Advertisement

The Science of Nature

, 104:103 | Cite as

Reduced population size does not affect the mating strategy of a vulnerable and endemic seabird

  • Cristina Nava
  • Verónica C. Neves
  • Malvina Andris
  • Marie-Pierre Dubois
  • Philippe Jarne
  • Mark Bolton
  • Joël Bried
Original Paper

Abstract

Bottleneck episodes may occur in small and isolated animal populations, which may result in decreased genetic diversity and increased inbreeding, but also in mating strategy adjustment. This was evaluated in the vulnerable and socially monogamous Monteiro’s Storm-petrel Hydrobates monteiroi, a seabird endemic to the Azores archipelago which has suffered a dramatic population decline since the XVth century. To do this, we conducted a genetic study (18 microsatellite markers) in the population from Praia islet, which has been monitored over 16 years. We found no evidence that a genetic bottleneck was associated with this demographic decline. Monteiro’s Storm-petrels paired randomly with respect to genetic relatedness and body measurements. Pair fecundity was unrelated to genetic relatedness between partners. We detected only two cases of extra-pair parentage associated with an extra-pair copulation (out of 71 offspring). Unsuccessful pairs were most likely to divorce the next year, but genetic relatedness between pair mates and pair breeding experience did not influence divorce. Divorce enabled individuals to improve their reproductive performances after re-mating only when the new partner was experienced. Re-pairing with an experienced partner occurred more frequently when divorcees changed nest than when they retained their nest. This study shows that even in strongly reduced populations, genetic diversity can be maintained, inbreeding does not necessarily occur, and random pairing is not risky in terms of pair lifetime reproductive success. Given, however, that we found no clear phenotypic mate choice criteria, the part played by non-morphological traits should be assessed more accurately in order to better understand seabird mating strategies.

Keywords

Mate choice Genetic relatedness Body size Inbreeding Microsatellite markers Hydrobates monteiroi 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by a small grant from the Seabird Group awarded to CN, by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (PRAXIS/C/BIA/13194/98 and POCTI-BIA-13194/98 to MB, PTDC/BIABDE/67286/2006 to JB, and SFRH/BPD/88914/2012 to VCN) and Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional (Programme COMPETE, ref. FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-007061). It was also supported by the Programmes ‘MARE’ (Life contract B4-3200/98-509), ‘OGAMP’ (Interreg IIIB-MAC/4.2/A2), ‘MARMAC’ (Interreg IIIB/FEDER/MARMAC/003-4/2005-6 and Interreg IIIB-05/MAC/4.2/A4), MoniAves (Programme launched by the Regional Environment Directorate from the Azores), all coordinated by R. S. Santos, and also by two Luso-French Integrated Actions Programmes (PESSOA 4.1.1/França and PAUILF F-30/07). IMAR-DOP/UAç is funded by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia and Fundo Regional para a Ciência e Tecnologia - Azores (Research Unit No. 531 and Associate Laboratory No. 9-ISR-Lisbon). Microsatellite development was also supported by the AIP BioRessources ‘EcoMicro’ grant from the Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique and by the R&D budget of Genoscreen (Lille, France). A. Campos, B. Hothersall, M. Villafane, M. C. Magalhães, M. Laranjo, P.-A. Crochet, M. Antunes, R. Fontaine, P. Visicchio, S. Serba, L. Palou, E. Monteiro and P. Monteiro provided field assistance. M. Melo, L. Aguiar, P. Raposo and R. Oliveira provided transportation to Praia islet. S.-Y. Kim provided advice on GLMM analyses. Thanks also to the staff from SMGE of the CNRS-CEFE and from the “plateforme génotypage-séquençage” of SFR MEB (Montpellier Environnement Biodiversité), and to three anonymous reviewers for their comments.

Fieldwork, including bird handling and blood sampling, was conducted under licence (permits issued each year by the Regional Environment Directorate from the Azores).

Supplementary material

114_2017_1523_MOESM1_ESM.docx (17 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 16 kb)

References

  1. Aebischer NJ, Potts GR, Coulson JC (1995) Site and mate fidelity of shags Phalacrocorax aristotelis at two British colonies. Ibis 137:19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amos WJ, Worthington Wilmer J, Fullard K, Burg TM, Croxall JP, Bloch D, Coulson T (2001) The influence of parental relatedness on reproductive success. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:2021–2027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbraud C, Jouventin P (1998) What causes body size variation in the Snow Petrel Pagodroma nivea? J Avian Biol 29:161–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaumont MA (1999) Detecting population expansion and decline using microsatellites. Genetics 153:2013–2029PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett PM, Owens IPF (2002) Evolutionary ecology of birds. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Bichet C, Penn DJ, Moodley Y, Dunoyer L, Cellier-Holzem E, Belvalette M, Grégoire A, Garnier S, Sorci G (2014) Females tend to prefer genetically similar mates in an island population of house sparrows. BMC Evol Biol 14:47.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-14-47 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. BirdLife International (2017) Species factsheets: Hydrobates monteiroi and Pterodroma magentae. BirdLife International, Cambridge http://www.birdlife.org. Accessed 17 January 2017Google Scholar
  8. Birkhead TR, Møller AP (1996) Monogamy and sperm competition in birds. In: Black JM (ed) Partnerships in birds—the study of monogamy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 323–343Google Scholar
  9. Black JM (1996) Introduction: pair bonds and partnerships. In: Black JM (ed) Partnerships in birds – the study of monogamy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3–20Google Scholar
  10. Black JM, Choudhury S, Owen M (1996) Do barnacle geese benefit from lifelong monogamy? In: Black JM (ed) Partnerships in birds – the study of monogamy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 91–117Google Scholar
  11. Black JM (2001) Fitness consequences of long-term pair bonds in barnacle geese: monogamy in the extreme. Behav Ecol 12:640–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blouin SF, Blouin M (1988) Inbreeding avoidance behaviors. Trends Ecol Evol 3:230–233CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Bolton M, Medeiros R, Hothersall B, Campos A (2004) The use of artificial breeding chambers as a conservation measure for cavity-nesting Procellariiform seabirds: a case study of the Madeiran storm petrel (Oceanodroma castro). Biol Conserv 116:73–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bolton M, Smith AL, Gómez-Díaz E, Friesen VL, Medeiros R, Bried J, Roscales JL, Furness RW (2008) Monteiro’s storm-petrel Oceanodroma monteiroi: a new species from the Azores. Ibis 150:717–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bonadonna F, Sanz-Aguilar A (2012) Kin recognition and inbreeding avoidance in wild birds: the first evidence for individual kin-related odour recognition. Anim Behav 84:509–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bond AL, Hobson KA (2015) Relaying propensity and characteristics of replacement clutches of Leach’s storm-petrels (Oceanodroma leucorhoa). Can J Zool 93:181–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bourgeois K, Dromzée S, Vidal E (2014) Relationships between nest-cavity and mate selection, reproductive performance and fidelity in the Mediterranean endemic Yelkouan shearwater Puffinus yelkouan. Acta Ornithol 49:9–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bradley JS, Wooller RD, Skira IJ (1995) The relationship of pair-bond formation and duration to reproductive success in short-tailed shearwaters Puffinus tenuirostris. J Anim Ecol 64:31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bried J, Dubois M-P, Jouventin P (2009) The first case of female-female pairing in a burrow-nesting seabird. Waterbirds 32:590–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bried J, Jouventin P (2002) Site and mate choice in seabirds: an evolutionary approach. In: Schreiber EA, Burger J (eds) Biology of marine birds. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 263–305Google Scholar
  21. Bried J, Dubois M-P, Jarne P, Jouventin P, Santos RS (2010) Does competition for nests affect genetic monogamy in Cory’s shearwater Calonectris diomedea? J Avian Biol 41:407–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Bried J, Nicolaus M, Jarne P, Dubois M-P, Jouventin P (2007) Population biology of the wandering albatross (Diomedea exulans) in the Crozet and Kerguelen archipelagos, southern Indian ocean, approached through genetic and demographic methods. J Zool Lond 272:20–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Bried J, Neves VC (2015) Habitat restoration on Praia Islet, Azores Archipelago, proved successful for seabirds, but new threats have emerged. Airo 23:25–35Google Scholar
  24. Brooke M de L (1978) Some factors affecting the laying date, incubation and breeding success of the Manx shearwater, Puffinus puffinus. J Anim Ecol 47:477–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Brooke M (2004) Albatrosses and petrels across the world. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Charlesworth D, Willis JH (2009) The genetics of inbreeding depression. Nat Rev Genet 10:783–796CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Choudhury S (1995) Divorce in birds: a review of the hypotheses. Anim Behav 50:413–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cleveland KE (2008) Estimating hatching date and mate choice of Leach’s storm-petrels (Oceanodroma leucorhoa). Acadia University, Wolfville, MSc DissertationGoogle Scholar
  29. Cornuet JM, Luikart G (1996) Description and power analysis of two tests for detecting recent population bottlenecks from allele frequency data. Genetics 144:2001–2014PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Coulson JC (1966) The influence of the pair-bond and age on the breeding biology of the Kittiwake Gull Rissa tridactyla. J Anim Ecol 35:269–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Coulson JC (1972) The significance of the pair-bond in the Kittiwake. Proc 15th Int Congr Ornithol:424–433Google Scholar
  32. David P, Pujol B, Viard F, Castella V, Goudet J (2007) Reliable selfing rate estimates from imperfect population genetic data. Mol Ecol 16:2474–2487CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Dearborn DC, Gager AB, McArthur AG, Gilmour ME, Mandzhukova E, Mauck RA (2016) Gene duplication and divergence produce divergent MHC genotypes without disassortative mating. Mol Ecol 25:4355–4367CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Einoder LD, Page B, Goldsworthy SD (2008) Sexual size dimorphism and assortative mating in the short-tailed shearwater Puffinus tenuirostris. Marine Ornithol 36:167–173Google Scholar
  35. Faul F, Erdfelder E (1992) GPOWER: a priori, post-hoc, and compromise power analyses for MS-DOS (computer programme). Bonn University, Department of PsychologyGoogle Scholar
  36. Ferrer M, Penteriani V (2003) A process of pair formation leading to assortative mating: passive age-assortative mating by habitat heterogeneity. Anim Behav 66:137–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Fridolfsson AK, Ellegren H (1999) A simple and universal method for molecular sexing of non-ratite birds. J Avian Biol 30:116–121Google Scholar
  38. Frutuoso G (1561) Saudades da terra. 2nd edition published in 6 volumes from 1978 to 1983. Rodrigues JBO (ed), Instituto Cultural de Ponta Delgada, Ponta DelgadaGoogle Scholar
  39. García-Navas V, Ortego J, Sanz JJ (2009) Heterozygosity-based assortative mating in blue tits (Cyanistes caeruleus): implications for the evolution of mate choice. Proc R Soc Lond B 276:2931–2940.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.0417 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Goldstein DB, Schlötterer C (1999) Microsatellites, evolution and applications. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  41. González-Solís J (2004) Sexual size dimorphism in northern Giant petrels: ecological correlates and scaling. Oikos 105:247–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Greenwood PJ (1987) Inbreeding, philopatry and optimal outbreeding in birds. In: Cooke F, Buckley PA (eds) Avian genetics: a population and ecological approach. Academic Press, London, pp 207–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Griffith SC, Owens IPF, Thuman KA (2002) Extra pair paternity in birds: a review of interspecific variation and adaptive function. Mol Ecol 11:2195–2212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Halliday TR (1983) The study of mate choice. In: Bateson P (ed) Mate choice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–32Google Scholar
  45. Hasson O, Stone L (2011) Why do females have so few extra-pair offspring? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:513–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Howell DC (2001) Resampling Procedures Version 1.3. Department of Psychology, University of VermontGoogle Scholar
  47. Jamieson IG, Taylor SS, Tracy LN, Kokko H, Armstrong DP (2009) Why some species of birds do not avoid inbreeding: insights from New Zealand robins and saddlebacks. Behav Ecol 20:575–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jarne P, Lagoda PJL (1996) Microsatellites, from molecules to populations and back. Trends Ecol Evol 11:424–429CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Jouventin P, Bried J (2001) The effect of mate choice on speciation in snow petrels. Anim Behav 62:123–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Jouventin P, Charmantier A, Dubois M-P, Jarne P, Bried J (2007) Extra-pair paternity in the strongly monogamous wandering albatross Diomedea exulans has no apparent benefits for females. Ibis 149:67–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Jouventin P, Lequette B, Dobson FS (1999) Age-related mate choice in the wandering albatross. Anim Behav 57:1099–1106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Kalinowski ST, Taper ML, Marshall TC (2007) Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment. Mol Ecol 16:1099–1106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Keller LF, Waller DM (2002) Inbreeding effects in wild populations. Trends Ecol Evol 17:230–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kéry M, Hatfield JS (2003) Normality of raw data in general linear models: the most widespread myth in statistics. Bull Ecol Soc Amer 84:92–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kirkpatrick M, Jarne P (2000) The effects of a bottleneck on inbreeding depression and the genetic load. Am Nat 155:154–167CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Lawrence HA, Taylor GA, Millar CD, Lambert DM (2008) High mitochondrial and nuclear genetic diversity in one of the world’s most endangered seabirds, the Chatham Island Taiko (Pterodroma magentae). Conserv Genet 9:1293–1301.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-007-9471-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Leclaire S, Merkling T, Raynaud C, Giacinti G, Bessière JM, Hatch SA, Danchin E (2011) An individual and a sex odor signature in kittiwakes? Study of the semiochemical composition of preen secretion and preen down feathers. Naturwissenschaften 98:615–624.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-011-0809-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Leclaire S, Strandh M, Mardon J, Westerdahl H, Bonadonna F (2017) Odour-based discrimination of similarity at the major histocompatibility complex in birds. Proc R Soc Lond B 284.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.2466
  59. Li J, Lv L, Wang P, Zhang Z, Wang Y (2015) Roles of phenotypic and genetic characteristics in the social mating pattern of Silver-throated Tits (Aegithalos glaucogularis). J Ornithol 156 (3):687–697.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-015-1166-9
  60. Ludwig SC, Becker PH (2012) Immigration prevents inbreeding in a growing colony of a long-lived and philopatric seabird. Ibis 154:74–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mays HL, Albrecht T, Liu M, Hill GE (2008) Female choice for genetic complementarity in birds: a review. Genetica 134:147–158.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10709-007-9219-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Milinski M (2006) The major histocompatibility complex, sexual selection, and mate choice. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 37:159–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Minias P, Minias A, Dziadek J (2015) Heterozygosity correlates with body size, nest site quality and productivity in a colonial waterbird, the whiskered tern (Chlidonias hybrida, Aves: Sternidae). J Zool Syst Evol Res 53:133–139.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jzs.12084 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Molecular Ecology Resources Primer Development Consortium (2012) Permanent genetic resources added to molecular ecology resources database 1 February 2012-31 march 2012. Mol Ecol Res 12:779–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Monteiro LR, Ramos JA, Pereira JC, Monteiro PR, Feio RS, Thompson DR, Bearhop S, Furness RW, Laranjo M, Hilton G, Neves VC, Groz MP, Thompson KR (1999) Status and distribution of Fea’s petrel, Bulwer’s petrel, Manx shearwater, little shearwater and band-rumped storm-petrel in the Azores archipelago. Waterbirds 22:358–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Monteiro LR, Ramos JA, Furness RW (1996) Past and present status and conservation of the seabirds breeding in the Azores archipelago. Biol Conserv 78:319–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Moody AT, Wilhelm SI, Cameron-MacMillan ML, Walsh CJ, Storey AE (2005) Divorce in common Murres (Uria aalge): relationship to parental quality. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 57:224–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Mulard H, Danchin E, Talbot SL, Ramey AM, Hatch SA, White JF, Helfenstein F, Wagner RH (2009) Evidence that pairing with genetically similar mates is maladaptive in a monogamous bird. BMC Evol Biol 9:147.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-9-147 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. Nava CP, Kim SY, Magalhães MC, Neves VC (2014) Do Cory’s shearwaters choose mates based on size? J Ornithol 155:869–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Nei M, Maruyama T, Chakraborty R (1975) The bottleneck effect and genetic variability in populations. Evolution 29:1–10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Ollason JC, Dunnet GM (1978) Age, experience and other factors affecting the breeding success of the fulmar, Fulmarus glacialis, in Orkney. J Anim Ecol 47:961–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Peck DR (2006) Local adaptation in the wedge-tailed shearwater (Puffinus pacificus). PhD thesis. James Cook University, TownsvilleGoogle Scholar
  73. Petrie M, Kempenaers B (1998) Extra-pair paternity in birds: explaining variation between species and populations. Trends Ecol Evol 13:52–58CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Pusey A, Wolf M (1996) Inbreeding avoidance in animals. Trends Ecol Evol 11:201–206CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Quillfeldt P, Schmoll T, Peter HU, Eppeln JT, Lubjuhn T (2001) Genetic monogamy in Wilson’s storm-petrel. Auk 118:242–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Quinard A, Dechaume-Moncharmont FX, Cézilly F (2014) Pairing patterns in relation to body size, genetic similarity and multilocus heterozygosity in a tropical monogamous bird species. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 68:1723–1731.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-014-1780-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Qvarnström A, Forsgren E (1998) Should females prefer dominant males? Trends Ecol Evol 13:498–501CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. R Development Core Team (2012) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. – R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org/
  79. Rabouam C, Bretagnolle V, Bigot Y, Périquet G (2000) Genetic relationships of Cory’s shearwater: parentage, mating assortment, and geographic differentiation revealed by DNA fingerprinting. Auk 117:651–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Raymond M, Rousset F (1995) GENEPOP (version 1.2): population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J Heredity 86:248–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Reid JM, Arcese P, Keller LF, Elliott KH (2007) Inbreeding effects on immune response in free-living song sparrows (Melospiza melodia). Proc R Soc Lond B 274:697–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Richdale LE (1957) A population study of penguins. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  83. Robert A, Bolton M, Jiguet F, Bried J (2015) The survival-reproduction association becomes stronger when conditions are good. Proc R Soc Lond B 282:20151529.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.1529 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Robert A, Paiva VH, Bolton M, Jiguet F, Bried J (2012) The interaction between reproductive cost and individual quality is mediated by oceanic conditions in a long-lived seabird. Ecology 93:1944–1952CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Robert A, Paiva VH, Bolton M, Jiguet F, Bried J (2014) Nest fidelity is driven by multi-scale information in a long-lived seabird. Proc R Soc Lond B 281:20141692.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1692 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Roper TJ (1999) Olfaction in birds. Adv Stud Behav 28:247–332Google Scholar
  87. Rousset F (2007) GENEPOP 4.0 for Windows and Linux. Lab Génome, Populations, Interactions, CNRS UMR 5000, University of Montpellier IIGoogle Scholar
  88. Rousset F (2008) GENEPOP 007: a complete re-implementation of the GENEPOP software for windows and Linux. Mol Ecol Res 8:103–106Google Scholar
  89. Schreiber EA, Schreiber RW (1993) Red-tailed tropicbird. In: Poole A, Gill F (eds) The birds of North America. Vol 43 Academy of Natural Sciences and American Ornitholgists’ UnionGoogle Scholar
  90. Storz JF, Beaumont MA (2002) Testing for genetic evidence of population expansion and contraction: an empirical analysis of microsatellite DNA variation using a hierarchical Bayesian model. Evolution 56:154–166CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Strandh M, Westerdahl H, Pontarp M, Canbäck B, Dubois MP, Miquel C, Taberlet P, Bonadonna F (2012) Major histocompatibility complex class II compatibility, but not class I, predicts mate choice in a bird with highly developed olfaction. Proc R Soc Lond B 279:4457–4463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Swatschek I, Ristow D, Wink M (1994) Mate fidelity and parentage in Cory’s shearwater Calonectris diomedea-field studies and DNA fingerprinting. Mol Ecol 3:259–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Szulkin M, Sheldon BC (2008) Dispersal as a means of inbreeding avoidance in a wild bird population. Proc R Soc Lond B 275:703–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Wang J (2002) An estimator for pairwise relatedness using molecular markers. Genetics 160:1203–1215PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  95. Warham J (1990) The petrels. Their ecology and breeding systems. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  96. Zelano B, Edwards SV (2002) A MHC component to kin recognition and mate choice in birds: predictions, progress and prospects. Am Nat S160:225–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cristina Nava
    • 1
  • Verónica C. Neves
    • 1
    • 2
  • Malvina Andris
    • 1
  • Marie-Pierre Dubois
    • 3
  • Philippe Jarne
    • 3
  • Mark Bolton
    • 4
  • Joël Bried
    • 1
    • 5
  1. 1.MARE (Marine and Environmental Science Centre), IMAR (Institute of Marine Research) and LARSyS Associated Lab, Departamento de Oceanografia e PescasUniversidade dos AçoresHortaPortugal
  2. 2.CIBIO Research Center in Biodiversity and Genetic Resources, CIBIO-Azores, Department of Science and Technology, Portugal
  3. 3.Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive, UMR 5175, Centre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversité de Montpellier, Université Paul Valéry Montpellier-Ecole Pratique des Hautes EtudesMontpellier Cedex 5France
  4. 4.RSPB Centre for Conservation Science, UK Headquarters, The LodgeBedfordshireUK
  5. 5.BiarritzFrance

Personalised recommendations