Conservation and Management

Effects Of Human Activity

Prior to Migratory Bird Convention in 1916, large numbers likely shot by market hunters on Atlantic Coast of North America. No estimates available, because Least Sandpipers were lumped together with other small sandpipers. Numbers apparently increased in subsequent years (Bent 1927), i.e., more than 4-fold for breeders on Magdalen I., Quebec (Philipp 1925).

Destruction or alteration of wetlands, both coastal and inland, are primary concerns at migration and wintering sites, whereas general environmental contamination and disturbance are of more general concern (Senner and Howe 1984). New management directions on Queen Charlotte Is. threaten destruction of good breeding habitat (JMC).

Effect of climate change poorly understood. Timing of egg-laying, decision to breed, and chick-growth period most affected by variation in weather. Increasing temperatures may benefit Arctic-breeding shorebirds in the short term, but in the long term habitat changes on breeding, staging and winter grounds may put shorebird populations under considerable pressure (Meltofte et al. in review).

Management

Current management initiatives are primarily research and protection of general shorebird habitat from destruction (Senner and Howe 1984). Least Sandpiper not targeted for specific management because of widespread distribution and difficulty in separating from other small calidridines during surveys; areas of concentrations difficult to identify.

In general, northern-breeding shorebirds are linked to a series of sites throughout their annual cycle. Although breeding may occur over wide geographic regions, migratory staging areas and wintering areas are concentrated, often with great distances between. Management initiatives to protect such staging areas (e.g., Western Hemispheric Reserve Network) are crucial to long-term maintenance of Least Sandpiper populations (Myers et al. 1987).

Midcontinental wet-mud/shallow-water wetlands used by shorebirds during migration are widely dispersed and of unpredictable quality (Hands et al. 1991, Skagen and Knopf 1993). But because shorebirds are capable of locating habitat opportunistically (Skagen and Knopf 1994), and because larger habitats are easier to find than smaller ones, there is potential for creating optimal shorebird habitat. Manipulation of impounded inland waterbodies during migration periods by drawing down water at a slow, regular rate to create fresh muddy habitat may provide optimal feeding conditions and supplemental habitat to partially compensate for loss or drying of natural wetlands (Smith et al. 1991).