Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science Volume 5 Number 13: Population consequences of displacement from proposed offshore wind energy developments for seabirds breeding at Scottish SPAs

3 Results

3.1 Destinations of birds

Table 3:1 shows the percentage of initial simulated foraging locations that lie in Zone 4 (and are therefore potentially subject to displacement) and in Zones 5 or 6 (and are therefore potentially subject to barrier effects). Note that the actual percentage of displaced trips will be equal to

Percentage of initial simulated foraging locations that lie in Zone 4 * Proportion of birds that are displacement-susceptible

and that the actual percentage of trips that are affected by barrier effects will be equal to

Percentage of initial simulated foraging locations that lie in Zones 5 or 6 * Proportion of birds that are barrier-susceptible

Those species- SPA-wind farm combinations for which no simulated initial foraging locations lie in Zones 4, 5 or 6 ( e.g. Guillemots at Buchan Ness, in relation to any of the wind farms) will therefore, by definition, show no effect of the wind farm on adult or chick survival - the simulated effect will be exactly equal to zero. For some other combinations there are trips that are associated with displacement effects but none associated with barrier effects ( e.g. puffins from Forth Islands at R3 Alpha). In general, however, the percentage of foraging locations affected by barrier effects tends to be higher than the percentage affected by displacement effects. The percentage of locations that are potentially affected by displacement is never higher than 6%, whereas the percentage affected by barrier effects can be as high as 34% and is greater than 10% for five combinations. The relationship between the percentage of foraging locations that are associated with displacement and barrier effects and the subsequent effects on survival is not straightforward, but combinations for which birds rarely experience displacement or barrier effects are universally associated with low impacts of wind farms, as we might expect.

Table 3:1 also compares the simulated percentages spent in Zone 4 and Zones 5+6 against the proportion of foraging locations in the raw GPS data that lie within these zones. The modelled percentages are generally close to the observed percentages, although it is worth noting that some of the larger differences do relate to species- SPA-wind farm combinations which are of particular interest ( e.g. Forth Island kittiwakes with Neart na Gaoithe, Fowlsheugh kittiwakes with Alpha, Forth Island puffins with Alpha). Larger differences between modelled and observed percentages do not necessarily indicate that the modelled percentages are incorrect, but they do suggest that the results may be sensitive to the assumptions of the model that is used to produce estimate foraging density.

Table 3:1 Destinations of birds. Purple: combinations that are presented in the final analysis; grey: incalculable values (mean additional distances cannot be calculated if no birds ever visit the wind farm). Zone 4 refers to the wind farm footprint plus 1km exclusion buffer zone (birds are displaced); Zones 5 & 6 refer to regions beyond the wind farm which incur barrier costs for birds choosing to feed in those locations.

3.2 Impact of wind farms on adult survival and breeding success

Table 3:2 shows the estimated impact of wind farms upon adult survival, for each species-by- SPA combination, with the exception of gannet which is shown in Table 3:4. In the former, raw estimates from the full and fast models are presented, along with the adjusted estimates that are derived by combining these. Tables H1 and H2 show the calculations that were used to assess the reliability of the results shown in Tables 3:2 and 3:3.

Guillemots, razorbills and gannets consistently yielded estimated wind farm effects on adult survival (both individual and cumulative) that either corresponded to declines of less than 0.5% or else could not be estimated reliably, as did kittiwakes from St. Abbs. The three species-by- SPA combinations that yielded estimated declines of more than 0.5% were therefore Forth Island kittiwakes, Fowlsheugh kittiwakes and Forth Island puffins. Estimated declines of more than 1% only occurred for Forth Island kittiwakes and Forth Island puffins, with the following specific combinations: Forth Island kittiwakes with Neart na Gaoithe (homogeneous or heterogeneous prey); Forth Island puffins with Alpha (homogeneous prey); and Forth Island puffins with Inch Cape (homogeneous prey). The combinations that led to declines of between 0.5% and 1% were Fowlsheugh kittiwakes with Alpha (heterogeneous or homogeneous prey) and Forth Island puffins with Neart na Gaoithe (heterogeneous prey). In most cases, there was close concordance between the results associated with homogeneous and heterogeneous prey. The main exception was puffins, where larger effects were generally apparent with homogeneous prey than with heterogeneous prey. Cumulative impacts were consistent with the individual wind farm scenarios, with estimated declines of more than 1% for Forth Island kittiwakes (homogeneous or heterogeneous prey) and Forth Island puffins (homogeneous prey only).

Table 3:3 shows corresponding values for breeding success (chick survival) for all species except gannet (shown in Table 3:4). The breeding success results were broadly consistent with adult survival, although appeared to contain a higher degree of stochastic noise (as had already been suggested by our exploratory simulation runs). Effects were greatest overall in puffins and in Fowlsheugh and Forth Islands kittiwakes, and were very low or unreliably estimated for gannets, guillemot and razorbills. There were no combinations for which the adjusted estimate of the decline in survival exceeded 5%, and only one (cumulative impact on Forth Island puffins with homogeneous prey) for which the decline exceeded 2.5%. The largest decline associated with an individual wind farm was, unsurprisingly, also related to Forth Island puffins with homogeneous prey - 1.73% for Inch Cape. Cumulative impacts on breeding success could only be calculated reliably for around half of the species- SPA-wind farm combinations. Cumulative impacts, where calculable, were generally consistent with the individual wind farm scenarios, and homogeneous and heterogeneous prey results were similar with the exception of puffins.

Tables H3 and H4 (see Appendix H) show the effect of changing the cut-off for reliability so that only 'high reliability', rather than both moderate and high reliability, results are used in calculating adjustment factors. The negative effect of wind farms on adult survival disappears for razorbills at Forth Islands with homogeneous prey when only 'high reliability' values are used, but has virtually no effect on the results for any other species-by- SPA-by-prey scenario combination.

Table 3:2 Estimated change in annual adult survival (as a percentage point) as a result of including wind farms in the model. Colours denote the level of reliability associated with our estimates for adjusted impacts: high = pink, moderate = yellow, low = grey; these assessments are derived from the values of d presented in Table H1.

Table 3:3 Estimated change in breeding success (chick survival, as a percentage point) as a result of including wind farms in the model. Colours denote the level of reliability associated with our estimates for adjusted impacts: high = pink, moderate = yellow, low = grey; these assessments are derived from the values of d presented in Table H2.

Table 3:4 Estimated change in annual adult and chick survival for gannets (as a percentage point) as a result of including wind farms in the model. Gannets are shown separately because they were only analysed using the fast model.

Species	SPA	Wind farm	Prey type	Adult survival	Breeding success
				Fast model v0	Fast model v0
Gannet	Forth Islands	R3B	Hom	0.00	-0.03
			Het	-0.01	-0.05
		R3A	Hom	-0.01	0.00
			Het	-0.02	-0.01
		NnG	Hom	0.00	0.02
			Het	-0.01	-0.05
		IC	Hom	-0.01	0.03
			Het	-0.01	0.00

3.3 Sensitivity analysis

3.3.1 Baseline sensitivity

Table 3:5 illustrates the sensitivity of baseline estimates of adult survival to the choice of parameter value. There was no sensitivity at all to the value of unattendance duration (parameter versions 3 and 4) - the results are identical to those for Version 0 and so are not shown in the table. The remaining four parameters did have an impact on the level of adult survival, but in all cases the impact was fairly small. The largest changes in adult survival were generally those associated with Version 8 - increasing the adult body mass threshold for non-unattendance - and, unsurprisingly, were generally associated with an increase in adult survival.

Table 3:5 Baseline sensitivity analysis for adult survival. Please refer to Table 2.10 for explanation of the different sensitivity scenarios (V0-V14). Numbers in the table refer to adult survival (%).

Species	SPA	Prey	V0	V7	V8	V9	V10	V11	V12	V13	V14
Guillemot	ForthIslands	Hom	88.91	88.89	89.1	88.91	88.81	89.14	88.82	88.86	88.93
		Het	89.12	89.07	89.59	89.12	88.78	89.28	89.02	89.05	89.16
Guillemot	Fowlsheugh	Hom	89.1	89.08	89.27	89.1	89.01	89.34	89.01	89.02	89.16
		Het	89.11	89.09	89.46	89.11	88.9	89.15	89.1	89.04	89.14
Kittiwake	ForthIslands	Hom	74.12	74.05	74.99	74.12	74.06	74.4	73.94	74.04	74.23
		Het	74.07	74	74.88	74.07	73.99	74.35	73.91	73.99	74.16
Kittiwake	Fowlsheugh	Hom	74.3	74.19	75.11	74.3	74.25	74.51	74.01	74.14	74.45
		Het	74.34	74.19	75.11	74.34	74.29	74.49	73.94	74.17	74.42
Kittiwake	StAbbsHead	Hom	74.08	73.93	74.93	74.08	74.02	74.31	73.74	74	74.15
		Het	74	73.92	74.82	74	73.95	74.22	73.7	73.93	74.07
Puffin	ForthIslands	Hom	86.4	86.37	87.36	86.4	86.34	86.62	86.13	86.42	87.07
		Het	86.29	86.26	87.25	86.29	86.36	86.52	85.97	86.42	86.97
Razorbill	ForthIslands	Hom	86.77	86.7	86.8	86.77	86.71	86.92	86.69	86.65	86.92
		Het	86.7	86.61	86.75	86.7	86.63	86.85	86.63	86.58	86.83
Gannet	ForthIslands	Hom	88.82	88.79	89.05	88.82	88.81	88.83	88.81	88.83	88.86
		Het	88.79	88.77	89.02	88.79	88.79	88.81	88.79	88.81	88.86

Table 3:6 illustrates the corresponding results for breeding success (chick survival). The value of unattendance duration again has no effect (parameter versions 3 and 4, not shown), but the values of the remaining four parameters all have a very large impact on chick survival. Reducing the threshold for chick mass that is associated with death (parameter version 9) generally has only a modest impact, but all of the other changes in parameter values have - for at least some species-by- SPA combinations - a very substantial effect on chick survival. It is worth noting that many of the changes to chick survival are sufficiently large that the revised parameter values would have been rejected by the sense-checking procedure that we used, and that these values would therefore never have been considered as plausible when assessing the impacts of wind farms.

Table 3:6 Baseline sensitivity analysis for breeding success. Please refer to Table 2:10 for explanation of the different sensitivity scenarios (V0-V14). Numbers in the table refer to breeding success (%).

Species	SPA	Prey	V0	V7	V8	V9	V10	V11	V12	V13	V14
Guillemot	ForthIslands	Hom	91.24	96.12	38.25	94.23	3.04	87.15	45.07	95.07	87.46
		Het	88.88	95.44	26.29	90.4	1.15	85.05	74.45	93.07	86.67
Guillemot	Fowlsheugh	Hom	89.73	94.85	32.67	93.86	0.38	83.56	20.57	96.89	80.42
		Het	90.1	96.41	26.88	90.5	11.43	89.32	90.8	93.08	88.17
Kittiwake	ForthIslands	Hom	70.68	85.42	30.52	70.68	69.64	13.78	88.84	79.68	55.3
		Het	77.77	93.07	32.99	77.77	76.02	26.45	89.72	82.31	68.21
Kittiwake	Fowlsheugh	Hom	55.19	67.5	22.66	55.19	54.55	2.24	86.9	76.57	21.83
		Het	35.31	42.98	14.48	35.31	35.41	0.1	85.75	67.82	9.52
Kittiwake	StAbbsHead	Hom	55.91	67.8	23.09	55.91	54.87	1.81	87.34	67.66	42
		Het	53.76	65.3	23.44	53.76	53.27	1.6	88.18	66.27	42.14
Puffin	ForthIslands	Hom	92.91	99.97	24.16	92.93	0	86.32	97.13	99.96	37.92
		Het	91.78	99.93	22.51	91.73	0	85.82	94.94	99.94	46.43
Razorbill	ForthIslands	Hom	71.85	92.39	38.62	71.99	34.58	67.12	73.41	80.39	56.5
		Het	71.27	91.49	39.54	71.27	36.4	67.49	72.92	79.72	58.78
Gannet	ForthIslands	Hom	92.64	96.29	59.64	95.7	75.7	94.65	91.4	97.53	66.63
		Het	92.81	95.98	59.96	96.03	74.22	95.39	90.22	98.79	61.4

3.3.2 Sensitivity of wind farm effects

Table 3:7 illustrates the way in which the impact of the wind farm on adult survival is modified by using different parameter values. It can be seen that wind farm effects that are small almost always remain small when the parameters are modified - this is unsurprising, as these generally correspond to situations in which birds rarely foraging in areas that would be affected by displacement or barrier effects, and the wind farm effect is therefore likely to be estimated as consistently small, regardless of the structure or parameter values used.

Effects that are detected to be relatively large are generally also large when alternative parameter values are used. This is not always the case, however, and reduction of the intra-specific competition parameter (parameter version 13) often reduces relatively large effects down to being relatively small.

Table 3:8 presents the corresponding results for chick survival. The effects of wind farms on chick survival vary quite substantially when the parameter values are modified, with no obvious patterns apparent. This result is unsurprising given that the changes in parameter values have a very substantial effect on the baseline chick survival values.

Table 3:7 Sensitivity of wind farm effects in relation to adult survival.

Species	SPA	WindFarm	Prey	V0	V7	V8	V9	V10	V11	V12	V13	V14
Guillemot	ForthIslands	R3B	Hom	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0.01
Guillemot	ForthIslands	R3B	Het	0.01	0.01	0	0	0	0	0.01	0	0
Guillemot	ForthIslands	R3A	Hom	0	0	0	0	-0.01	0	0	0	0.01
Guillemot	ForthIslands	R3A	Het	0	-0.01	0	0	0	0.01	0.01	0	0
Guillemot	ForthIslands	NnG	Hom	-0.16	-0.16	-0.18	-0.16	-0.2	-0.08	-0.18	-0.17	-0.15
Guillemot	ForthIslands	NnG	Het	-0.06	-0.06	-0.06	-0.06	-0.06	-0.02	-0.08	-0.07	-0.06
Guillemot	ForthIslands	IC	Flat	-0.05	-0.04	-0.04	-0.04	-0.06	-0.03	-0.05	-0.04	-0.04
Guillemot	ForthIslands	IC	GPS	-0.01	-0.02	-0.02	-0.01	-0.03	-0.01	-0.02	-0.01	-0.02
Guillemot	Fowlsheugh	R3B	Hom	0	-0.01	0	0	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01	0.01
Guillemot	Fowlsheugh	R3B	Het	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Guillemot	Fowlsheugh	R3A	Hom	-0.02	-0.02	-0.02	-0.01	-0.02	-0.01	-0.02	-0.02	-0.01
Guillemot	Fowlsheugh	R3A	Het	-0.01	-0.01	-0.02	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01	-0.02	-0.01
Guillemot	Fowlsheugh	NnG	Hom	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0.01
Guillemot	Fowlsheugh	NnG	Het	0	0	0	0	0	0	-0.01	0	0
Guillemot	Fowlsheugh	IC	Flat	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0.01	0.01
Guillemot	Fowlsheugh	IC	GPS	0	-0.01	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Kittiwake	ForthIslands	R3B	Hom	-0.05	-0.05	-0.04	-0.05	-0.05	-0.01	-0.05	-0.05	-0.04
Kittiwake	ForthIslands	R3B	Het	-0.05	-0.05	-0.03	-0.05	-0.04	-0.04	-0.04	-0.05	-0.04
Kittiwake	ForthIslands	R3A	Hom	-0.06	-0.05	-0.05	-0.06	-0.05	-0.02	-0.06	-0.06	-0.03
Kittiwake	ForthIslands	R3A	Het	-0.06	-0.06	-0.04	-0.06	-0.06	-0.05	-0.06	-0.06	-0.05
Kittiwake	ForthIslands	NnG	Hom	-0.23	-0.26	-0.12	-0.23	-0.22	-0.09	-0.17	-0.25	-0.19
Kittiwake	ForthIslands	NnG	Het	-0.22	-0.26	-0.12	-0.22	-0.22	-0.13	-0.15	-0.22	-0.21
Kittiwake	ForthIslands	IC	Hom	-0.09	-0.09	-0.06	-0.09	-0.09	-0.03	-0.07	-0.09	-0.07
Kittiwake	ForthIslands	IC	Het	-0.08	-0.09	-0.05	-0.08	-0.08	-0.05	-0.06	-0.08	-0.08
Kittiwake	Fowlsheugh	R3B	Hom	-0.04	-0.05	-0.03	-0.04	-0.05	-0.01	-0.04	-0.05	-0.03
Kittiwake	Fowlsheugh	R3B	Het	-0.03	-0.03	-0.02	-0.03	-0.04	-0.04	-0.04	-0.05	-0.03
Kittiwake	Fowlsheugh	R3A	Hom	-0.07	-0.08	-0.05	-0.07	-0.08	-0.03	-0.07	-0.09	-0.06
Kittiwake	Fowlsheugh	R3A	Het	-0.06	-0.06	-0.03	-0.06	-0.06	-0.04	-0.06	-0.08	-0.04
Kittiwake	Fowlsheugh	NnG	Hom	0	0.01	0	0	0	0.02	0	0	-0.01
Kittiwake	Fowlsheugh	NnG	Het	0	0	0	0	0	-0.01	0	0	0
Kittiwake	Fowlsheugh	IC	Hom	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Kittiwake	Fowlsheugh	IC	Het	0	-0.01	0	0	0	-0.01	0	0	0
Kittiwake	StAbbsHead	R3B	Hom	-0.03	-0.02	-0.02	-0.03	-0.03	-0.01	-0.04	-0.02	-0.03
Kittiwake	StAbbsHead	R3B	Het	-0.02	-0.02	-0.03	-0.02	-0.01	0.01	-0.04	-0.02	-0.03
Kittiwake	StAbbsHead	R3A	Hom	-0.02	-0.01	-0.01	-0.02	-0.02	-0.01	-0.02	-0.02	-0.02
Kittiwake	StAbbsHead	R3A	Het	0	0	-0.01	0	-0.01	0.01	-0.02	0	-0.01
Kittiwake	StAbbsHead	NnG	Hom	-0.02	-0.01	-0.01	-0.02	-0.03	-0.01	-0.01	-0.02	-0.02
Kittiwake	StAbbsHead	NnG	Het	-0.01	-0.02	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01	0.02	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01
Kittiwake	StAbbsHead	IC	Hom	0	0	0	0	0	-0.03	0	-0.01	0
Kittiwake	StAbbsHead	IC	Het	0	-0.01	0	0	0	0.01	0	0	-0.01
Puffin	ForthIslands	R3B	Hom	-0.04	-0.04	-0.03	-0.04	0	-0.04	-0.04	0	-0.03
Puffin	ForthIslands	R3B	Het	0.02	0.03	0.02	0.02	0	0.02	0.03	0	0.01
Puffin	ForthIslands	R3A	Hom	-0.96	-0.98	-0.7	-0.97	-0.48	-0.76	-1.27	-0.03	-0.45
Puffin	ForthIslands	R3A	Het	0.18	0.19	0.11	0.18	0.01	0.13	0.28	0.02	-0.04
Puffin	ForthIslands	NnG	Hom	-0.11	-0.12	-0.08	-0.13	-0.03	-0.09	-0.11	0	-0.12
Puffin	ForthIslands	NnG	Het	-0.15	-0.14	-0.08	-0.14	-0.03	-0.13	-0.15	-0.03	-0.13
Puffin	ForthIslands	IC	Hom	-0.35	-0.37	-0.27	-0.36	-0.24	-0.3	-0.33	-0.02	-0.34
Puffin	ForthIslands	IC	Het	-0.19	-0.19	-0.11	-0.18	-0.02	-0.15	-0.17	0.03	-0.33
Razorbill	ForthIslands	R3B	Hom	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Razorbill	ForthIslands	R3B	Het	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Razorbill	ForthIslands	R3A	Hom	-0.01	-0.02	-0.02	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01	0
Razorbill	ForthIslands	R3A	Het	-0.01	0.01	-0.02	-0.01	-0.02	-0.02	0	0.01	-0.01
Razorbill	ForthIslands	NnG	Hom	-0.05	-0.05	-0.06	-0.05	-0.05	-0.06	-0.05	-0.04	-0.03
Razorbill	ForthIslands	NnG	Het	-0.05	-0.05	-0.05	-0.05	-0.05	-0.05	-0.05	-0.04	-0.04
Razorbill	ForthIslands	IC	Hom	-0.04	-0.04	-0.05	-0.04	-0.04	-0.05	-0.05	-0.04	-0.03
Razorbill	ForthIslands	IC	Het	-0.03	-0.03	-0.03	-0.03	-0.02	-0.03	-0.03	-0.02	-0.03
Gannet	ForthIslands	R3B	Hom	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Gannet	ForthIslands	R3B	Het	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01	0	-0.01
Gannet	ForthIslands	R3A	Hom	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01
Gannet	ForthIslands	R3A	Het	-0.02	-0.02	-0.02	-0.02	-0.02	-0.02	-0.02	-0.02	-0.01
Gannet	ForthIslands	NnG	Hom	0	0	-0.01	0	0	-0.01	0	0	-0.02
Gannet	ForthIslands	NnG	Het	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01	0	-0.02
Gannet	ForthIslands	IC	Hom	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01	0	-0.01
Gannet	ForthIslands	IC	Het	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01	-0.01

Table 3:8.Sensitivity of wind farm effects in relation to breeding success.

Species	SPA	WindFarm	Prey	V0	V7	V8	V9	V10	V11	V12	V13	V14
Guillemot	ForthIslands	R3B	Hom	0.21	-0.16	-0.31	-0.05	-0.05	-0.16	0	0	-0.05
			Het	0.31	-0.16	0.05	0.05	-0.05	-0.52	-0.47	-0.21	-0.05
		R3A	Hom	0.1	-0.1	-0.05	0.05	0.05	-0.1	-0.1	0	0.37
			Het	0.16	0.1	0.1	-0.31	-0.05	-1.1	-0.05	-0.37	-0.21
		NnG	Hom	-0.42	-0.73	-1.31	-0.1	-0.58	-1.36	-2.89	-0.47	-1.31
			Het	-0.42	-0.1	-0.58	-0.73	0.1	-1.31	0.31	-0.84	-0.42
		IC	Hom	0.1	-0.05	-0.42	0.16	-0.1	-1	-0.63	-0.05	-0.89
			Het	0.31	0.31	-0.26	-0.1	-0.1	-0.52	-0.21	-0.26	-1
Guillemot	Fowlsheugh	R3B	Hom	0.32	-0.03	-0.03	-0.05	-0.03	0.19	0	0	-0.64
			Het	0.13	0.16	0.05	0.19	0	0.19	-0.05	0.05	-0.03
		R3A	Hom	0.05	0	-0.38	-0.08	-0.08	0.56	-0.21	0	-0.89
			Het	-0.3	0.27	-0.03	-0.3	-0.03	-0.43	-0.7	-0.03	0.3
		NnG	Hom	0.11	0.19	0.03	0.16	-0.08	0.89	0.05	0.13	-0.48
			Het	0.16	-0.35	0.03	-0.03	0	-0.08	-0.35	0.03	0.24
		IC	Hom	0.05	0.05	0.08	0.03	-0.08	0.08	0.08	0.05	-0.54
			Het	0.3	0.38	0.08	0.08	0	-0.16	-0.11	0.24	-0.03
Kittiwake	ForthIslands	R3B	Hom	0.64	0.16	-0.24	0.64	-0.56	-1.67	-0.08	-0.4	-0.88
			Het	-0.4	0.08	-0.08	-0.4	-0.48	-2.95	-0.08	0	-0.72
		R3A	Hom	-0.08	-0.08	0.4	-0.08	-0.56	-1.91	-0.16	-0.24	-0.96
			Het	-0.4	0.24	-0.32	-0.4	-0.24	-3.03	0	-0.08	-0.24
		NnG	Hom	-1.91	-2.07	-0.72	-1.91	-1.43	-3.19	-0.24	-0.56	-2.39
			Het	-0.8	-0.96	-0.48	-0.8	-0.96	-3.59	-0.24	-0.32	-1.75
		IC	Hom	0.96	-0.16	-0.08	0.96	-1.2	-1.12	-0.16	-0.08	-1.04
			Het	0.24	0.24	-0.4	0.24	0.4	-3.9	-0.08	-0.16	-0.08
Kittiwake	Fowlsheugh	R3B	Hom	-1.02	-2.24	-0.13	-1.02	-1.28	-0.67	-0.22	-0.42	-0.77
			Het	-0.32	-1.21	-0.58	-0.32	-1.12	0.1	-0.13	-0.26	0.19
		R3A	Hom	-1.85	-2.72	-1.18	-1.85	-2.4	-0.7	-0.1	-0.96	-1.25
			Het	-0.45	-2.56	-0.74	-0.45	-1.73	0.13	-0.19	-0.42	-0.7
		NnG	Hom	0.38	-0.58	-0.1	0.38	-0.54	-0.26	0	-0.58	0.06
			Het	0.03	-0.29	0.16	0.03	-1.15	0.26	0	0.29	-0.42
		IC	Hom	0.13	-0.74	-0.13	0.13	-0.29	-0.29	0	-0.22	-0.89
			Het	0.16	-0.7	0.58	0.16	-1.12	0.06	0	0.42	-0.32
Kittiwake	StAbbsHead	R3B	Hom	-1.11	-0.7	-0.49	-1.11	0	0.07	-0.07	-1.39	-0.7
			Het	-0.14	-0.21	-0.7	-0.14	-0.9	0.14	-0.07	-1.6	-1.25
		R3A	Hom	0.14	-0.7	0	0.14	-0.28	-0.07	0.07	-0.49	0.35
			Het	-0.07	0	-0.83	-0.07	-0.21	-0.35	0	0.28	-1.11
		NnG	Hom	-0.63	-0.49	0.21	-0.63	0.07	-0.56	0	-0.7	-0.7
			Het	0	0.9	-0.83	0	-0.42	0.28	0	-0.49	-1.46
		IC	Hom	-1.04	-1.32	-0.56	-1.04	-0.21	0	-0.07	-0.49	-0.14
			Het	-0.21	-0.21	-0.56	-0.21	-0.28	0	-0.07	-0.76	-0.63
Puffin	ForthIslands	R3B	Hom	-0.06	0.01	-0.08	-0.03	0	-0.13	0.01	0	-0.08
			Het	0.04	0	-0.05	-0.02	0	0.06	0.1	0	0.09
		R3A	Hom	-1.32	-0.01	-3.08	-1.32	0	-1.86	-0.97	0	-2.94
			Het	0.3	0.01	0.99	0.26	0	0.47	0.21	0	-0.43
		NnG	Hom	-0.2	0	-0.24	-0.12	0	-0.03	-0.13	0	-0.89
			Het	-0.26	0	-0.27	-0.22	0	0.11	-0.1	-0.02	-0.79
		IC	Hom	-0.41	0	-1.26	-0.42	0	-0.47	-0.25	0	-2.25
			Het	-0.38	0	-0.45	-0.24	0	-0.06	-0.21	-0.02	-1.98
Razorbill	ForthIslands	R3B	Hom	-0.03	0	-0.03	-0.03	0	-0.03	-0.03	0	0.23
			Het	0.03	0	0	0.03	-0.03	0	0	0	-0.61
		R3A	Hom	0.06	0.12	-0.06	-0.12	-0.06	-0.12	0.14	-0.12	0.12
			Het	0.12	0	-0.06	0.12	-0.03	-0.09	0.06	-0.06	-0.26
		NnG	Hom	-0.12	-0.06	-0.32	-0.2	-1.18	-0.17	-0.4	-0.2	-0.58
			Het	-0.2	-0.09	-0.26	-0.2	-0.87	-0.32	-0.26	-0.17	-0.46
		IC	Hom	-0.14	-0.03	-0.23	-0.2	-1.01	-0.14	-0.26	-0.09	-0.14
			Het	-0.06	-0.06	-0.23	-0.06	-0.72	-0.14	-0.2	-0.09	-0.66
Gannet	ForthIslands	R3B	Hom	-0.03	-0.01	-0.05	-0.02	-0.04	-0.03	-0.05	0	-0.37
			Het	-0.05	-0.07	-0.05	-0.03	-0.1	-0.05	-0.04	-0.02	-0.41
		R3A	Hom	0	0	-0.12	-0.01	-0.13	-0.01	-0.06	0.01	-0.41
			Het	-0.01	-0.02	-0.13	0.04	-0.07	-0.08	-0.08	-0.02	-0.44
		NnG	Hom	0.02	-0.04	-0.05	0.01	0.02	0.04	0	0	-0.23
			Het	-0.05	-0.05	-0.11	0	-0.15	-0.09	-0.02	0	-0.68
		IC	Hom	0.03	0.01	-0.01	0.01	-0.08	-0.02	-0.02	0	-0.13
			Het	0	-0.04	-0.05	0.01	-0.06	-0.03	-0.08	-0.02	-0.49