4.4 Article

Short- and long-term consistency in the foraging niche of wandering albatrosses

期刊

MARINE BIOLOGY
卷 159, 期 7, 页码 1581-1591

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00227-012-1946-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. Foundation for Science and Technology (Portugal) [PTDC/BIA-BDE/64539/2006, SFRH/BD/64558/2009]
  2. Centre d'Etudes Biologiques de Chize (France)
  3. British Antarctic Survey (UK)
  4. NERC [bas0100025] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Natural Environment Research Council [bas0100025] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [PTDC/BIA-BDE/64539/2006, SFRH/BD/64558/2009] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The wandering albatross (Diomedea exulans) is regarded as a generalist predator, but can it be consistent in its foraging niche at an individual level? This study tested short- and long-term consistency in the foraging niche in terms of habitat use, trophic level and, by inference, prey selection. Fieldwork was carried out at Bird Island, South Georgia, in May-October 2009, during the chick-rearing period. Blood (plasma and cells) and feathers for stable isotope analyses (delta C-13 and delta N-15) were sampled from 35 adults on their return from a foraging trip during which they carried stomach temperature, activity and global positioning system loggers. Results suggest short-term consistency in foraging niche in relation to both oceanic water mass and trophic level, and long-term consistency in use of habitat. Consistent differences between individuals partly reflected sex-specific habitat preferences. The proportion of consistent individuals (i.e., with a narrow foraging niche) was estimated at c. 40 % for short-term habitat and trophic level (prey) preferences and 29 % for longer-term habitat preference, suggesting this is an important characteristic of this population and potentially of pelagic seabirds in general. Foraging consistency was not related to body condition or level of breeding experience; instead, it may reduce intraspecific competition.

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

4.4
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