4.2 Article

Energy Expenditure of Free-Ranging Chicks of the Cape Gannet Morus capensis

期刊

PHYSIOLOGICAL AND BIOCHEMICAL ZOOLOGY
卷 88, 期 4, 页码 406-415

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/681671

关键词

Cape gannet; Morus capensis; field metabolic rate; energy budget; chick growth; seabird

资金

  1. Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem [LMR/EAF/03/02]
  2. National Research Foundation, Pretoria, through its SeaChange program
  3. Netherlands Foundation
  4. Animal Demography Unit
  5. Earth Watch Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Cape gannet Morus capensis, a large fish-eating seabird, is endemic to southern Africa. To study the energetics of nestling growth, we used the doubly labeled water technique to measure field metabolic rate (FMR) of nestlings, from hatchings to large partly feathered chicks (n =17) at Malgas Island, Saldanha Bay, South Africa. At the same time, the growth rate of a large sample of chicks was measured (n = 338). These data, together with literature values on resting metabolic rate and body composition, were used to construct and partition the nestling energy budget. Nestling FMR (kJ d(-1)) increased with body mass according to FMR = 1.23m(0.923), r(2) = 0.944. Mass-specific FMR (FMRratio; kJ d(-1) g(-3/4)) was independent of chick age (r(2) = 0.20, P > 0.05); mean mass-specific FMR was 4.11 +/- 1.28, n = 17. Peak daily-metabolized energy (DME), which represents the maximum rate at which parents must supply their nestlings, occurred at age 71 d and was 2,141 kJ d(-1). Between the ages 51 and 92 d (43% of the fledging period), the DME of Cape gannet chicks was equal to or surpassed 90% of adult FMR at the nest. Energy demand during this period of peak DME represented 58% of the total metabolized energy, which was estimated at 150.1 MJ for an average chick during a 97-d period, from hatching to fledging. Sensitivity analysis of the energy budget indicated that the model was robust; the biggest source of error (+15%) was for the mass-FMR equation used in the model.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据