Inter- and intra-year variation in foraging areas of breeding kittiwakes (Rissa tridactyla)

Marine Biology - Tập 161 - Trang 1973-1986 - 2014
G. S. Robertson1, M. Bolton2, W. J. Grecian1, P. Monaghan1
1Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, Graham Kerr Building, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
2RSPB Centre for Conservation Science, Bedfordshire, UK

Tóm tắt

While seabird conservation efforts have largely focused on protection from threats at the colony (e.g. reducing disturbance and predation), attention is increasingly being given to implementing protection measures for foraging areas at sea. For this to be effective, important foraging areas must be identified. Although numerous studies have examined seabird foraging behaviour, information is still lacking on the variability in area utilisation within and among breeding seasons. GPS devices were attached to adult black-legged kittiwakes breeding at an expanding North Sea colony (55°20′N, 1°32′W) during both incubation and chick-rearing in 2012 and during chick-rearing in 2011, to determine whether foraging areas remained consistent and to identify the oceanographic characteristics of areas used for foraging. The type and size of prey items consumed at different stages of the breeding cycle was also examined. During incubation (April–May 2012), kittiwakes foraged substantially further from the colony and fed on larger sandeels than when feeding chicks, and there was significant inter-annual variation in foraging areas used during the chick-rearing period (June–July 2011 and 2012). Foraging areas were characterised by cooler sea surface temperatures and areas of high chlorophyll a concentration, although association with specific oceanographic features changed within the breeding season and between years. These results emphasise the importance of considering how foraging areas and reliance on specific oceanographic conditions change over time when seeking to identify important marine areas for seabirds.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Coulson JC (2011) The Kittiwake. T & A D Poyser, London

Cramp S, Simmons KEL (1983) The Birds of the Western Palearctic III. Oxford University Press, London

Crawley MJ (2007) The R Book. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester

Eaton MA, Brown AF, Noble DG, Musgrove AJ, Hearn RD, Aebischer NJ, Gibbons DW, Evans A, Gregory RD (2009) Birds of Conservation Concern 3: The population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. Brit Birds 102:296–341

Frederiksen M, Jensen H, Daunt F, Mavor RA, Wanless S (2008) Differential effects of a local industrial sand lance fishery on seabird breeding performance. Ecol Appl 18:701–710

Furness RW, Ainley DG (1984) Threats to seabird populations presented by commercial fisheries. International Council for Bird Preservation (ICBP) Technical Publication No. 2. ICBP, Cambridge

Grecian WJ, Inger R, Attrill MJ, Bearhop S, Godley BJ, Witt MJ, Votier SC (2010) Potential impacts of wave-powered marine renewable energy installations on marine birds. Ibis 152:683–697

Grecian WJ, Witt MJ, Attrill MJ, Bearhop S, Godley BJ, Grémillet D, Hamer KC, Votier SC (2012) A novel technique to identify important at-sea areas for seabird conservation. Biol Conserv 156:43–52

Hill DA, Robertson PA (1987) The role of radiotelemetry in the study of galliformes. World Pheasant Assoc 12:81–92

Hunt GL, Mehlum F, Russell RW, Irons D, Decker MB, Becker PH (1999) Physical processes, prey abundance, and the foraging ecology of seabirds. Proc Int Ornithol Cong 22:2040–2056

IUCN (1988) Resolution 17.38 of the 17th General Assembly of the IUCN. Gland and Cambridge, IUCN

Lewison R, Crowder LB (2003) Estimating fishery bycatch and effects on a vulnerable seabird population. Ecol Appl 13:743–753

Mitchell PI, Newton SF, Ratcliffe N, Dunn TE (2004) Seabird populations of Britain and Ireland. T and AD Poyser, London

Nur N, Jahncke J, Herzog MP, Howar J, Hyrenbach KD, Zamon JE, Ainley DG, Wiens JA, Morgan K, Ballance LT, Stralberg D (2011) Where the wild things are: predicting hotspots of seabird aggregations in the California Current System. Ecol Appl 21:2241–2257

Stroud DA, Chambers D, Cook S, Buxton N, Fraser B, Clement P, Lewis P, McLean I, Baker H, Whitehead S (eds) (2001) The UK SPA network: its scope and content. JNCC Peterborough, UK

Suryan RM (2006) Comparative foraging ecology of five species of Pacific seabirds: Multi-scale analysis of marine habitat use. PhD thesis, Oregon State University

Tveraa T, Saether B-E, Aanes R, Erikstad KE (1998) Body mass and parental decisions in the Antarctic petrel: how long should the parents guard their chick? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 43:68–77

Weimerskirch H (1990) Weight loss of Antarctic fulmars Fulmarus glacialoides and mass of male and female wandering albatross in relation to the growth of their chick. Polar Biol 23:733–744

Weimerskirch H, Le Corre M, Jaquemet S, Marsac F (2005) Foraging strategy of a tropical seabird, the red-footed booby, in a dynamic marine environment. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 28:251–261