# First-ever data on space use by breeding Whiskered Terns Chlidonias hybrida using bio-logging

Jean-Marc Paillisson, Alexandre Corbeau, Rémi Chambon, Françoise

Amélineau, Christophe de Franceschi, Océane Begassat, Laura Beau

► To cite this version:

Jean-Marc Paillisson, Alexandre Corbeau, Rémi Chambon, Françoise Amélineau, Christophe de Franceschi, et al.. First-ever data on space use by breeding Whiskered Terns Chlidonias hybrida using bio-logging. Bird Conservation International, 2026, 36, pp.e5. 10.1017/S0959270925100294. hal-05512252

HAL Id: hal-05512252

https://hal.science/hal-05512252v1

Submitted on 16 Feb 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
Short Communication

**Cite this article:** Paillisson J-M, Corbeau A, Chambon R, Amélineau F, De Franceschi C, Bégassat O, Beau L (2026). First-ever data on space use by breeding Whiskered Terns *Chlidonias hybrida* using bio-logging. *Bird Conservation International*, **36**, e5, 1–8
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959270925100294

Received: 02 December 2024

Revised: 02 December 2024

Accepted: 05 September 2025

**Keywords:**

Conservation; Foraging distance; Habitat selection; Marsh tern; Wetlands

**Corresponding author:**

Jean-Marc Paillisson;
Email: jean-marc.paillisson@univ-rennes.fr

First-ever data on space use by breeding
Whiskered Terns *Chlidonias hybrida* using
bio-logging

Jean-Marc Paillisson¹, Alexandre Corbeau¹, Rémi Chambon¹,
Françoise Amélineau¹, Christophe De Franceschi², Océane Bégassat¹ and
Laura Beau³

¹ECOBIO – Ecosystèmes, Biodiversité, Evolution, Université de Rennes, CNRS, 35042 Rennes, France; ²Centre d'Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive (CEFE), Université de Montpellier, CNRS, EPHE, IRD, 34090 Montpellier, France and ³Réserve Naturelle Nationale de Chérine, 36290 Saint-Michel-en-Brenne, France

Summary

Wetlands are critical ecosystems for many species of conservation concern, including migratory birds. These species face resource depletion and unpredictability in the context of global change and are expected to adjust their space use accordingly. Understanding how waterbirds use space and identifying their foraging needs are essential for guiding conservation efforts. Here, we present preliminary results on the fine-scale space use of a wetland flagship species, the Whiskered Tern *Chlidonias hybrida*, in La Brenne, a historical French breeding stronghold. The species is listed as 'Vulnerable' in France and breeds in only a few large wetlands. For the first time, we equipped four adult terns with miniature GPS tracking devices, providing unique, high-resolution data on their daily movements throughout the breeding season (i.e. pre-incubation, incubation, rearing, and post-breeding). Our results showed that most daily foraging trips did not exceed 2–3 km, resulting in relatively small home ranges (ranging from 2.00 km² to 14.95 km²). Values were higher during the post-breeding period (up to 8 km from the nest and home range size up to 74.45 km²). Furthermore, we found that Whiskered Terns remained faithful to their foraging areas throughout the season and preferentially foraged in ponds – especially those near their colony – compared with other potential foraging habitats. On average, 91% of foraging positions occurred in ponds and 9% in grasslands. We also provide practical details on bird capture and device attachment methods. Finally, this pioneering bio-logging study offers promising prospects for future research on the movement ecology of Whiskered Terns, which could be invaluable for their conservation.

Introduction

Wetlands are vital ecosystems for biodiversity, supporting many species of conservation concern that depend on them (Balian et al. 2008; Dudgeon et al. 2006; Williams et al. 2003). Although wetlands were the focus of the first global conservation treaty, the Ramsar Convention, adopted more than 50 years ago, it must be recognised that wetland degradation and loss continue globally, particularly in inland areas (Davidson 2014; Gardner et al. 2015; McInnes et al. 2020). Among the primary threats to wetland species are land reclamation for agricultural purposes and alterations in water use (Davidson 2014; Dudgeon et al. 2006). In this context, understanding how animals utilise space – especially their responses to the increasing unpredictability and depletion of food resources due to global change – becomes crucial (Grémillet and Boulinier 2009; Kingsford et al. 2010; Platteeuw et al. 2010; Ramírez et al. 2018).

Waterbirds are considered valuable flagship species for driving management actions aimed at wetland conservation because (1) they are highly sensitive to changes in wetland suitability due to their high position in the food chain (Amat and Green 2010; Chen et al. 2023; Sergio et al. 2008), and (2) they are more popular and extensively studied compared with other groups (Becker 2003; Green and Elmberg 2014; Hafner 1997). Among them, terns of the genus *Chlidonias* (also known as Marsh Terns) are long-distance migrants that breed in highly fragile, unpredictable, and sometimes ephemeral inland water-bodies (primarily fish-ponds and flooded grasslands), characterised by dynamic water budgets, some of which may dry out during the breeding season (Ledwoń et al. 2013; Paillisson et al. 2006; van der Winden et al. 2004). For instance, site occupancy studies have shown low site fidelity in the Black Tern *Chlidonias niger*, likely due to the considerable instability of wetland habitat conditions (Shephard et al. 2023). Meanwhile, little is known about the fine-scale space use by Marsh Terns during breeding (Chapman Mosher 1986; McKellar and Clements 2023), despite the fact that such data are crucial for designing

© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge
University Press on behalf of BirdLife
International. This is an Open Access article,
distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution licence (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which
permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and
reproduction, provided the original article is
properly cited.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

CAMBRIDGE
UNIVERSITY PRESS
effective conservation strategies (Allen and Singh 2016; Katzner and Arlettaz 2020). This knowledge gap is particularly relevant for the Whiskered Tern *Chlidonias hybrida*.

The Whiskered Tern is currently classified as 'Least Concern' globally, with a broad distribution and a population that is increasing, although with varying trends across countries (BirdLife International 2022). In France, where the study took place, the species is listed as 'Vulnerable' and breeds only in a few large wetland regions (MNHN et al. 2020). In the historical stronghold of La Brenne (central France), the Whiskered Tern has experienced a fluctuating demographic trend over the past four decades (Caupenne 2015), with a slight decline over the last 15 years (authors, unpublished data). In this area, the primary threats to Whiskered Terns are believed to be intensive fish-farming practices (which lead to a degradation of aquatic vegetation where the terns build their nest; Paillisson et al. 2006) and the alteration of pond water budget due to global change (Lledó et al. 2018; Rocamora and Yeatman-Berthelot 1999; and as noted in other waterbirds, Ma et al. 2010; Ramírez et al. 2018; Zhang et al. 2015).

To date, in the absence of more suitable methods, foraging habitats used by Whiskered Terns have been inferred either from the identification of prey (aquatic and terrestrial) delivered to partners or chicks at nest-sites, but without precise information about the actual foraging sites (e.g. Dostine and Morton 1989; Paillisson et al. 2007), or through direct observation of birds foraging in specific areas, but without knowing their colonies of origin (Ortiz Lledó 2016; Wiles and Worthington 1996). However, identifying foraging areas and understanding how they are used over time is critical from a conservation perspective. With advancements in bio-logging, particularly the reduction in the mass of solar-powered transmitters, it is now possible to study the movements of small terns (100–150 g) over extended periods (Buck et al. 2022; Martinović et al. 2019; Morten et al. 2022; Paton et al. 2020). Two recent studies explored space use in *Chlidonias* species: one in the Black Tern using satellite transmitters (McKellar and Clements 2023) and one in the Black-fronted Tern *Chlidonias albostriatus* using GPS-bond tooth transmitters (Gurney 2022), but no study has yet been conducted on the Whiskered Tern.

In the present study, we provide the first fine-scale tracks of Whiskered Terns during the breeding season, based on a small sample size. The main objective was to describe how individuals use space throughout the breeding season, considering a set of quantitative indicators (i.e. home range, foraging distance, habitat use and selection, and fidelity to foraging grounds) as reference data for comparison with future studies, and to propose some research questions that could be addressed with further bio-logging investigations. These, in turn, could contribute to conservation efforts.

## Methods

### Study area and fieldwork

La Brenne (46°46'N, 01°10'E), also known as the land of a thousand fish-ponds, contains approximately 4,000 fish-ponds embedded within a landscape predominantly made up of semi-natural grasslands, woodlands, and heathlands, covering a total of 580 km². Most of the ponds are privately owned and managed for fish farming and wildfowling (Trotignon et al. 1994). Ponds are typically drained every 7–10 years to maintain dykes and hydraulic works, and to facilitate the mineralisation of organic matter. Consequently, Whiskered Tern colonies establish in different ponds from year to year, depending on water levels and the development

of vegetation beds. During the breeding season of 2023, Whiskered Terns bred in 14 fish-ponds, totalling 835 pairs.

Four adult Whiskered Terns were captured at their nest during incubation in three distinct colonies using a tent trap. They were banded and equipped with solar-powered GPS-UHF transmitters (nanoFix GEO+RF) manufactured by Pathtrack® (Otley, UK). Details on capture and equipment (including practical recommendations for future studies) can be found in Supplementary material Appendix S1. Three body feathers were sampled for molecular sexing (Griffiths et al. 1998; two males and two females). To prevent battery depletion, knowing that birds roost at night, the tags were programmed to record one location every 30 minutes between 03h00 and 21h00 GMT (i.e. approximately one hour before sunrise and one hour after sunset). Archived data were periodically downloaded using a mobile station from the pond shoreline, 200–300 m from the focus nests.

### Phenology

The timing of breeding for each equipped individual was estimated based on the age of eggs at capture (Paillisson et al. 2007) (Appendix S1) and an average incubation duration of 21 days (Cramp 1985; Gochfeld and Burger 1996; authors' personal observations). Estimated hatching dates were validated through daily observations made around the hatching period from the pond shoreline using a telescope. Locations were thus categorised into four distinct periods, i.e. pre-incubation, incubation, rearing, and post-breeding – the latter being characterised by birds continuing to move around the colony pond after the rearing period – to explore space use by birds across time (Table 1).

Two birds (47420 and 47816) abandoned their respective nest the day after equipment deployment due to nest submersion following a severe thunderstorm. For these two birds, data presented below refer to renesting in a second colony.

### Space use descriptors

Raw data were filtered to remove aberrant locations using an 80 km/hour speed threshold filter (maximum flight speed calculated in Whiskered Terns; authors unpublished data) between consecutive locations (0–2.8% of the original data depending on the individual also including missing locations).

We first calculated the home range size for each bird and each breeding period using 95% kernel density estimates (KDE95 in km²) based on all available locations (Lambert-93 projected coordinate system). We then calculated the home range overlap between subsequent pairs of periods, for each bird, as a proxy for fidelity to grounds surrounding the colony, more specifically, the proportion of the smallest KDE95 (in %) shared with the second one. These two metrics are commonly used in conservation research (Fieberg and Kochanny 2005; Kie et al. 2010; Powell 2000). Finally, we calculated the distance to the nest (hereafter 'nest distance'), defined as the straight-line distance between the nest and each recorded location.

We then filtered locations associated with foraging occasions. Typically, the activity of breeders can be divided into nest attendance and foraging, the latter primarily involving shallow plunge diving or capturing prey from the water surface or from aquatic/terrestrial plants (Gwiazda and Ledwon 2015; Paillisson et al. 2006). Visual inspection of frequency histograms of nest distance revealed a first peak in distances under 25 m for each individual and each breeding period, which were assigned to nest attendance – both
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Tracking days (with the number of GPS fixes and % foraging locations in brackets) and home range sizes (95% kernel density estimates, KDE95 in km², with the maximum distance (in km) from the nest location) for the four equipped Whiskered Terns during the breeding periods. A dash (–) indicates that no tracking was available. Additional details on the method used to identify foraging positions are provided in the main text</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Descriptor</th><th rowspan="2">Bird identity</th><th rowspan="2">Colony</th><th colspan="4">Breeding periods</th></tr><tr><th>Pre-incubation</th><th>Incubation</th><th>Rearing</th><th>Post-breeding</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4">Tracking days (with the number of GPS and % foraging positions)</td><td>45756 (♀)</td><td>Ex-Chèvres</td><td>—</td><td>4 (125 / 42.4)</td><td>7 (224 / 46.9)</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>47524 (♀)</td><td>Ex-Chèvres</td><td>—</td><td>8 (162 / 25.9)</td><td>6 (202 / 19.8)</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>47420 (♂)</td><td>Grand Riau</td><td>8 (280 / 78.2)</td><td>23 (699 / 54.9)</td><td>—</td><td>5 (154 / 75.9)</td></tr><tr><td>47816 (♂)</td><td>Bignotoi</td><td>5 (172 / 59.3)</td><td>21 (705 / 59.1)</td><td>12 (406 / 71.4)</td><td>20 (699 / 91.3)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">KDE95 (with the maximum observed distance from the nest)</td><td>45756 (♀)</td><td>Ex-Chèvres</td><td>—</td><td>0.96 (2.65)</td><td>7.61 (7.15)</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>47524 (♀)</td><td>Ex-Chèvres</td><td>—</td><td>14.95 (13.72)</td><td>1.62 (2.93)</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>47420 (♂)</td><td>Grand Riau</td><td>4.34 (7.66)</td><td>6.07 (4.17)</td><td>—</td><td>74.45 (10.40)</td></tr><tr><td>47816 (♂)</td><td>Bignotoi</td><td>5.45 (5.79)</td><td>2.00 (3.52)</td><td>5.24 (7.64)</td><td>22.45 (11.13)</td></tr></tbody></table>

members of the pair share nest attendance (Chambon et al. 2020), though it cannot be excluded that birds may occasionally forage very close to their nests. In contrast, any location more than 25 m from the nest and located within ponds (even within the colony pond) or grasslands was considered a potential foraging position, based on a previous study (Latraube et al. 2006; see also the Discussion). Two data sources were used to characterise habitats: the water-body map of the Parc Naturel Régional de la Brenne (Parc Naturel Régional de la Brenne 2020) and the natural habitat map of the Indre department (CarHab, Cartographie des Habitats naturels; Bellenfant 2023). Accordingly, 4% of locations far from the nests did not match a foraging habitat (specifically woodlands and heathlands) and likely represented transient birds (birds flying between their nests and foraging areas). This selection resulted in, on average (mean ± SD), 20.4 ± 8.4 foraging positions per day and per bird during the breeding season (all birds combined).

We calculated two foraging descriptors. (1) The proportion (in %) of each habitat visited: ponds (including the pond where the colony is located and nearby ponds) and grasslands, for each bird across time. To detect habitat preferences, this proportion was compared with the proportion of ponds or grasslands (in %) in buffer areas centred on the nest with a radius corresponding to the maximum distance from the nest location observed during each breeding period (values are presented in Table 1). In practice, we randomly generated 10 times more locations in foraging habitats (pseudo presence) than observed foraging positions (as recommended by Fieberg et al. 2020) using the two aforementioned maps. (2) The mean nest distance (in km) for each habitat and breeding period (specifically, the mean of daily mean values to limit a possible sample size effect among individuals). This value was compared to the mean nest distance calculated from the randomly generated locations.

Due to small sample sizes, no statistical analyses were conducted; instead, we presented the main findings to stimulate further bio-logging research on the Whiskered Tern. All calculations were conducted in R (v.4.2.1.; R Core Team 2022) primarily using the packages amt (Signer et al. 2019), sf (Pebesma 2018; Pebesma and Bivand 2023) and sp (Bivand et al. 2013; Pebesma and Bivand 2005).

## Results

Overall, KDE95s were relatively restricted among individuals and throughout the season (ranging from 2.00 km² to 14.95 km²;

Table 1 and Figure 1), except during the post-breeding period when adults continued to return to their colony but travelled farther (22.45 km² and 74.45 km² for two individuals). KDE95 values varied across the season, but the small sample size prevented us from testing any particular trend (Table 1). In all cases, the overlap in the home range between subsequent periods was high, ranging from 82% to 100% (as shown in Figure 1). Additionally, for all individuals combined, 95% of the locations were on average within 1.87, 2.73, 2.96, and 8.15 km of the nests during rearing, pre-incubation, incubation, and post-breeding, respectively (mean daily nest distance for each bird is provided in Appendix S2).

Whiskered Terns foraged primarily within ponds across all periods (mean ± SD: 91 ± 4% (range: 85–96%)) of all foraging positions compared with 9 ± 4% (5–15%) in grasslands (Figure 2). They foraged particularly within the colony pond during incubation (63%, on average, 33–80% depending on the individual), compared with 33% (range: 32–34%) during chick rearing (Appendix S3). Whiskered Terns were much more frequently found foraging in ponds compared with the proportion of randomly generated locations in ponds throughout the season (observed: 85–96% vs randomly generated: 14–48%), while they were, complementarily, less frequently found in grasslands (observed: 4–15% vs randomly generated: 52–86%) (Figure 2).

Additionally, they foraged preferentially close to their colony compared with the distribution of foraging habitats in buffer areas (Figure 3; see also density plots in Appendix S4).

## Discussion

In the present study, we found that most of the daily nest distances of breeding Whiskered Terns did not exceed 2–3 km (up to 8 km during the post-breeding period), resulting in restricted home-range sizes, and that birds preferentially visited ponds close to their colony throughout the season. The small sample size, however, prevented the detection of a clear pattern in space use over time, though birds appeared to remain faithful to their foraging grounds near their colonies.

To date, no comparable bio-logging study on this species has been conducted. However, Gwiazda and Ledwon (2015) observed that Whiskered Terns foraged at distances up to 2 km from their colony in a Polish breeding area, which shares similarities with our study area (a complex of fish-ponds). Thus, the nest distance values observed in both regions are quite similar. Future research could
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Home ranges (95% kernel density estimates) of the four breeding Whiskered Terns across distinct breeding periods (when applicable): pre-incubation (orange), incubation (green), rearing (blue), and post-breeding (red). The nest location is marked by a black dot. Ponds (blue) and grasslands (green) are also shown on the maps.</figcaption></figure>

examine how different landscape types, particularly in terms of habitat composition and heterogeneity, influence the foraging behaviour of Whiskered Terns to better understand their habitat needs. For example, it is plausible that in wetland regions dominated by croplands, with a lower density of foraging habitats (such as ponds), birds might need to travel longer distances, crossing unsuitable areas, to reach more fragmented foraging sites (Evens et al. 2018; McKellar and Clements 2023). We encourage further studies to investigate this issue and assess its potential impact on the breeding success of Whiskered Terns. The only documented data on daily nest distances in *Chlidonias* species come from studies on Black Terns and Black-fronted Terns. For Black Terns, nest distances ranged from a mean of 2.4 km (Chapman Mosher 1986, based on visual tracking of nesting birds) to 8.9 km (McKellar and Clements 2023, using bio-logging). These findings suggest that foraging distances in Black Terns are likely site-specific and are strongly influenced by the spatial arrangement of suitable foraging habitats. Similarly, for Black-fronted Terns, nest distances varied across colonies, with mean values ranging from 3.8 km to 7.9 km (Gurney 2022). These results align with the idea that landscape features may influence the movements of breeding Marsh Terns, as

previously discussed. Consequently, future research is needed to better understand the habitat requirements of this central-place forager during nesting, as its foraging range is likely constrained by their need to return to their colony (as observed in other terns; Catlin et al. 2024; Morten et al. 2022; Peterson et al. 2018).

The fact that Whiskered Terns remained largely faithful to foraging areas close to their colonies throughout the breeding season suggests that the surrounding area is sufficiently suitable to meet their needs, even during chick rearing. This observation is consistent with findings in the Caspian Tern *Hydroprogne caspia* (Beal et al. 2021). Notably, Whiskered Terns foraged primarily in ponds (91% of all foraging positions), which likely offered both preferred and more predictable prey compared with grasslands. This interpretation is supported by the fact that aquatic prey constitutes most of the diet of Whiskered Terns: 96% of visually identified prey brought back to the nests during chick-rearing are fish, amphibians or aquatic invertebrates (see Appendix S5) (Dostine and Morton 1989; Gwiazda and Ledwon 2015). In contrast, most grasslands were mown during chick rearing, a practice known to reduce the availability and accessibility of food resources (Atkinson et al. 2004; Vickery et al. 2001). Moreover, invertebrate
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Variation in the percentage of foraging positions occurring in ponds for the four Whiskered Terns across breeding periods. Recorded locations are represented in black, while randomly generated locations are in grey. Values for grasslands, the second foraging habitat (not shown), can be inferred visually.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** Comparison of nest distances between recorded (black) and potential (randomly generated, grey) foraging locations within ponds across breeding periods.</figcaption></figure>
prey in agricultural areas may offer lower energy or require greater time investment compared with fish, making them less optimal for successful chick-rearing (Baert et al. 2021; Ledwoń and Neubauer 2017). This could explain why Whiskered Terns only visited grasslands opportunistically.

Remaining faithful to a small area around the colony, as we observed, offers several advantages: (1) access to social information from neighbouring conspecifics regarding high-quality foraging areas (Cecere et al. 2018; Wakefield et al. 2013,); (2) familiarity with the area, which likely increases foraging efficiency (Ramellini et al. 2022; Rebstock et al. 2022); (3) reduced energetic costs compared with long foraging trips (Si et al. 2011). Additionally, breeding success in small terns is known to depend on the proximity of productive foraging areas (Perrow et al. 2011, for the Little Tern *Sternula albifrons*). Our findings may support this notion, suggesting that wetland regions with a high density of suitable ponds are beneficial for Whiskered Terns, as they do not need to travel far from their nests to find food. In contrast, long foraging distances, as observed in Black Terns (McKellar and Clements 2023), may be linked to the search for high-quality prey that is not available closer to the colony.

Sex-specific differences in space use may also exist in Whiskered Terns, as documented in other bird species exhibiting sexual size dimorphism (Camphuysen et al. 2015; González-Solís et al. 2000; Gurney 2022; Quinn 1990). Notably, sexual dimorphism is more pronounced in Whiskered Terns than in other tern species (especially in terms of head and bill size; Ledwoń 2011). This could explain potential differences in foraging niches between males and females (Dostine and Morton 1989; Gwiazda and Ledwon 2015). Such differences may also arise from sex-related reproductive behaviours. For example, females generally exhibit greater nest attendance during nest building and incubation (Chambon et al. 2020), which may make them less mobile than males, leading to less selective foraging and potentially shorter foraging distances. Sex-related differences in foraging behaviour could also vary with individual traits (e.g. body mass) or brood size/age (Gwiazda et al. 2017), but this issue requires further investigation. Unfortunately, our data set was too small to explore these aspects.

Another limitation of our study was the assumption that all locations beyond the nest-site corresponded to foraging behaviours (except those that did not match a foraging habitat). While this assumption is likely accurate, the relative short distances to the nests and the 30-minute GPS fix interval made it difficult to distinguish between different behaviours (e.g. resting, foraging or travelling). More refined movement models (e.g. path-segmentation models; McClintock and Michelot 2018) could help to better identify foraging behaviour based on speed and turning angle, but this would require higher-frequency data acquisition.

Looking ahead, additional bio-logging studies are necessary to (1) validate our preliminary findings on the space use of breeding Whiskered Terns at a fine spatial scale and (2) test the speculations presented here to improve our understanding of their habitat needs. Such data are crucial for informing conservation strategies. Current conservation efforts focus on preserving ponds with vegetation to support breeding colonies, but there is still a lack of detailed knowledge regarding the space use of Whiskered Terns around these colonies. Gaining reliable information on key questions – such as how far breeders travel daily, which foraging areas are critical, and which factors influence breeding productivity – will be essential for guiding effective conservation measures. This could include actions such as habitat protection, agri-environmental schemes, and other interventions to improve foraging opportunities.

In conclusion, this study provides unique insights into the daily movements of breeding Whiskered Terns using high-resolution bio-logging, marking the first step in exploring their movement ecology during the breeding season with the goal of informing conservation efforts. Furthermore, understanding the species' itin-erance outside the breeding season, including migration routes and potential staging and wintering areas (which remain poorly under-stood), is critical for developing a comprehensive conservation strategy across the full annual cycle (Marra et al. 2015). Again, bio-logging will be invaluable for exploring these aspects.

**Supplementary material.** The supplementary material for this article can be found at http://doi.org/10.1017/S0959270925100294.

**Acknowledgements.** We are grateful to Vivien Airault (Parc Naturel Régional de la Brenne) who provided us with the map of water-bodies of La Brenne. We also thank Marie-Claire Martin (PEM platform, ECOBIO) who molecularly sexed birds, and Guillaume Abraham and Nicolas Rodet Heuze for their help during fieldwork, specifically in collecting behavioural observations during the rearing period. This study was made possible thanks to the unconditional support of the Réserve naturelle nationale de Chérine. This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. This study meets the legal and ethical requirements of capturing, handling, and attaching GPS tags from the Centre de Recherches sur la Biologie des Popula-tions d'Oiseaux (Licence number 432). Capture permit was delivered to L.B., A.C. and C.D.F. The data are available from the corresponding author upon request.

## References

Allen A.M. and Singh N.J. (2016). Linking movement ecology with wildlife management and conservation. *Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution* 3, 155. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2015.00155

Amat J.A. and Green A.J. (2010). Waterbirds as bioindicators of environmental conditions. In Hurford C., Schneider M. and Cowx I. (eds), *Conservation Monitoring in Freshwater Habitats*. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9278-7_5

Atkinson P.W., Buckingham D. and Morris A.J. (2004). What factors determine where invertebrate-feeding birds forage in dry agricultural grasslands? *Ibis* **146**, 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2004.00346.x

Baert J.M., Stienen E.W.M., Verbruggen F., Van de Weghe N., Lens L. and Müller W. (2021). Context-dependent specialisation drives temporal dynam-ics in intra- and inter-individual variation in foraging behaviour within a generalist bird population. *Oikos* **130**, 1272–1283. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.08067

Balian E.V., Segers H., Martens K. and Lévêque C. (2008). The freshwater animal diversity assessment: an overview of the results. In Balian E.V., Lévêque C., Segers H. and Martens K. (eds). Freshwater Animal Diversity Assessment. Developments in Hydrobiology, vol. **198**. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 627–637. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8259-7_61

Beal M., Byholm P., Lötberg U., Evans T., Shiomi K. and Akesson S. (2021). Habitat selection and foraging site fidelity in Caspian Terns (Hydroprogne caspia) breeding in the Baltic Sea. *Ornis Fennica* **98**, 128–141. https://doi.org/10.5182/of.113445

Becker P.H. (2003). Biomonitoring with birds. In Markert B.A., Breure A.M. and Zechmeister H.G. (eds), *Bioindicators & Biomonitors: Trace Metals and Other Contaminants in the Environment*. Vol **6**. Oxford: Elsevier Science, pp. 677–736. https://doi.org/10.1016/S09275215(03)80149-2

Bellenfant S. (2023). Carte et Notice CarHab de l'Indre (36) - Programme de Cartographie Nationale des Habitats Naturels et Semi-naturels. MTECT, OFB, MNHN, IGN, CBN du Bassin Parisien, EVS UMR 5600 Université Jean Monnet Saint-Etienne, PatriNat (OFB - MNHN - CNRS - IRD). Available at https://inpn.mnhn.fr/viewer-carto/CarHab/ (accessed 21 November 2024).

BirdLife International (2022). *European Red List of Birds*. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Commission. Available at
https://www.birdlife.ch/sites/default/files/documents/RedList_BirdLife_pub
lication.pdf (accessed 21 November 2024).

Bivand R.S., Pebesma E.J. and Gómez-Rubio V. (2013). *Applied Spatial Data Analysis with R*. New York: Springer.

Buck E.J., Sullivan J.D., Teitelbaum C.S., Brinker D.F., McGowan P.C. and Prosser D.J. (2022). An evaluation of transmitter effects on adult and juvenile Common Terns using leg-loop harness attachments. *Journal of Field Ornithology* **93**, article 3. https://doi.org/10.5751/JFO-00136-930403

Camphuysen K.C.J., Shamoun-Baranes J., van Loon E.E. and Bouten W. (2015).
Sexually distinct foraging strategies in an omnivorous seabird. *Marine Biol-
ogy* **162**, 1417–1428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-015-2678-9

Catlin D.H., Gibson D., Hunt K.L., Weithman C.E., Boettcher R., Gwynn R. et al. (2024). Movement patterns of foraging common terns (*Sterna hirundo*) breeding in an urban environment in coastal Virginia. *PLOS ONE* **19**, e0304769. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304769

Caupenne M. (2015). Guifette moustac. In Issa N. (ed.), *Atlas des Oiseaux de France Métropolitaine: Nidification et Présence Hivernale*. Paris: Delachaux et Niestlé, pp. 650–652.

Cecere J.G., Bondi S., Podofillini S., Imperio S., Griggio M., Fulco E. et al. (2018). Spatial segregation of home ranges between neighbouring colonies in a diurnal raptor. *Scientific Reports* **8**, 11762. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-29933-2

Chambon R., Latraube F., Bretagnolle V. and Paillisson J.-M. (2020). Sex-specific contributions to reproduction in Whiskered Tern *Chlidonias hybrida* colonies of varying breeding density. *Ardeola* **67**, 113–125. https://doi.org/10.13157/arla.67.1.2020.sc6

Chapman Mosher B.-A. (1986). Factors Influencing Reproductive Success and Nesting Strategies in Black Terns. PhD dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia.

Chen J., Li C., Wu C., Sun X., Feng X., Zhao J. et al. (2023). Top-down control of macrofauna: Are waterbirds passengers or drivers in wetlands? *Biological Conservation* **279**, 109903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.109903

Cramp S. (1985). The Birds of the Western Palearctic. Vol. IV. Terns to Woodpeckers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Davidson N. (2014). How much wetland has the world lost? Long-term and recent trends in global wetland area. *Marine and Freshwater Research* **65**, 934–941. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF14173

Dostine P. and Morton S. (1989). Feeding ecology of the whiskered tern,
*Chlidonias-Hybrida*, in the Alligator Rivers Region, Northern-Territory.
*Wildlife Research* **16**, 549–562. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR9890549

Dudgeon D., Arthington A.H., Gessner M.O., Kawabata Z.-I., Knowler D.J., Lévêque C. et al. (2006). Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. *Biological Reviews* **81**, 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1464793105006950

Evens R., Beenaerts N., Neyens T., Witters N., Smeets K. and Artois T. (2018). Proximity of breeding and foraging areas affects foraging effort of a crepuscular, insectivorous bird. *Scientific Reports* **8**, 3008. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-21321-0

Fieberg J. and Kochanny C.O. (2005). Quantifying home-range overlap: the importance of the utilization distribution. *The Journal of Wildlife Management* **69**, 1346–1359. https://doi.org/10.2193/0022-541X(2005)69[1346:QHOTIO]2.0.CO;2

Fieberg J., Signer J., Smith B. and Avgar T. (2020). A 'How to' guide for interpreting parameters in habitat-selection analyses. *Journal of Animal Ecology* **90**, 1027–1043. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.13441

Gardner R.C., Barchiesi S., Beltrame C., Finlayson C., Galewski T., Harrison I. et al. (2015). State of the world's wetlands and their services to people: a compilation of recent analyses. *Ramsar Briefing Note* No. 7. Gland: Ramsar Convention Secretariat. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2589447

Gochfeld M. and Burger J. (1996). Family Sternidae (Terns). In del Hoyo J., Elliott A. and Sargatal J. (eds), *Handbook of the Birds of the World, Vol. 3: Hoatzin to Auk*. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions, pp. 624–667.

González-Solís J., Croxall J.P. and Wood A.G. (2000). Sexual dimorphism and sexual segregation in foraging strategies of northern giant petrels, *Macro-*
*nectes halli*, during incubation. *Oikos* **90**, 390–398. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.900220.x

Green A.J. and Elmberg J. (2014). Ecosystem services provided by waterbirds. *Biological Reviews* **89**, 105–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12045

Grémillet D. and Boulinier T. (2009). Spatial ecology and conservation of seabirds facing global climate change: a review. *Marine Ecology Progress Series* **391**, 121–138.

Griffiths R., Double M.C., Orr K. and Dawson R.J.G. (1998). A DNA test to sex most birds. *Molecular Ecology* **7**, 1071–1075. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294x.1998.000389.x

Gurney F.E. (2022). Breeding Movements and Post-breeding Dispersal of Black-fronted terns/Taraproche (*Chlidonias alostriatus*) in the Mackenzie Basin. MSc thesis, Lincoln University, New Zealand.

Gwiazda R. and Ledwon M. (2015). Sex-specific foraging behaviour of the Whiskered Tern (Chlidonias hybrida) during the breeding season. *Ornis Fennica* **92**, 15–22. https://doi.org/10.51812/of.133864

Gwiazda R., Ledwoń M. and Neubauer G. (2017). Sex-specific foraging behav-
iour of adult Whiskered Terns *Chlidonias hybrida* in response to body mass
and offspring age. *Acta Ornithologica* **52**, 81–92. https://doi.org/10.3161/
00016454AO2017.52.1.008

Hafner H. (1997). Ecology of wading birds. *Colonial Waterbirds* **20**, 115–120.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1521773

Katzner T.E. and Arlettaz R. (2020). Evaluating contributions of recent tracking-based animal movement ecology to conservation management. *Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution* **7**. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00519

Kie J.G., Matthiopoulos J., Fieberg J., Powell R.A., Cagnacci F., Mitchell M.S. et al. (2010). The home-range concept: are traditional estimators still relevant with modern telemetry technology? *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences* **365**, 2221–2231. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0093

Kingsford R., Roshier D. and Porter J. (2010). Australian waterbirds – time and space travellers in dynamic desert landscapes. *Marine and Freshwater Research* **61**, 875–884. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF09088

Latraube F., Trotignon J. and Bretagnolle V. (2006). Biologie de la reproduc-
tion de la Guifette moustac *Childonias hybridus* en Brenne. *Alauda* **73**,
425–429.

Ledwoń M. (2011). Sexual size dimorphism, assortative mating and sex identi-
fication in the Whiskered Tern *Chlidonias hybrida*. *Ardea* **99**, 191–198.
https://doi.org/10.5253/078.099.0209

Ledwoń M. and Neubauer G. (2017). Offspring desertion and parental care in the Whiskered Tern *Chlidonias hybrida* breeding in southern Poland. *Journal of Ornithology* **154**, 633–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-012-0926-z

Ledwoń M., Neubauer G. and Betleja J. (2013). Adult and pre-breeding survival estimates of the Whiskered Tern *Chlidonias hybrida* breeding in southern Poland. *Journal of Ornithology* **154**, 633–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-012-0926-z

Lledó Á.O., Mateo J.V. and Moliner V.U. (2018). Reproductive success of Whiskered Tern *Chlidonias hybrida* in eastern Spain in relation to water level variation. *PeerJ* **6**, e4548. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4548

Ma Z., Cai Y., Li B. and Chen J. (2010). Managing wetland habitats for waterbirds: An international perspective. *Wetlands* **30**, 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-009-0001-6

Marra P.P., Cohen E.B., Loss S.R., Rutter J.E. and Tonra C.M. (2015). A call for full annual cycle research in animal ecology. *Biology Letters* **11**, 20150552. https://doi.org/10.1098/rslb.2015.0552

Martinović M., Galov A., Svetličić I., Tome D., Jurinović L., Ječmenica B. et al. (2019). Prospecting of breeding adult Common terns in an unstable environment. *Ethology Ecology & Evolution* **31**, 457–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/03949370.2019.1625952

McClintock B.T. and Michelot T. (2018). momentuHMM: R package for generalized hidden Markov models of animal movement. *Methods in Ecology and Evolution* **9**, 1518–1530. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12995

McInnes R.J., Davidson N.C., Rostron C.P., Simpson M. and Finlayson C.M. (2020). A citizen science state of the world's wetlands survey. *Wetlands* **40**, 1577–1593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-020-01267-8

McKellar A.E. and Clements S.J. (2023). First-ever satellite tracking of Black Terns (*Chlidonias niger*): Insights into home range and habitat selection. *Ecology and Evolution* **13**, e10716. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.10716

Morten J.M., Burgos J.M., Collins L., Maxwell S.M., Morin E.-J., Parr N. et al. (2022). Foraging behaviours of breeding arctic terns *Sterna paradisaea* and the impact of local weather and fisheries. *Frontiers in Marine Science* **8**, 760670. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.760670
Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle (MNHN) (2020). IUCN Comité français, LPO, SEOF, and OFB. *La Liste Rouge des Espèces Menacées en France – Chapitre des Oiseaux Nicheurs de France Métropolitaine*. Rapport d'évaluation. Paris: MNHN.

Ortiz Lledó A. (2016). Ecología del Fumarel Caribanco (*Chlidonias hybrida*) en el Parque Natural del Marjal de Pego-Oliva y Otros Humedales de la Comunidad Valenciana, España. Thesis, Universidad de Alicante. http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text

Paillisson J.-M., Reeber S., Carpentier A. and Marion L. (2006). Plant-water regime management in a wetland: consequences for a floating vegetation-nesting bird, whiskered tern *Chlidonias hybridus*. *Biodiversity & Conservation* **15**, 3469–3480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-004-2939-2

Paillisson J.-M., Reeber S., Carpentier A. and Marion L. (2007). Reproductive parameters in relation to food supply in the whiskered tern (*Chlidonias hybrida*). *Journal of Ornithology* **148**, 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-006-0102-4

Parc Naturel Régional de Brenne (2020). Toponymie Partagée des Plans d'eau du Parc Naturel Régional de la Brenne. Available at https://www.parc-naturel-brenne.fr/images/phocagallery/fichiers/CartoPE_PNRB_2020/#10/46.6617/1.2415 (accessed 31 July 2024).

Paton P.W.C., Loring P.H., Cormons G.D., Meyer K.D., Williams S. and Welch L.J. (2020). Fate of Common (*Sterna hirundo*) and Roseate Terns (*S. dougallii*) with satellite transmitters attached with backpack harnesses. *Waterbirds* **43**, 342–347. https://doi.org/10.1675/063.043.0315

Pebesma E. (2018). Simple features for R: standardized support for spatial vector data. *The R Journal* **10**, 439–446. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2018-009

Pebesma E. and Bivand R. (2005). Classes and methods for spatial data in R. *R News* **5**, 9–13. https://CRAN.R-project.org/doc/Rnews/

Pebesma E. and Bivand R. (2023). *Spatial Data Science: With Applications in R*. New York: Chapman and Hall/CRC. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429459016

Perrow M.R., Gilroy J.J., Skeate E.R. and Tomlinson M.L. (2011). Effects of the construction of Scroby Sands offshore wind farm on the prey base of Little tern *Sternula albifrons* at its most important UK colony. *Marine Pollution Bulletin* **62**, 1661–1670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.06.010

Peterson S.H., Ackerman J.T., Eagles-Smith C.A., Herzog M.P. and Hartman C. A. (2018). Prey fish returned to Forster's tern colonies suggest spatial and temporal differences in fish composition and availability. *PLOS ONE* **13**, e0193430. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193430

Platteeuw M., Foppen R.P.B. and Erden M.R. van (2010). The need for future wetland bird studies: scales of habitat use as input for ecological restoration and spatial water management. *Ardea* **98**, 403–416. https://doi.org/10.5253/078.098.0314

Powell R.A. (2000). Animal home ranges and territories and home range estimators. In Boitani L. and Fuller T. (eds), *Research Techniques in Animal Ecology: Controversies and Consequences*. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 65–110.

Quinn J.S. (1990). Sexual size dimorphism and parental care patterns in a monomorphic and a dimorphic larid. *The Auk* **107**, 260–274. https://doi.org/10.2307/4087608

R Core Team (2022). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/

Ramellini S., Imperio S., Morinay J., De Pascalis F., Catoni C., Morganti M. et al. (2022). Individual foraging site fidelity increases from incubation to nestling rearing in a colonial bird. *Animal Behaviour* **193**, 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2022.07.014

Ramírez F., Rodríguez C., Seane J., Figuerola J. and Bustamante J. (2018). How will climate change affect endangered Mediterranean waterbirds? *PLOS ONE* **13**, e0192702. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192702

Rebstock G.A., Abrahms B. and Boersma P.D. (2022). Site fidelity increases reproductive success by increasing foraging efficiency in a marine predator. *Behavioral Ecology* **33**, 868–875. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arac052

Rocamura G. and Yeatman-Berthelot D. (1999). Guifette moustac. In *Oiseaux Menacés et à Surveiller en France: Listes Rouges et Recherche de Priorités*. Paris: Société d'Etudes Ornithologiques de France (SEOF-LPO), pp. 400–401.

Sergio F., Caro T., Brown D., Clucas B., Hunter J., Ketchum J. et al. (2008). Top predators as conservation tools: ecological rationale, assumptions, and efficacy. *Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics* **39**, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173545

Shephard N.G., Szczys P., Moore D.J., Reudink M.W., Costa J.N., Bracey A.M. et al. (2023). Weak genetic structure, shared nonbreeding areas, and extensive movement in a declining waterbird. *Ornithological Applications* **125**, duac053. https://doi.org/10.1093/ornithapp/duac053

Si Y., Skidmore A.K., Wang T., Boer W.F. de, Toxopeus A.G., Schlerf M. et al. (2011). Distribution of Barnacle Geese *Branta leucopsis* in relation to food resources, distance to roosts, and the location of refuges. *Ardea* **99**, 217–226. https://doi.org/10.5253/078.099.0212

Signer J., Fieberg J. and Avgar T. (2019). Animal movement tools (amt): R package for managing tracking data and conducting habitat selection analyses. *Ecology and Evolution* **9**, 880–890. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4823

Trotignon J., Williams T. and Hémery G. (1994). Reproduction et dynamique des colonies de la population des guifettes moustacs *Chlidonias hybrida* de la Brenne. *Alauda* **62**, 89–104.

van der Winden J., Beintema A.J. and Heemskerk L. (2004). Habitat-related Black Tern *Chlidonias niger* breeding success in The Netherlands. *Ardea* **91**, 53–62.

Vickery J.A., Tallowin J.R., Feber R.E., Asteraki E.J., Atkinson P.W., Fuller R.J. et al. (2001). The management of lowland neutral grasslands in Britain: effects of agricultural practices on birds and their food resources. *Journal of Applied Ecology* **38**, 647–664. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2001.00626.x

Wakefield E.D., Bodey T.W., Bearhop S., Blackburn J., Colhoun K., Davies R. et al. (2013). Space partitioning without territoriality in gannets. *Science* **341**, 68–70. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1236077

Wiles G. and Worthington D. (1996). Mixed flocks of White-winged Terns and Whiskered Terns in the southern Mariana Islands. *Micronesica* **28**, 203–206.

Williams P., Whitfield M., Biggs J., Bray S., Fox G., Nicolet P. et al. (2003). Comparative biodiversity of rivers, streams, ditches and ponds in an agricultural landscape in Southern England. *Biological Conservation* **115**, 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00153-8

Zhang D., Zhou L. and Song Y. (2015). Effect of water level fluctuations on temporal-spatial patterns of foraging activities by the wintering Hooded Crane (*Grus monacha*). *Avian Research* **6**, 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40657-015-0026-x