Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 157, Issue 4, pp 811–825 | Cite as

Comparison of diving behavior and foraging habitat use between chinstrap and gentoo penguins breeding in the South Shetland Islands, Antarctica

  • Nobuo Kokubun
  • Akinori Takahashi
  • Yoshihisa Mori
  • Shinichi Watanabe
  • Hyoung-Chul Shin
Original Paper

Abstract

Chinstrap, Pygoscelis antarctica, and gentoo, P. papua, penguins are sympatric species that inhabit the Antarctic Peninsula. To evaluate differences in the foraging habitat of these two species, we recorded their foraging locations and diving behavior using recently developed GPS-depth data loggers. The study was conducted on King George Island, Antarctica during the chick-guarding period of both species, from December 2006 to January 2007. The area used for foraging, estimated as the 95% kernel density of dive (>5 m) locations, overlapped partially between the two species (26.4 and 68.5% of the area overlapped for chinstrap and gentoo penguins, respectively). However, the core foraging area, estimated as the 50% kernel density, was mostly separate (12.8 and 25.0% of the area overlapped for chinstrap and gentoo penguins, respectively). Chinstrap penguins tended to use off-shelf (water depth > 200 m) regions (77% of the locations for dives >5 m), whereas gentoo penguins mainly used on-shelf (water depth < 200 m) areas (71% of dive locations). The data on foraging locations, diving behavior, and bathymetry indicated that gentoo penguins often performed benthic dives (28% of dives >5 m), whereas chinstrap penguins almost always used the epipelagic/mid-water layer (96% of dives >5 m). Diving parameters such as diving bottom duration or diving efficiency differed between the species, reflecting differences in the use of foraging habitat. The diving parameters also suggested that the on-shelf benthic layer was profitable foraging habitat for gentoo penguins. Conversely, the relationship between trip duration, date, and stomach content mass suggested that the chinstrap penguins went further from the colony to forage as the season progressed, possibly reflecting a reduction in prey availability near the colony. Our results suggest that chinstrap and gentoo penguins segregated their foraging habitat in the Antarctic coastal marine environment, possibly due to inter- and intra-specific competition for common prey resources.

Keywords

Generalize Linear Mixed Model South Shetland Island Antarctic Krill Gentoo Penguin Trip Duration 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the members of the King Sejong Station, Korea Polar Research Institute (KOPRI), especially Dr. M-Y. Choe and Dr. S-H. Lee, for logistic support in the field. We are also grateful to Dr. K. Shimatani for help with data analyses, Dr. N. Yamaguchi for statistical advice with R software and Dr. T. Iwami for help identifying fish species. Anonymous reviewers provided numerous suggestions and comments that help improve the manuscript greatly. This work was conducted as an international joint research project, under the auspices of the Japanese Antarctic Research Expedition and the Korea Antarctic Research Program. This study was partially supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Research Fellowship for Young Scientists to NK and a JSPS research grant (20310016) to AT. SW was supported by the program “Bio-logging Science, The University of Tokyo (UTBLS)” led by Dr. N. Miyazaki. A research grant (PM06010) from Korean Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries provided partial support for the logistics of this expedition. The Ministry of the Environment, Japan, issued the permits required to conduct this work.

References

  1. Aguirre CA (1995) Distribution and abundance of birds at Potter Peninsula, 25 de Mayo (King George) Island, South Shetland Islands, Antarctica. Mar Ornithol 23:23–31Google Scholar
  2. Ainley DG, Ballard G, Blight LK, Ackley S, Emslie SD, Lescroël A, Olmastroni S, Townsend SE, Tynan CT, Wilson P, Woehler E (2009) Impacts of cetaceans on the structure of Southern Ocean food webs. Mar Mamm Sci. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-7692.2009.00337.x
  3. Ainley DG, Blight LK (2009) Ecological repercussions of historical fish extraction from the Southern Ocean. Fish Fish 10:13–38Google Scholar
  4. Ainley DG, Ribic CA, Ballard G, Heath S, Gaffney I, Karl BJ, Barton KJ, Wilson PR, Webb S (2004) Geographic structure of Adélie penguin populations: overlap in colony-specific foraging areas. Ecol Monogr 74:159–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bailleul F, Luque S, Dubroca L, Arnould JPY, Guinet C (2005) Differences in foraging strategy and maternal behaviour between two sympatric fur seal species at the Crozet Islands. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 293:273–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ballance LT, Pitman RL, Hewitt RP, Siniff DB, Trivelpiece WZ, Clapham PJ, Brownell RL (2006) The removal of large whales from the southern ocean: evidence for long-term ecosystem effects? In: Estes JA, Demaster DP, Doak DF, Williams TM, Brownell RL (eds) Whales, Whaling, and Ocean Ecosystems. University of California Press, Berkley, pp 215–230Google Scholar
  7. Bannash R (1995) Hydrodynamics of penguins–an experimental approach. In: Dann P, Norman I, Reilly P (eds) The penguins: ecology and management. Surrey Beauty and Sons Pty Limited, Chipping Norton, pp 141–176Google Scholar
  8. Barrera-Oro ER, Marschoff ER, Casaux RJ (2000) Trends in relative abundance of fjord Notothenia rossii, Gobionotothen gibberifrons and Notothenia coriiceps at Potter Cove, South Shetland Islands, after commercial fishing in the area. CCAMLR Sci 7:43–52Google Scholar
  9. Bost CA, Handrich Y, Butler PJ, Fahlman A, Halsey LG, Woakes AJ, Ropert-Coudert Y (2007) Changes in dive profiles as an indicator of feeding success in king and Adélie penguins. Deep-Sea Res Part II 54:248–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boyd I, Wanless S, Camphuysen CJ (eds) (2006) Top predators in marine ecosystems: their role in monitoring and management. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Brinton E (1991) Distribution and population structures of immature and adult Euphausia superba in the western Bransfield Strait region during the 1986–87 summer. Deep-Sea Res 38:1169–1193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carlini AR, Coria NR, Santos MM, Negrete J, Juares MA, Daneri GA (2009) Responses of Pygoscelis adeliae and P. papua populations to environmental changes at Isla 25 de Mayo (King George Island). Polar Biol 32:1427–1433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Casaux RJ, Barrera-Oro ER (2006) Shags in Antarctica: their feeding behaviour and ecological role in the marine food web. Antarct Sci 18:3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. CCAMLR (1997) CCAMLR ecosystem monitoring program: standard methods for monitoring studies. Commission for the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources (CCAMLR), Hobert, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  15. Coyle KO, Hunt GL, Decker MB, Weingarther TJ (1992) Murre foraging, epibenthic sound scattering and tidal advection over a shoal near St. George Island, Bering Sea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 83:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Crawley MJ (2007) The R book. Wiley, West Sussex, pp 569–591Google Scholar
  17. Croxall JP, Davis RW, O’Connell MJ (1988) Diving patterns in relation to diet of gentoo and macaroni penguins at South Georgia. Condor 90:157–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Croxall JP, Reid K, Prince PA (1999) Diet, provisioning and productivity responses of marine predators to differences in availability of Antarctic krill. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 177:115–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ducklow HW, Baker K, Martinson DG, Quetin LB, Ross RM, Smith RC, Stammerjohn SE, Vernet M, Fraser W (2007) Marine pelagic ecosystems: the West Antarctic Peninsula. Phil Trans R Soc B 362:67–94CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Faraway JJ (2006) Extending the linear model with R: generalized linear, mixed Effects and nonparametric regression models. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, pp 153–183Google Scholar
  21. Forcada J, Trathan PN, Reid K, Murphy EJ, Croxall JP (2006) Contrasting population changes in sympatric species of penguins in association with climate warming. Global Change Biol 12:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fraser WR, Hofmann EE (2003) A predator’s perspective on causal links between climate change, physical forcing and ecosystem response. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 265:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Furness RW, Birkhead TR (1984) Seabird colony distribution suggest competition for food supplies during the breeding season. Nature 311:655–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gon O, Heemstra PC (eds) (1990) Fishes of the southern ocean. J. L. B. Smith Institute of Ichthyology, GrahamstownGoogle Scholar
  25. Hamer KC, Humphreys EM, Garthe S, Hennicke J, Peters G, Grémillet D, Phillips RA, Harris MP, Wanless S (2007) Annual variation in diets, feeding locations and foraging behaviour of gannets in the North Sea: flexibility, consistency and constraint. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 338:295–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hill HJ (1990) A new method for the measurement of Antarctic Krill Euphausia superba Dana from predator food samples. Polar Biol 10:317–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hinke JT, Salwicka K, Trivelpiece SG, Watters GM, Trivelpiece WZ (2007) Divergent responses of Pygoscelis penguins reveal a common environmental driver. Oecologia 153:845–855CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Hull CL (1999) Comparison of the diets of breeding Royal Eudyptes schlengeli, and Rockhopper Eudyptes chrysocome Penguins at Macquarie Island over three years. J Zool 247:507–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hull CL (2000) Comparative diving behaviour and segregation of the marine habitat by breeding Royal Penguins, Eudyptes schlengeli, and eastern Rockhopper Penguins, Eudyptes chrysocome filholi, at Macquarie Island. Can J Zool 78:333–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hull CL, Hindell MA, Michael KJ (1997) The foraging zones of Royal Penguins during the breeding season, and their association with oceanographic features. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 153:217–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ichii T, Bengtson JL, Boveng PL, Takao Y, Jansen JK, Hiruki-Raring LM, Cameron MF, Okamura H, Hayashi T, Naganobu M (2007) Provisioning strategies of Antarctic fur seals and chinstrap penguins produce different responses to distribution of common prey habitat. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 344:277–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ichii T, Katayama K, Obitsu N, Ishii H, Naganobu M (1998) Occurrence of Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) concentrations in the vicinity of the South Shetland Islands: relationship to environmental parameters. Deep-Sea Res Part I 45:1235–1262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jablonski B (1984) Distribution and numbers of penguins in the region of King George Island, South Shetland Islands in the breeding season 1980/1981. Pol Polar Res 5:17–30Google Scholar
  34. Kim DH (2002) Effect of variation in food supply on reproduction in Gentoo (Pygoscelis papua) and Chinstrap (P. antarctica) penguins. Annual report of environmental monitoring on human impacts at the King Sejong station, Antarctica. Korea Ocean Research and Development Institute (EC PP 01 001-B2), pp 195–222 (In Korean, with English abstract)Google Scholar
  35. Kitaysky SA, Golubova EG (2000) Climate change causes contrasting trends in reproductive performance of planktivorous and piscivorous alcids. J Anim Ecol 69:248–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lescroël A, Bost C-A (2005) Foraging under the contrasting oceanographic conditions: the gentoo penguin at Kerguelen Archipelago. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 302:245–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ligowski R (2000) Benthic feeding by krill, Euphausia superba Dana, in coastal waters off West Antarctica and in admiralty Bay, South Shetland Islands. Polar Biol 23:619–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Loeb VJ, Amos AF, Macaulay MC, Wormuth JH (1993) Antarctic krill stock distribution and composition in the Elephant Island and King George Island areas, January-February, 1988. Polar Biol 13:171–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Luque SP, Arnould JP, Guinet C (2008) Temporal structure of diving behaviour in sympatric Antarctic and subantarctic fur seals. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 372:277–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lynnes AS, Reid K, Croxall JP, Trathan PN (2002) Conflict or co-existence? Foraging distribution and competition for prey between Adélie and chinstrap penguins. Mar Biol 141:1165–1174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Makarov RR, Denys CJ (1981) Stages of sexual maturity of Euphausia superba. BIOMASS Handbook No. 11, Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  42. Mattern T, Ellenberg U, Houston DM, Davis L (2007) Consistent foraging routes and benthic foraging behaviour in yellow-eyed penguins. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 343:295–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Miller AK, Trivelpiece WZ (2007) Cycles of Euphausia superba recruitment evident in the diet of Pygoscelid penguins and net trawls in the South Shetland Islands, Antarctica. Polar Biol 30:1615–1623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Miller AK, Trivelpiece WZ (2008) Chinstrap penguins alter foraging and diving behaviour in response to the size of their principal prey, Antarctic krill. Mar Biol 154:201–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mori Y, Boyd I (2004) Segregation of foraging between two sympatric penguin species: does rate maximization make the difference? Mar Ecol Prog Ser 275:241–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Page B, McKenzie J, Goldsworthy SD (2005) Dietary resources partitioning among sympatric New Zealand and Australian fur seals. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 293:283–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pinaud D, Weimerskirch H (2007) At-sea distribution and scale-dependent foraging behaviour of petrels and albatrosses: a comparative study. J Anim Ecol 76:9–19CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Ponganis PJ, Van Dam RP, Marshall G, Knower T, Levenson DH (2000) Sub-ice foraging behavior of emperor penguins. J Exp Biol 203:3275–3278PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. R Development Core Team (2008) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  50. Rakusa-Suszczewski S (1980) Environmental conditions and the functioning of Admiralty Bay (South Shetland Islands) as part of the near shore Antarctic ecosystem. Pol Polar Res 1:11–27Google Scholar
  51. Ryan PG, Peterson SL, Peters G, Grémillet D (2004) GPS tracking a marine predator: the effect of precision, resolution and sampling rate on foraging tracks of African Penguins. Mar Biol 145:215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Siegel V, Kawaguchi S, Ward P, Litvinov F, Sushin V, Loeb V, Watkins J (2004) Krill demography and large-scale distribution in the southwest Atlantic during January/February 2000. Deep-Sea Res Part II 51:1253–1273Google Scholar
  53. Simeone A, Wilson RP (2003) In-depth studies of Magellanic penguin (Spheniscus magellanicus) foraging: can we estimate prey consumption by perturbations in the dive profile? Mar Biol 143:825–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Steinfurth A, Vargas FH, Wilson RP, Spindler M, Macdonald DW (2008) Space use by foraging Galapagos penguins during chick rearing. Endangered Species Res 4:105–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Takahashi A, Dunn NJ, Trathan PN, Croxall JP, Wilson RP, Sato K, Naito Y (2004) Krill-feeding behaviour in a chinstrap penguin (Pygoscelis Antarctica) compared with fish-eating in Magellanic penguins (Spheniscus magellanicus): a pilot study. Mar Orn 32:47–54Google Scholar
  56. Takahashi A, Dunn MJ, Trathan PN, Sato K, Naito Y, Croxall JP (2003) Foraging strategies of chinstrap penguins at Signy Island, Antarctica: importance of benthic feeding on Antarctic krill. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 250:279–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Takahashi A, Kokubun N, Mori Y, Shin HC (2008) Krill-feeding behaviour of gentoo penguins as shown by animal-borne camera loggers. Polar Biol 31:1291–1294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tremblay Y, Cherel Y (2000) Benthic and pelagic dives: a new foraging behaviour in rockhopper penguins. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 204:257–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Trivelpiece WZ, Bengtson JL, Trivelpiece SG, Volkman NJ (1986) Foraging behaviour of gentoo and Chinstrap Penguins as determined by a new radiotelemetry techniques. Auk 103:777–781Google Scholar
  60. Trivelpiece WZ, Trivelpiece SG, Volkman NJ (1987) Ecological segregation of Adélie, Gentoo, and Chinstrap penguins at King George Island, Antarctica. Ecology 68:351–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Volkman NJ, Presler P, Trivelpiece W (1980) Diets of Pygoscelid penguins at King George islands, Antarctica. Condor 82:373–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Watkins L, Buchholz F, Priddle J, Morris DJ, Ricketts C (1992) Variation in reproductive status of Antarctic krill swarms; evidence for a size-related sorting mechanism? Mar Ecol Prog Ser 82:163–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Watkins L, Murray AWA (1998) Layers of Antarctic krill, Euphausia superba: are they just long krill swarms? Mar Biol 131:237–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wilson RP (1995) The foraging range of penguins. In: Williams TD (ed) The penguins. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 81–106Google Scholar
  65. Wilson RP, Alvarrez B, Latorre L, Adelung D, Culik B, Bannasch R (1998) The movements of gentoo penguin Pygoscelis papua from Ardley Island, Antarctica. Polar Biol 19:407–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wilson RP, Peters G (1999) Foraging behaviour of the Chinstrap Penguin Pygoscelis antarctica at Ardley Island, Antarctica. Mar Ornithol 27:69–79Google Scholar
  67. Wood AG, Neaf-Daenzer B, Prince PA, Croxall P (2000) Quantifying habitat use in satellite-tracked pelagic seabirds: application of kernel estimation to albatross locations. J Avian Biol 31:278–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Worton BJ (1989) Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies. Ecology 70:164–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nobuo Kokubun
    • 1
  • Akinori Takahashi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yoshihisa Mori
    • 3
  • Shinichi Watanabe
    • 4
  • Hyoung-Chul Shin
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Polar ScienceThe Graduate University for Advanced StudiesTachikawa, TokyoJapan
  2. 2.National Institute of Polar ResearchTachikawa, TokyoJapan
  3. 3.Department of Animal ScienceTeikyo University of Technology and ScienceYamanashiJapan
  4. 4.Ocean Research InstituteThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan
  5. 5.Korea Polar Research InstituteIncheonKorea

Personalised recommendations