4.7 Article

Flexibility of little auks foraging in various oceanographic features in a changing Arctic

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-65210-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. Norway through the Norwegian Financial Mechanism (ALKEKONGE) [PNRF-234-AI-1/07]
  2. Poland from University of Gdask
  3. Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education [3605/SEAPOP/2016/2]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using GPS-tracked individuals, we compared foraging ecology and reproductive output of a High-Arctic zooplanktivorous seabird, the little auk Alle alle, between three years differing in environmental conditions (sea surface temperature). Despite contrasting environmental conditions, average foraging fights distance and duration were generally similar in all studied years. Also, in all years foraging locations visited by the little auk parents during short trips (ST, for chick provisioning) were significantly closer to the colony compared to those visited during long trips (LTs, mainly for adults' self-maintenance). Nevertheless, we also found some differences in the little auk foraging behaviour: duration of LTs was the longest in the coldest year suggesting more time for resting for adults compared to warmer years. Besides, birds foraged closer to the colony and in significantly colder water in the coldest year. Interestingly, these differences did not affect chick diet: in all the years, the energy content of food loads was similar, with the Arctic copepod, Calanus glacialis copepodite stage V being the most preferred prey item (>73% of items by number and >67% by energy content). Also chick survival was similar in all the study years. However, when examining chicks growth rate we found that their peak body mass was lower in warmer years suggesting that overall conditions in the two warm years were less favourable. While our results, demonstrate a great foraging flexibility by little auks, they also point out their vulnerability to changing environmental conditions.

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

4.7
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