4.1 Article

Chinstrap penguin foraging area associated with a seamount in Bransfield Strait, Antarctica

期刊

POLAR SCIENCE
卷 9, 期 4, 页码 393-400

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.polar.2015.10.001

关键词

Foraging habitat; Bathymetry; Bransfield current; Antarctic krill; Upwelling

资金

  1. Long-Term Ecological Research on King George Island [PE 14020]
  2. Korean Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries [PM06010]
  3. Japan Society for Promotion of Science (JSPS) Research Fellowship
  4. JSPS [20310016]
  5. Japanese Antarctic Program for Joint Research with Foreign Countries
  6. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [20310016] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Identifying marine features that support high foraging performance of predators is useful to determine areas of ecological importance. This study aimed to identify marine features that are important for foraging of chinstrap penguins (Pygoscelis antarcticus), an abundant upper-trophic level predator in the Antarctic Peninsula region. We investigated the foraging locations of penguins breeding on King George Island using GPS- depth loggers. Tracking data from 18 birds (4232 dives), 11 birds (2095 dives), and 19 birds (3947 dives) were obtained in 2007, 2010, and 2015, respectively. In all three years, penguins frequently visited an area near a seamount (Orca Seamount) in Bransfield Strait. The percentage of dives (27.8% in 2007, 36.1% in 2010, and 19.1% in 2015) and depth wiggles (27.1% in 2007, 37.2% in 2010, and 22.3% in 2015) performed in this area was higher than that expected from the size of the area and distance from the colony (8.4% for 2007, 14.7% for 2010, and 6.3% for 2015). Stomach content analysis showed that the penguins fed mainly on Antarctic krill. These results suggest that the seamount provided a favorable foraging area for breeding chinstrap penguins, with high availability of Antarctic krill, possibly related to local upwelling. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. and NIPR. All rights reserved.

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

4.1
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