4.2 Article

Offshore diplomacy, or how seabirds mitigate intra-specific competition: a case study based on GPS tracking of Cape gannets from neighbouring colonies

期刊

MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES
卷 268, 期 -, 页码 265-279

出版社

INTER-RESEARCH
DOI: 10.3354/meps268265

关键词

Morus capensis; wildlife telemetry; geolocation; home range; habitat partitioning; optimal foraging; self-organisation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

How do seabirds deal with intra-specific competition for food? We addressed this question in a study of the foraging behaviour of 91 Cape gannets Morus capensis from 2 South African colonies, situated 110 km apart, using GPS and time-depth recorders. Theoretically birds should have widely overlapping foraging areas and comparable foraging characteristics. Surprisingly, the foraging areas only overlapped by 13 and 14%, and birds from the 2 colonies also showed marked differences in their foraging patterns. Birds from the larger colony foraged more intensively; their foraging trips lasted longer (22.6 vs 8.5 h), involving longer total flight time (7.8 vs 5.9 h), longer foraging path length (293 vs 228 km), and greater maximum distance from the breeding site (104 vs 67 km). They also travelled faster (50 vs 44 km h(-1)), and had a larger number of foraging locations; during each trip (252 vs 121), with more sinuous foraging paths (1.4 vs 1.1). However, there were no significant differences in the number of dives per foraging trip (68 vs 66), the average maximum depth attained (3.4 vs 3.6 m), nor the average or total dive duration per foraging trip (4.3 vs 4.3 s and 5.7 vs 4.3 min, respectively). We conclude that gannets from these 2 colonies are spatially segregated and experience different foraging conditions. We speculate that wind patterns and group feeding could generate such foraging asymmetries. Foraging site fidelity and memory effects could consolidate these asymmetries, and generate 'cultural' differences in foraging patterns.

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

4.2
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