The dramatic population crash suffered by a once-familiar breeding bird of the Sufolk coast is a story of decline and dilemma that is being investigated by a birdwatching and conservation group.
Naturalists fear the ringed plover teeters on the brink of being lost altogether as a breeding species in the county. It is a crash that highlights a conservation condundrum - how to strike the right balance between ensuring that the plover’s population thrives around a coastline that, understandably, attracts thousands of visitors at the very time the ground-nesting birds are trying to breed.
Increasing conservation concerns have led the 400-strong Suffolk Ornithologists’ Group (SOG) to launch a survey of the county’s ringed plover population - and that of the closely related little ringed plover, which has a different breeding ecology but whose current Suffolk population is something of a mystery.
The survey is being organised by SOG members Robin Harvey and Chris Keeling. Mr Harvey said: “Ringed plovers represent something of a conservation dilemma. Obviously, people want to be out on the Suffolk coast - it’s a wonderful place and it’s great to see people out enjoying such a fantastic landscape and, hopefully, connecting closely with the abundance of wildlife that can be found on our beaches and around our estuaries.
“On the other hand, ringed plovers that nest on our beaches and shorelines may well be put under extra pressure as a result of all these people, perhaps albeit unwittingly, causing disturbance. Dogs off leads or a misplaced boot can damage nests, eggs and chicks - all of which are extremely well camouflaged in the shingle - and we’d hope that people’s awareness can be raised so that nests of ringed plovers and other species that nest on the shingle, such as little tern, will not suffer.”
SOG’s ringed plover and little ringed plover survey has the support of the Suffolk Little Tern Group, which is a partnership involving the RSPB, Natural England, the National Trust, Suffolk Wildlife Trust and the Landguard Partnership. The group’s survey follows a similar project in 2007 and aims to bring population estimates of both plover species up to date.
The 2007 survey recorded a total of 43 pairs of ringed plovers at 23 sites in Suffolk - a 77% decline on a previous survey carried out in 1984. Evidence suggests the population has continued to tumble, with only 32 pairs recorded at key sites in 2016.
“Even more worryingly, this trend must be viewed in combination with poor productivity,” said Mr Harvey. “If the current trend continues there is a very real risk that the ringed plover may be lost to Suffolk as a breeding species.”
For little ringed plovers the situation was less clear, said Mr Harvey. They first bred in Suffolk in 1948 - just 10 years after their first UK breeding record - and did not nest on beaches, instead favouring gravel pits, reservoirs and gravel-strewn river banks.
“Their Suffolk population peaked at around 33 pairs in 1990, most being at inland gravel pits,” said Mr Harvey. “Since then a national survey in 2007 found 12-13 pairs at seven sites but the most recent Suffolk Bird Report (2015) only lists three pairs at two sites. It is not known if the little ringed plover is currently under-recorded or whether there has been a real decline in the Suffolk breeding population.
“Our survey is needed to assess the current population of both species in Suffolk. We will use this information to work with the Suffolk Little Tern Group and landowners to identify sites where we can focus actions to aid recovery.”
Volunteers have begun their fieldwork but reports of breeding ringed plovers or little ringed plovers can be sent to Mr Harvey at robin.harvey@rspb.org.uk or Mr Keeling at Keeling.chris@icloud.com
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here