigh Mhara, Dublin. 3, 8p. Bord lascaigh Mhara. (2008). Status of Irish Aquaculture - a compilation report of information on Irish aquaculture. Clarke K.R. and Gorley, R.N., 2001. PRIMER v %: User Manual/Tutorial. PRIMER E, Plymouth, UK. Ebbinge B.S, Heesterbeek H.J.A.P, Ens B.J, and Goedhart P.W (2002). Density dependent population limitation in dark bellied Brent geese Branta bernic/a. Avian Science 2: 63-75 FAO (1997). Aquaculture Development. FAO Technical guidelines for responsible fisheries. Rome 1997. ISBN 92-5-103971-2 FAO (2004). The state of World Fisheries an Aquaculture. FAO Fisheries Department, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations: Rome FAO (2006). State of World Aquaculture. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 500, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations: Rome FAO (2012). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. Rome 2012. ISBN 978-92-5-107225-7 Ferreira J.G, Hawkins A.J.S, Monteiro P, Service M, Moore H, Edwards A, Gowen R, Lourenco P, Mellor A, Nunes J.P, Pascoe P.L, Ramos L, Sequeira A, Simas T, Strong J. (2007). SMILE Sustainable Mariculture in northern Irish Loughs Ecosystems - Assessment of Carrying Capacity for Environmentally Sustainable Shellfish Culture in Carlingford Lough, Strangford Lough, Belfast Lough, Lame Lough and Lough Foyle. Ed. IMAR - Institute of Marine Research. 100pp. Gascoigne J, and Huntington T. (2007). Bottom grown mussel sector review - An environmental assessment. Bord lascaigh Mhara, Dublin. Gittings, T. & O'Donoghue, P.D. (2012). The effects of intertidal oyster culture on the spatial distribution of waterbirds. Report prepared for the Marine Institute. Atkins, Cork. Heffernan M.L. (1999). A review of the ecological implications of mariculture and intertidal harvesting in Ireland. Irish Wildlife Manuals, No.7. Duchas, The Heritage Service, Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Dublin, Ireland. Higherloh G, O'Halloran J, Kelly T.C, and Burnell G.M (2001). A preliminary study on the effects of oyster culturing structures on birds in a sheltered Irish estuary. Hydrobiologia 465: 175-180 Joyce, J. (1992). Shellfish farming and the environment in Scotland. Aquaculture Ireland 50, 20. 49" "

Kirk M, Esler D, and Boyd W.S (2007). Morpohology and density of mussels on natural and aquaculture structure habitats: implications for sea duck predators. Marine Ecology Progress Series 346: 179-187 Louth County Council (2012). Narrow Water Bridge Project - Natura Impact StatementfHabitats Regulation Statement. (http://www.louthcoco.ie/en/Louth_County_ Council/Latest_NewsINA TURA _IMP ACT _ ST ATEMENT_Narrow_ Water_Bridge_.pdf) Naylor R.L, Goldburg R.J, Primavera J.H, Kautsky N, Beveridge M.C.M, Clay J, Folke C, Lubchenco J, Mooney H and Troell M (2000). Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies. Nature 405: 1017-1024 RSPB (2012). http://www.rspb.org.uk/wildlife/birdguide/status _ explained.aspx (Last Accessed 04/10/12) Zydelis R, Esler 0, Kirk M and Boyd W.S (2008). Effects of off-bottom shellfish aquaculture on winter habitat use by molluscivorous sea ducks. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 001: 10.1 002/acq.977

50" "

APPENDICES

51" "