Marine Biology

, Volume 151, Issue 2, pp 687–694 | Cite as

Contrasting foraging tactics by northern gannets (Sula bassana) breeding in different oceanographic domains with different prey fields

  • Stefan Garthe
  • William A. Montevecchi
  • Gilles Chapdelaine
  • Jean-Francois Rail
  • April Hedd
Research Article

Abstract

In order to forage and to provision offspring effectively, seabirds negotiate a complex of behavioural, energetic, environmental and social constraints. In first tests of GPS loggers with seabirds in North America, we investigated the foraging tactics of free-ranging northern gannets (Sula bassana) at a large and a medium-sized colony that differed in oceanography, coastal position and prey fields. Gannets at Low Arctic colony (Funk Island) 50 km off the northeast coast of Newfoundland, Canada provisioned chicks almost entirely with small forage fish (capelin Mallotus villosus, 89%), while at boreal colony (Bonaventure Island) 3 km from shore in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Quebec, Canada, large pelagic fish dominated parental prey loads (Atlantic mackerel Scomber scombrus 50%, Atlantic herring Clupea harengus 33%). Mean foraging range and the total distance travelled per foraging trip were significantly greater at the larger inshore colony (Bonaventure) than at the smaller offshore colony (Funk Island; 138 and 452 km vs. 64 and 196 km, respectively). Gannets from Funk Island consistently travelled inshore to forage on reproductive capelin shoals near the coast, whereas foraging flights of birds from Bonaventure were much more variable in direction and destination. Birds from the Low Arctic colony foraged in colder sea surface water than did birds from the boreal colony, and dive characteristics differed between colonies, which is concordent with the difference in prey base. Differences between the colonies reflect oceanographic and colony-size influences on prey fields that shape individual foraging tactics and in turn generate higher level colony-specific foraging “strategies”.

References

  1. Ainley DG, Ford RG, Brown ED, Suryan RD, Irons DB (2003) Prey resources, competition, and geographic structure of kittiwake colonies in Prince William Sound. Ecology 84:709–723Google Scholar
  2. Ainley DG, Nur N, Woehler EJ (1995) Factors affecting the distribution and size of pygoscelid penguin colonies in the Antarctic. Auk 112:171–182Google Scholar
  3. Birt VL, Birt TP, Goulet D, Cairns DK, Montevecchi WA (1987) Ashmole’s halo: direct evidence for prey depletion by a seabird. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 40:205–208Google Scholar
  4. Cairns DK (1989) The regulation of seabird colony size: a hinterland model. Am Nat 134:141–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chardine JW (2000) Census of northern gannet colonies in the Atlantic Region in 1999. Can Wildl Serv Tech Rep Ser 361Google Scholar
  6. Clode D (1993) Colonially breeding seabirds: predators or prey? Trends Ecol Evol 8:336–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coulson JC (2002) Colonial breeding in seabirds. In: Schreiber EA, Burger J (eds) Biology of marine birds. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 87–113Google Scholar
  8. Davoren GK, Montevecchi WA, Anderson JT (2003) Search strategies of a pursuit-diving marine birds and the persistence of prey patches. Ecol Monogr 73:463–481Google Scholar
  9. Davoren GK, Anderson JT, Montevecchi WA (2006) Shoal behaviour and maturity relations of spawning capelin (Mallotus villosus) off Newfoundland: demersal spawning and diel vertical movement patterns. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 63:268–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Flemming SP, Greene E (1990) Making sense of information. Nature 348:291–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Furness RW, Birkhead TR (1984) Seabird colonies distributions suggest competition for food supplies during the breeding season. Nature 311:655–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Garthe S, Benvenuti S, Montevecchi WA (2000) Pursuit plunging by northern gannets (Sula bassana) feeding on capelin (Mallotus villosus). Proc R Soc Lond 267:1717–1722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Garthe S, Benvenuti S, Montevecchi WA (2003) Temporal patterns of foraging activities of northern gannets Morus bassanus in the north-west Atlantic. Can J Zool 81:453–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grémillet D, Dell’Omo G, Ryan PG, Peters G, Ropert-Coudert Y, Weeks SJ (2004) Offshore diplomacy, or how seabirds mitigate intra-specific competition: a case study based on GPS tracking of cape gannets from neighbouring colonies. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 268:265–279Google Scholar
  15. Hamer KC, Phillips RA, Hill JK, Wanless S, Wood AG (2001) Contrasting foraging strategies of gannets Morus bassanus at two North Atlantic colonies: foraging trip duration and foraging area fidelity. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 224:283–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holland GJ, Greenstreet SPR, Gibb IM, Fraser HM, Robertson MR (2005) Identifying sandeel Ammodytes marinus sediment habitat preferences in the marine environment. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 303:269–282Google Scholar
  17. Hunt GL Jr (1990) The pelagic distribution of marine birds in a heterogeneous environment. Polar Res 8:43–54Google Scholar
  18. Hunt GL Jr, Eppley ZA, Schneider DC (1986) Reproductive performance of seabirds: the importance of population and colony size. Auk 103:306–317Google Scholar
  19. Kacelnik A, Bernstein C, Krebs JR (1992) The ideal free distribution and predator–prey interactions. Trends Ecol Evol 7:50–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kitaysky AS, Golubova EG (2000) Climate change causes contrasting trends in reproductive performance of planktivorous and piscivorous alcids. J Anim Ecol 69:248–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lewis S, Sherratt TN, Hamer KC, Wanless S (2001) Evidence for intra-specific competition for food in a pelagic seabird. Nature 412:816–819PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lewis S, Benvenuti S, Dall’Antonia L, Griffiths R, Money L, Sherratt TN, Wanless S, Hamer KC (2002) Sex-specific foraging behaviour in a monomorphic seabird. Proc R Soc Lond 269:1687–1693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Montevecchi WA, Barrett RT, Rikardsen F, Strann KB (1987) Population and reproductive status of gannets in Norway, 1985. Fauna Norv Ser C 10:65–72Google Scholar
  24. Montevecchi WA, Garthe S, Davoren GK (2006) Biophysical influences on seabird trophic assessments. In: Boyd I, Wanless S, Camphuysen CJ (eds) Top predator in marine ecosystems. Their role in monitoring and management. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 188–130Google Scholar
  25. Montevecchi WA, Myers RA (1995) Prey harvests of seabirds reflect pelagic fish and squid abundance on multiple spatial and temporal scales. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 117:1–9Google Scholar
  26. Montevecchi WA, Myers RA (1996) Dietary changes of seabirds reflect shifts in pelagic food webs. Sarsia 80:313–322Google Scholar
  27. Montevecchi WA, Myers RA (1997) Centurial and decadal oceanographic influences on changes in northern gannet populations and diets in the Northwest Atlantic: implications for climate change. ICES J Mar Sci 54:608–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nelson JB (2002) The Atlantic gannet, 2nd edn. Fenix Books, Great YarmouthGoogle Scholar
  29. Nettleship DN, Evans P (1985) Distribution and status of the Atlantic Alcidae. In: Nettleship DN, Birkhead TR (eds) The Atlantic Alcidae. Academic, New York, pp 53–154Google Scholar
  30. Shealer DA (2002) Foraging behavior and food of seabirds. In: Schreiber EA, Burger J (eds) Biology of marine birds. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 137–177Google Scholar
  31. Stearns SA (1992) The evolution of life histories. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  32. Weimerskirch H (2002) Seabird demography and its relationship with the marine environment. In: Schreiber EA, Burger J (eds) Biology of marine birds. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 115–135Google Scholar
  33. Weimerskirch H, Bonadonna F, Bailleul F, Mabille G, Dell’Omo G, Lipp HP (2002) GPS tracking of foraging albatrosses. Science 295:1259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Garthe
    • 1
  • William A. Montevecchi
    • 2
  • Gilles Chapdelaine
    • 3
  • Jean-Francois Rail
    • 3
  • April Hedd
    • 2
  1. 1.Research and Technology Centre (FTZ)University of KielBüsumGermany
  2. 2.Cognitive and Behavioural Ecology Program, Psychology DepartmentMemorial UniversitySt. John’sCanada
  3. 3.Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment CanadaSte-FoyCanada

Personalised recommendations