4.5 Article

Within and between species competition in a seabird community: statistical exploration and modeling of time-series data

期刊

OECOLOGIA
卷 169, 期 3, 页码 685-694

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00442-011-2226-3

关键词

Black-legged kittiwake; Breeding phenology; Colonial seabirds; Guillemots; Competition

类别

资金

  1. Norwegian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In a changing environment, the maintenance of communities is subject to many constraints (phenology, resources, climate, etc.). One such constraint is the relationship between conspecifics and competitors. In mixed colonies, seabirds may have to cope with interspecific and intraspecific competition for both space and food resources. We applied competitive interaction models to data on three seabird breeding populations: black-legged kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla), common guillemot (Uria aalge) and Brunnich's guillemot (Uria lomvia) collected over 27-years at Kharlov Island in the Barents Sea. We found a competitive effect only for the kittiwake breeding population size on the common guillemot breeding population size when kittiwakes were abundant. The timing of kittiwake breeding negatively affected the number of breeding Brunnich's guillemots. The timing of breeding was negatively correlated to biomass of the main pelagic fish in the Barents Sea, the capelin (Mallotus villosus), which suggests an indirect action. The community matrix shows that the community was not stable. The kittiwake population did not decrease as seen in north Norwegian populations. Likewise, the common guillemot population, after a crash in 1985, was recovering at Kharlov while Norwegian populations were decreasing. Only the Brunnich's guillemot showed a decrease at Kharlov until 1999. We suggest that the stability of the kittiwake and common guillemot populations at Kharlov is due to better feeding conditions than in colonies of the Norwegian coast, linked to a possible eastward shift of the capelin population with the temperature increase of the Barents Sea.

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

4.5
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