4.5 Article

Foraging segregation between two closely related shearwaters breeding in sympatry

期刊

BIOLOGY LETTERS
卷 5, 期 4, 页码 545-548

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2009.0150

关键词

feeding ecology; migration; satellite tracking; seabirds; stable isotopes

资金

  1. Junta de Andalucia and SEO/BirdLife LIFE-Project [LIFE04NAT/ES/000049]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Trophic segregation has been proposed as a major mechanism explaining the coexistence of closely related animal taxa. However, how such segregation varies throughout the annual cycle is poorly understood. Here, we examined the feeding ecology of the two subspecies of Cory's shearwater, Calonectris diomedea diomedea and Calonectris diomedea borealis, breeding in sympatry in a Mediterranean colony. To study trophic segregation at different stages, we combined the analysis of isotope values (delta N-15, delta C-13) in blood obtained during incubation and in feathers moulted during chick-rearing and wintering periods with satellite-tracking data during the chick-rearing period. Satellite-tracking and stable isotope data of the first primary feather revealed that C. d. borealis foraged mainly in the Atlantic whereas C. d. diomedea foraged exclusively in the Mediterranean. This spatial segregation could reflect the foraging behaviour of the C. d. borealis individuals before they arrived at the Mediterranean colony. Alternatively, greater wing loading of C. d. borealis individuals may confer the ability to fly across the strong winds occurring at the at the Gibraltar strait. Isotope values of the eighth secondary feather also support segregation in wintering areas between the two forms: C. d. diomedea wintered mainly in association with the Canary current, whereas C. d. borealis wintered in the South African coast. Overall, our results show that spatial segregation in foraging areas can display substantial variation throughout the annual cycle and is probably a major mechanism facilitating coexistence between closely related taxa.

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