Despite the prevalence of forest disturbances, their effects on bird abundance are poorly understood on a continental scale. Near future harvest rates and natural disturbances will likely increase, thus quantifying the influence of disturbances on biodiversity is increasingly important to plan conservation. We studied the influence of forest disturbances on the abundance of 107 bird species across 25 European countries between 2000 and 2022. We explored the response of birds associated with different habitats, the influence of forest cover and time since the disturbance, comparing results at continental and regional scales. 95 species responded significantly to disturbances, mostly negatively. Forest-associated birds responded mostly negatively, while shrub and edge birds showed a higher proportion of positive responses. Open habitat birds had few statistically significant responses with mixed directions. Forest cover negatively influenced the effect of disturbance on abundance. Responses varied among regions, reflecting differences in community composition and landscape characteristics. Importantly, for 21% of species the response direction changed between region and/or forest cover. These findings suggest that forest disturbances, dominated by clear-cut harvesting, exert a mostly negative influence on birds across Europe, requiring adaptive forest management strategies for avian conservation.

Addressing the threat posed by the exploitation of migratory species is challenging because many move across national boundaries. To inform directions to tackle this threat for migratory species in the most threatened group of birds, seabirds, we conducted a global literature review to evaluate the scale and drivers of intentional take of migratory seabirds (318 of 365 species). The review follows the recent recognition that “hunting and trapping” is the fourth biggest threat to seabirds, and that the nature and severity of seabird take are poorly understood. We investigated reported population impacts, any reporting, management or enforcement measures in place, and any health risks associated with consuming seabirds. Across at least 56 countries/territories, 105 migratory species are subject to take, with adults and eggs taken most. The majority of documented take is legal or of unknown legal status and is conducted by Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLC) for subsistence. Illegal take was primarily associated with poachers and fishers. A minority of records included data on the number of birds taken or the presence of management or enforcement mechanisms. While seldom documented, some seabird populations subject to take are in decline or have been extirpated. Human health risks were typically associated with IPLCs consuming seabirds with heavy metals. Similarly for other migratory species, key knowledge and governance gaps to understand and manage seabird take include review of species action plans, listing of species on appendices of international agreements, co-management of harvest sites, and improving monitoring to facilitate evidence-based conservation action.

The incidental capture (bycatch) of seabirds is a global conservation issue and a top threat to European species that demands urgent conservation and management action. Here, we present the first European review of seabird bycatch data, considering all fishing gears and data collection methods available in the region. We calculate seabird bycatch numbers per species, family, country and European marine region and assess the reliability of the data available. The cumulative bycatch estimate extracted from this review suggests that about 195,000 seabirds (ranging from around 130,000 to 380,000) are bycaught in European waters annually. The most affected seabird species is the Common Guillemot Uria aalge with over 31,000 birds killed per year. The marine region with the highest bycatch estimate is the Northeast Atlantic (over 115,000 seabirds year−1). Gillnet fisheries are responsible for the highest bycatch levels, with over 95,000 seabirds year−1, followed by longline fisheries. The families most affected by bycatch are Anatidae and Alcidae. These numbers are likely an underestimation since we were unable to find bycatch estimates, or to extrapolate estimates from available bycatch data for 12 (out of 34) European coastal states. Our assessment also identified significant data gaps in key areas such as Gran Sol (in the north‐east Atlantic), the central and Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea. Combining systematic data collection with immediate implementation of mitigation measures will be crucial to fill in knowledge gaps, reduce current mortality levels and meet international conservation commitments such as those of the European Union and the Convention on Migratory Species.

Plastic pollution is distributed patchily around the world's oceans. Likewise, marine organisms that are vulnerable to plastic ingestion or entanglement have uneven distributions. Understanding where wildlife encounters plastic is crucial for targeting research and mitigation. Oceanic seabirds, particularly petrels, frequently ingest plastic, are highly threatened, and cover vast distances during foraging and migration. However, the spatial overlap between petrels and plastics is poorly understood. Here we combine marine plastic density estimates with individual movement data for 7137 birds of 77 petrel species to estimate relative exposure risk. We identify high exposure risk areas in the Mediterranean and Black seas, and the northeast Pacific, northwest Pacific, South Atlantic and southwest Indian oceans. Plastic exposure risk varies greatly among species and populations, and between breeding and non-breeding seasons. Exposure risk is disproportionately high for Threatened species. Outside the Mediterranean and Black seas, exposure risk is highest in the high seas and Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of the USA, Japan, and the UK. Birds generally had higher plastic exposure risk outside the EEZ of the country where they breed. We identify conservation and research priorities, and highlight that international collaboration is key to addressing the impacts of marine plastic on wide-ranging species.

1. An increasing number of species are facing unprecedented levels of threat to their long-term survival due to the direct and indirect impacts of climate change. Key opportunities for science to inform wildlife management are linked to increasing our understanding of how changes in climatic conditions will impact species, as well as whether, and how, managers may facilitate species' ability to adapt to change. However, information on species' climate change vulnerability and the effectiveness of potential conservation actions are not yet strategically collected or collated; this disconnect between threat level, ecological research and conservation practice is reducing the opportunities to guide decision-making, ultimately hindering conservation outcomes. 2. To demonstrate this point, we explore how existing knowledge can be brought together in a pressure-state-response framework that connects climate change ecology, conservation evidence assessments and management. Seabirds in Western Europe are used as a case study, as they are well-researched and vulnerable to climate change. Using a combination of literature reviews and surveys, we identify the main threats posed to seabirds in the region by climate change, as well as existing conservation actions that could be applied to lessen the impacts of each of these threats. 3. Our results show that 29% of the types of actions considered for reducing the impacts of climate change on seabirds are either associated with conflicting evidence or lack sufficient information to make robust conclusions about their effectiveness: actions aiming at restoring or creating habitat, encouraging relocation, treating or preventing disease, and reducing inter-species competition all have limited or mixed evidence to support their use. Moreover, several threats identified by conservation practitioners as being of high priority to address, such as changes in prey abundance and eutrophication, have few or no viable identified actions to reduce their impact on seabirds. 4. Synthesis and applications. We suggest that existing knowledge on species vulnerability to climate change and evidence of conservation action effectiveness should be more commonly brought together in tailored pressure-state-response frameworks. Such an approach provides an easily transferable platform for identifying missing information and areas where connections between research and management need to be tightened to improve conservation outcomes.

The conservation of migratory marine species, including pelagic seabirds, is challenging because their movements span vast distances frequently beyond national jurisdictions. Here, we aim to identify important aggregations of seabirds in the North Atlantic to inform ongoing regional conservation efforts. Using tracking, phenology, and population data, we mapped the abundance and diversity of 21 seabird species. This revealed a major hotspot associated with a discrete area of the subpolar frontal zone, used annually by 2.9–5 million seabirds from ≥56 colonies in the Atlantic: the first time this magnitude of seabird concentrations has been documented in the high seas. The hotspot is temporally stable and amenable to site‐based conservation and is under consideration as a marine protected area by the OSPAR Commission. Protection could help mitigate current and future threats facing species in the area. Overall, our approach provides an exemplar data‐driven pathway for future conservation efforts on the high seas.

Around fifteen thousand fieldworkers annually count breeding birds using standardized protocols in 28 European countries. The observations are collected by using country-specific and standardized protocols, validated, summarized and finally used for the production of continent-wide annual and long-term indices of population size changes of 170 species. Here, we present the database and provide a detailed summary of the methodology used for fieldwork and calculation of the relative population size change estimates. We also provide a brief overview of how the data are used in research, conservation and policy. We believe this unique database, based on decades of bird monitoring alongside the comprehensive summary of its methodology, will facilitate and encourage further use of the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme results.

The Birds and Habitats Directive ensure the conservation of a wide range of rare, threatened or endemic animal and plant species as well as characteristic habitat types in Europe.In reporting both directives use 'distance to target' measures regarding conservation status.The Habitats Directive considers explicit favourable reference values while the Birds Directive requires to maintain bird populations at a level which corresponds to their ecological, scientific and cultural requirements.This report presents a common methodology for setting favourable reference values for features of both directives, in agreement with the Explanatory Notes and Guidelines for reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive for the period 2013-2018 (http://cdr.eionet.europa.

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Capsule The first European Bird Census Council (EBCC) Atlas of European Breeding Birds has been widely used in scientific publications. Aims To quantify how scientific publications have used data from the first European Bird Census Council (EBCC) Atlas of European Breeding Birds, what the topics of these studies have been, and to identify key aspects in which a second European Breeding Bird Atlas will provide new opportunities for basic and applied science. Methods We searched Google Scholar to find papers published in scientific journals that cited the first atlas. We analysed the contents of a random selection of 100 papers citing this atlas and described the way these papers used information from it. Results The first atlas has been cited in 3150 scientific publications, and can be regarded as a fundamental reference for studies about birds in Europe. It was extensively used as a key reference for the studied bird species. A substantial number of papers re-analysed atlas data to derive new information on species distribution, ecological traits and population sizes. Distribution and ecology were the most frequent topics of studies referring to the atlas, but this source of information was used in a diverse range of studies. In this context, climate change, impact of agriculture and habitat loss were, by order, the most frequently studied environmental pressures. Constraints in the atlas, such as the poor coverage in the east of Europe, the lack of information on distribution change and the coarse resolution were identified as issues limiting the use of the atlas for some purposes. Conclusions This study demonstrates the scientific value of European-wide breeding bird atlases. A second atlas, with its almost complete coverage across Europe, the incorporation of changes in distribution between the two atlases and the inclusion of modelled maps at a resolution of 10 x 10 km will certainly become a key data source and reference for researchers in the near future.

SummaryImportant Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs) are sites identified as being globally important for the conservation of bird populations on the basis of an internationally agreed set of criteria. We present the first review of the development and spread of the IBA concept since it was launched by BirdLife International (then ICBP) in 1979 and examine some of the characteristics of the resulting inventory. Over 13,000 global and regional IBAs have so far been identified and documented in terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems in almost all of the world’s countries and territories, making this the largest global network of sites of significance for biodiversity. IBAs have been identified using standardised, data-driven criteria that have been developed and applied at global and regional levels. These criteria capture multiple dimensions of a site’s significance for avian biodiversity and relate to populations of globally threatened species (68.6% of the 10,746 IBAs that meet global criteria), restricted-range species (25.4%), biome-restricted species (27.5%) and congregatory species (50.3%); many global IBAs (52.7%) trigger two or more of these criteria. IBAs range in size from < 1 km2 to over 300,000 km2 and have an approximately log-normal size distribution (median = 125.0 km2, mean = 1,202.6 km2). They cover approximately 6.7% of the terrestrial, 1.6% of the marine and 3.1% of the total surface area of the Earth. The launch in 2016 of the KBA Global Standard, which aims to identify, document and conserve sites that contribute to the global persistence of wider biodiversity, and whose criteria for site identification build on those developed for IBAs, is a logical evolution of the IBA concept. The role of IBAs in conservation planning, policy and practice is reviewed elsewhere. Future technical priorities for the IBA initiative include completion of the global inventory, particularly in the marine environment, keeping the dataset up to date, and improving the systematic monitoring of these sites.

Diseases threaten wildlife populations worldwide and have caused severe declines resulting in host species being listed as threatened or endangered. The risk of a widespread epidemic is especially high when pathogens are introduced to naïve host populations, often leading to high morbidity and mortality. Prevention and control of these epidemics is based on knowledge of what drives pathogen transmission among hosts. Previous disease outbreaks suggest the spread of directly transmitted pathogens is determined by host contact rates and local host density. While theoretical models of disease spread typically assume a constant host density, most wildlife populations occur at a variety of densities across the landscape. We explored how spatial heterogeneity in host density influences pathogen spread by simulating the introduction and spread of rabies and canine distemper in a spatially heterogeneous population of Channel Island foxes (Urocyon littoralis), coupling fox density and contact rates with probabilities of viral transmission. For both diseases, the outcome of pathogen introductions varied widely among simulation iterations and depended on the density of hosts at the site of pathogen introduction. Introductions into areas of higher fox densities resulted in more rapid pathogen transmission and greater impact on the host population than if the pathogen was introduced at lower densities. Both pathogens were extirpated in a substantial fraction of iterations. Rabies was over five times more likely to go locally extinct when introduced at low host density sites than at high host-density sites, leaving an average of >99% of foxes uninfected. Canine distemper went extinct in >98% of iterations regardless of introduction site, but only after >90% of foxes had become infected. Our results highlight the difficulty in predicting the course of an epidemic, in part due to complex interactions between pathogen biology and host behavior, exacerbated by the spatial variation of most host populations.

The fact that the world's biodiversity is declining (Butchart et al., 2010) and that European Union (EU) farmland birds are part of that negative trend is no longer disputable. Both at EU level and at Member State scale (Voříšek et al., 2010), common farmland species have declined, on average, more than 50%. One of the proxies for assessing how well EU common species are faring is the Farmland Bird Index (FBI), elaborated thanks to the work of highly skilled volunteers carrying out breeding bird censuses in almost all EU countries for over 3 decades now. The FBI index data show that between 1990 and 2014, populations of common farmland birds decreased by 31.5 % in the 26 EU Member States that have bird population monitoring schemes (Eurostat, 2017). The intensification of agriculture, and as a consequence the increased destruction of natural habitats, is also a trend that continues at European Scale, where intensive practices are also supported and financed by the European Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) and have been proved to have a detrimental impact on our farmland species (Donald, Green & Heath, 2001; Donald et al., 2006). The EU, as well as many other regional and national institutions, has committed itself to halting the loss of biodiversity by 2020 (European Commission, 2011). With 45% of the EU land area devoted to agriculture (Kleijn et al., 2011), the implementation of policies that would halt and revert the observed population declines becomes not only urgent, but unavoidable. The Common Agricultural Policy of the EU currently accounts for around 38% of its budget (European Commission, 2015). Most of this money goes directly to farmers via direct payments. Within this context, the financial incentives provided by the CAP stand out as one of the most relevant and accessible tools that farmers could use for improving the state of our farmland species. Pillar two of the CAP establishes a number of Agri-environmental management schemes (AES) devoted to improving the biodiversity values within farms. These schemes can range from relatively simple measures oriented to improve broad environmental issues to ambitious and targeted schemes such as Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) in England, which can specifically target farmland birds. Thus, AES can be identified as 'the' tool for any Member State to increase the number of bird-friendly farms within its territory, and Vickery et al. (2004) already identified them as the main policy instruments for delivering key nesting and feeding resources back to agricultural areas. In this study, Walker et al. (2018) used bird survey data from the monitoring of a sample of HLS farms and compared those to the bird abundance observed, using Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data, within 'control' areas located in the same region but where no AES management schemes were in place. Their findings confirm impacts already observed by previous authors such as Gamero et al. (2017) where resident and short-distance migrants farmland species showed larger populations with increasing AES coverage. Walker et al. (2018) found that twelve out of 17 priority species, and the Farmland Birds Index, showed more positive changes in abundance on AES farms in at least one region. The authors did also find that, for half of the species targeted, temporary increases in their population abundance were followed by declines during the second part of the 2008-2014 study period. These fluctuations were mainly observed in seed-eating species and the authors hypothesize about the impact that exceptional weather conditions could have had by reducing the seed production in the fields. While weather must certainly be considered when understanding population declines, we believe other authors, such as Newton (2004), have already described extensively what are the main drivers behind seedeater species declines. But beyond assessing how AES are useful tools to target farmland declines, what this paper tells us is that political willingness and financial support to increase current AES deployment is vital. In other words: how much more do we need to do if we are serious about halting the current declines? The authors found that the stronger the FBI declines, the higher the percentage of AES managed farmland should be. The picture they show is rather gloomy, with increases of more than 10 points needed across the three studied regions (Walker et al., 2018). The year 2020 is approaching fast and all warning lights are already on. We will probably fail, once again, to meet the conservation targets established by both the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the EU in their respective biodiversity strategies. Pesticides (Hallmann et al., 2014) and other damaging agricultural practices are just part of a perfect storm that threatens to wipe out some of Europe's most iconic species. As the deadline closes upon us, courageous responses are needed, but these are not going to arrive spontaneously. Public opinion is increasingly shifting towards better nature protection and sensible farming practices (BirdLife International, 2016, 2018). The year 2018 could represent a turning point in the EU as the next Multi Annual Financial Framework (MFF) is being negotiated. We may not succeed reaching our 2020 biodiversity goals, so the sooner we work towards reversing current declines, the better for us all. As Walker et al. (2018) prove, our capacity to halt farmland declines is directly linked to the amount of AES deployed in our countryside… and that will only happen if both political willingness and farmers' engagement work together with scientists and conservationists towards a common goal.

Understanding biodiversity distribution shifts caused by climate change is one of the top conservation concerns in modern biology. In this study, we entered 8 yr of geolocation tracking data of the single-island endemic and threatened Desertas petrel Pterodroma deserta into a species distribution model and quantified the species-habitat relationship and how its current wintering areas could change as a result of new climatic conditions. Our model found that the species' range would increase 430.6 +/- (SD) 57.8% in future scenarios compared to its current range, as long as the species is able to reach all of the new areas identified by the models. However, the suitability of current wintering areas in the Cape Verde Islands and on the US east coast would decrease 52.8 +/- 4.4% as a consequence of the predicted windier conditions. The Desertas petrel has a small population size (160-180 pairs) and is considered 'Vulnerable' according to IUCN criteria, and individuals show high inter-annual site-fidelity to their wintering grounds. Our findings raise conservation concerns about the future of this species, which might heavily depend on the flexibility of adults and the capacity of future generations to disperse and use new wintering areas.

Effective prevention and control of invasive species generally relies on a comprehensive, coherent and representative list of species that enables resources to be used optimally. European Union (EU) Regulation 1143/2014 on invasive alien species (IAS) aims to control or eradicate priority species, and to manage pathways to prevent the introduction and establishment of new IAS; it applies to species considered of Union concern and subject to formal risk assessment. So far, 49 species have been listed but the criteria for selecting species for risk assessment have not been disclosed and were probably unsystematic. We developed a simple method to systematically rank IAS according to their maximum potential threat to biodiversity in the EU. We identified 1,323 species as potential candidates for listing, and evaluated them against their invasion stages and reported impacts, using information from databases and scientific literature. 900 species fitted the criteria for listing according to IAS Regulation. We prioritised 207 species for urgent risk assessment, 59 by 2018 and 148 by 2020, based on their potential to permanently damage native species or ecosystems; another 336 species were identified for a second phase (by 2025), to prevent or reverse their profound impacts on biodiversity; and a further 357 species for assessment by 2030. Policy implications. We propose a systematic, proactive approach to selecting and prioritising IAS for risk assessment to assist European Union policy implementation. We assess an unprecedented number of species with potential to harm EU biodiversity using a simple methodology and recommend which species should be considered for risk assessment in a ranked order of priority along the timeline 2018–2030, based on their maximum reported impact and their invasion history in Europe.

With increasing pressure on the oceans from environmental change, there has been a global call for improved protection of marine ecosystems through the implementation of marine protected areas (MPAs). Here, we used species distribution modelling (SDM) of tracking data from 14 seabird species to identify key marine areas in the southwest Atlantic Ocean, valuing areas based on seabird species occurrence, seasonality and extinction risk. We also compared overlaps between the outputs generated by the SDM and layers representing important human threats (fishing intensity, ship density, plastic and oil pollution, ocean acidification), and calculated loss in conservation value using fishing and ship density as cost layers. The key marine areas were located on the southern Patagonian Shelf, overlapping extensively with areas of high fishing activity, and did not change seasonally, while seasonal areas were located off south and southeast Brazil and overlapped with areas of high plastic pollution and ocean acidification. Non-seasonal key areas were located off northeast Brazil on an area of high biodiversity, and with relatively low human impacts. We found support for the use of seasonal areas depending on the seabird assemblage used, because there was a loss in conservation value for the seasonal compared to the non-seasonal approach when using cost' layers. Our approach, accounting for seasonal changes in seabird assemblages and their risk of extinction, identified additional candidate areas for incorporation in the network of pelagic MPAs.

Aim: Anthropogenic activities alter and constrain the structure of marine ecosystems with implications for wide-ranging marine vertebrates. In spite of the environmental importance of vast oceanic ecosystems, most conservation efforts mainly focus on neritic areas. To identify relevant oceanic areas for conservation, we assessed the year-round spatial distribution and spatio-temporal overlap of eight truly oceanic sea-bird species of gadfly petrels (Pterodroma spp.) inhabiting the Atlantic Ocean.Location: Atlantic Ocean.Methods: Using tracking data (mostly from geolocators), we examined year-round distributions, the timing of life-cycle events, and marine habitat overlap of eight gadfly petrel species that breed in the Atlantic Ocean.Results: We compiled 125 year-round tracks. Movement strategies ranged from non-migratory to long-distance migrant species and from species sharing a common non-breeding area to species dispersing among multiple non-breeding sites. Gadfly petrels occurred throughout the Atlantic Ocean but tended to concentrate in subtropical regions. During the boreal summer, up to three species overlapped spatio-temporally over a large area around the Azores archipelago. During the austral summer, up to four species coincided in a core area in subtropical waters around Cape Verde, and three species shared habitat over two distinct areas off Brazil. The petrels used many national Exclusive Economic Zones, although they also exploited offshore international waters.Main conclusions: Tracking movements of highly mobile vertebrates such as gadfly petrels can provide a powerful tool to evaluate and assess the potential need for and location of protected oceanic areas. As more multispecies, year-round data sets are collected from wide-ranging vertebrates, researchers and managers will have greater insight into the location of biodiversity hotspots. These can subsequently inform and guide marine spatial planning efforts that account for both conservation and sustainable use of resources such as commercial fisheries.

The European Commission has repeatedly requested its Member States to fully implement one of the world's oldest nature legislation laws, the Birds Directive, by designating Special Protection Areas (SPAs) in the marine environment. The current work analyses the spatial coverage offered by the SPA network to the 82 species of seabirds that occur in EU waters, and compare it to that of Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs), as defined by BirdLife International. Marine SPAs represent 3.9% of the EU's marine area, while the IBA network represents 4.4%. On average, only 0.05% of the EU marine area is protected, and there are enormous regional differences. On average, SPAs and IBAs both cover 16.0% of the breeding distribution range of seabird species, but only1.4% of their non-breeding distribution range. SPAs cover more than 50% of the breeding range of only one seabird family, Procellariidae, and both SPA and IBA networks offer greater coverage to threatened species than to non-threatened ones. The year when Member States were legally obliged (2008 onwards) to declare their marine SPA networks is not significantly related to their network size, and that those species subjected to tracking studies or have well known breeding colonies benefit from higher coverage. Methodological challenges that were once posed to implement the Birds Directive at sea are largely overcome, and political will is the main driver for identifying, designating and managing a complete network of marine SPAs in the EU.

The European Union (EU) has an extensive protected area network, including Special Protection Areas (SPAs) designated under the Birds Directive. Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs) are sites of international significance for birds identified by BirdLife International. Here, we perform EU-wide terrestrial spatial conservation prioritizations to evaluate the coverage of IBAs by SPAs, and the coverage of bird and other vertebrate distributions by IBAs and SPAs. We then investigate the distribution of potential locations for expanding the SPA network that maximize bird species' representation, and the coverage of these locations by IBAs. On average, SPAs cover 23% of the EU-wide distribution of each bird species and 25% of the distributions of amphibians, reptiles and mammals together, while IBAs provide marginally greater coverage. Overall, 76% of terrestrial IBAs in the EU are completely or partially covered by SPAs, and 66% of the IBA network area is covered by SPAs. Our results suggest that SPA designation has been significantly informed by data on the location of IBAs. While IBAs are identified using data on particular bird species of conservation concern, they also tend to have high EU-wide representation of other vertebrates. The designation of new or expanded SPAs covering a relatively small amount of currently unprotected land (particularly in the southern EU) would substantially increase SPA coverage of bird species ranges. Our analysis provides insights on the current contribution that these sites make to conserving vertebrates across the EU, and future possibilities for efficiently expanding the network.

The conservation status and taxonomy of the three gadfly petrels that breed in Macaronesia is still discussed partly due to the scarce information on their spatial ecology. Using geolocator and capture-mark-recapture data, we examined phenology, natal philopatry and breeding-site fidelity, year-round distribution, habitat usage and at-sea activity of the three closely-related gadfly petrels that breed in Macaronesia: Zino's petrel Pterodroma madeira, Desertas petrel P. deserta and Cape Verde petrel P. feae. All P. feae remained around the breeding area during their non-breeding season, whereas P. madeira and P. deserta dispersed far from their colony, migrating either to the Cape Verde region, further south to equatorial waters in the central Atlantic, or to the Brazil Current. The three taxa displayed a clear allochrony in timing of breeding. Habitat modelling and at-sea activity patterns highlighted similar environmental preferences and foraging behaviours of the three taxa. Finally, no chick or adult was recaptured away from its natal site and survival estimates were relatively high at all study sites, indicating strong philopatry and breeding-site fidelity for the three taxa. The combination of high philopatry, marked breeding asynchrony and substantial spatio-temporal segregation of their year-round distribution suggest very limited gene flow among the three taxa.