4.2 Article

Sex-specific differences in diving behaviour of two sympatric Alcini species: thick-billed murres and razorbills

Journal

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY
Volume 86, Issue 7, Pages 610-622

Publisher

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/Z08-036

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Canadian International Development Agency fellowship
  2. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  3. Smithsonian Institution Abbott Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

At the Gannet Islands, Labrador, sympatric thick-billed murres (Uria lomvia (L., 1758)) and razorbills (Alca torda L., 1758) are slightly sexually dimorphic and have similar intersexual differences in parental roles; females are the main meal providers and males are mostly involved in brooding and chick defence at the breeding site and at sea. The question is whether differences in parental roles influence the foraging behaviour patterns of males and females. Murre females foraged during twilight periods and dived shallower than males. In razorbills, although sex differences were not as clear, females also tended to dive shallower (< 10 m) and more often at twilight. Males of both species foraged during daylight hours and tended to dive deeper than females. Females of both species had shorter dive bouts (i.e., duration of a series of dives) even though the number of bouts and dives per day were equal between sexes. In both species, female dives were mostly shallower W-shaped dives, likely for capturing crustaceans at twilight. In contrast, males performed mostly deeper U-shaped dives for capturing mid-water species (e.g., capelin, Mallotus villosus (Muller, 1776)). Altogether, our results show that the two sympatric auks had relatively similar intersexual segregation in feeding time, depth, and prey. Sex differences in nest attendance, driven by differences in parental roles, seem to explain these findings.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available