Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 56, Issue 1, pp 81–88 | Cite as

Brood neglect and contingent foraging behavior in a pelagic seabird

  • Sue Lewis
  • Keith C. Hamer
  • Luisa Money
  • Richard Griffiths
  • Sarah Wanless
  • Thomas N. Sherratt
Original Article

Abstract

Among species where there is a risk to leaving offspring unattended, parents usually take alternating shifts guarding their young. However, they may occasionally exhibit brood neglect by leaving their offspring unattended at the nest. To investigate this phenomenon further, we examined the foraging behavior of the northern gannet (Morus bassanus) during chick-rearing. This species has a prolonged nestling period (13 weeks) and the single chick is usually guarded by one or other of its parents, because unattended chicks are frequently attacked by conspecifics. We tested the prediction that the foraging behavior of adults when they left their offspring alone at the nest (unattended trips) would differ in character to when adults left offspring with their partner (attended trips). Brood neglect typically occurred after a longer-than-average attendance period at the nest. Unattended trips were, on average, about half the duration of attended trips, and therefore much closer to the colony. There was also a difference in departure direction between attended and unattended trips, with unattended trips tending to be northeast of the colony. Chicks were fed by parents after both attended and unattended trips, but the frequency and the duration of unattended trips increased as chicks grew older whereas the duration of attended trips decreased as chicks grew. These results indicate that parents may be making a trade-off between risk of attack to their offspring and food-intake rate, and that the solution to this trade-off is dependent on chick age.

Keywords

Dual foraging strategy Gannet Morus bassanus Nest attendance State-dependent foraging 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Many thanks are due to Mike Francis for designing a suitable nest balance system. We thank Ruth Cox, Francis Daunt, Janos Hennicke, Liz Humphreys and Richard Phillips for assistance with fieldwork, David Grémillet for useful discussion on nest balances prior to setting up this project, Kate Orr and Aileen Adam for performing the DNA analysis, Sir Hew Hamilton-Dalrymple for access to the Bass Rock, and the Marr Family and the McNicol Family for logistical support. We thank Bryan Nelson for support and advice throughout the project. Many thanks are due to Francis Daunt, Mick Marquiss, Ian Newton and anonymous referees for comments on earlier versions of the manuscript, and David Elston for statistical advice. We thank John Croxall and Mike Harris for support and assistance in developing the project on Bass Rock. This work was funded by a Natural Environment Research Council Case Studentship GT04/99/55 to S.L. and complies with the current laws within the United Kingdom.

References

  1. Cadiou B, Monnat JY (1996) Parental attendance and squatting in the kittiwake Rissa tridactyla during the rearing period. Bird Study 43:164–171Google Scholar
  2. Carey C (1996) Female nutritional requirements. In: Carey C (ed) Avian energetics and nutritional ecology. Chapman & Hall, New York, pp 324–374Google Scholar
  3. Chaurand T, Weimerskirch H (1994a) Incubation routine, body mass regulation and egg neglect in the blue petrel Halobaena caerulea. Ibis 136:285–290Google Scholar
  4. Chaurand T, Weimerskirch H (1994b) The regular alternation of short and long foraging trips in the blue petrel Halobaena caerulea: a previously undescribed strategy of food provisioning in a pelagic seabird. J Anim Ecol 63:275–282Google Scholar
  5. Clark CW, Mangel M (2000) Dynamic state variable models in ecology; methods and applications. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Croxall JP, Ricketts C (1983) Energy costs of incubation in wandering albatross Diomedea exulans. Ibis 125:33–39Google Scholar
  7. Elston DA, Horgan GW, Hunter EA (2001) Introduction to REML for scientists. BioSS, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  8. Garthe S, Gremillet D, Furness RW (1999) At-sea-activity and foraging efficiency in chick-rearing northern gannets Sula bassana: a case study in Shetland. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 185:93–99Google Scholar
  9. Garthe S, Benvenuti S, Montevecchi WA (2000) Pursuit plunging by northern gannets (Sula bassana) feeding on capelin (Mallotus villosus). Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 267:1717–1722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Golet GH, Irons DB (1999) Raising young reduces body condition and fat stores in black-legged kittiwakes. Oecologia 120:530–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Golet GH, Irons DB, Estes JA (1998) Survival costs of chick rearing in black-legged kittiwakes. J Anim Ecol 67:827–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grémillet D, Dey R, Wanless S, Harris MP, Regel J (1996) Determining food intake by great cormorants and European shags with electronic balances. J Field Ornithol 67:637–648Google Scholar
  13. Griffiths R, Daan S, Dijkstra C (1996) Sex identification in birds using two CHD genes. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 263:1251–1256Google Scholar
  14. Hamer KC, Phillips RA, Wanless S, Harris MP, Wood AG (2000) Foraging ranges, diets and feeding locations of gannets in the North Sea: evidence from satellite telemetry. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 200:257–264Google 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. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 224:283–290Google Scholar
  16. Hamer KC, Schreiber EA, Burger J (2002) Breeding biology, life histories, and life history-environment interactions in seabirds. In: Schreiber E, Burger J (eds) Biology of marine birds. CRC, Fla, pp 217–261Google Scholar
  17. Hislop JRG, Harris MP, Smith JGM (1991) Variation in the calorific value and total energy content of the lesser sandeel Ammodytes marinus and other fish preyed on by seabirds. J Zool 224:501–517Google Scholar
  18. Houston AI, McNamara JM (1985) The choice of two prey types that minimises the possibility of starvation. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 17:135–141Google Scholar
  19. Houston AI, Clark CW, McNamara JM, Mangel M (1988) Dynamic models in behavioural and evolutionary ecology. Nature 332:29–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hunter S (1984) Breeding biology and population dynamic of giant petrels Macronectes at South Georgia (Aves: Procellariiformes). J Zool 203:441–460Google Scholar
  21. Lewis S, Sherratt TN, Hamer KC, Wanless S (2001) Evidence of intra-specific competition for food in a pelagic seabird. Nature 412:816–819CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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 Ser B Biol Sci 269:1687–1693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lima SL, Dill L (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation—a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640Google Scholar
  24. McNamara JM, Houston AI (1996) State-dependent life histories. Nature 380:215–221PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Milinski M, Keller R (1978) Influence of a predator on the optimal foraging behaviour of sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Nature 275:642–644Google Scholar
  26. Montevecchi WA, Ricklefs RE, Kirkham IR, Gabaldon D (1984) Growth energetics of nestling northern gannets (Sula bassanus). Auk 101:334–341Google Scholar
  27. Nelson JB (2002) The Atlantic gannet. Fenix, NorfolkGoogle Scholar
  28. Newton I (1986) The sparrowhawk. Poyser, CaltonGoogle Scholar
  29. Nisbet ICT (1997) Female common terns Sterna hirundo eating mollusc shells: evidence for calcium deficits during egg laying. Ibis 139:400–401Google Scholar
  30. Patterson HD, Thompson R (1971) Recovery of inter-block information when block sizes are unequal. Biometrika 58:545–554Google Scholar
  31. Pettersson LB, Bronmark C (1993) Trading off safety against food—state-dependent habitat choice and foraging in crucian carp. Oecologia 95:353–357Google Scholar
  32. Reid JM, Monaghan P, Ruxton GD (2000) Resource allocation between reproductive phases: the importance of thermal conditions in determining the cost of incubation. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 267:37–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schall R (1991) Estimation in generalised linear models with random effects. Biometrika 78:719–727Google Scholar
  34. Sherratt TN (2003) State-dependent foraging decisions of predators in systems with defended prey. Oikos:103:93–100Google Scholar
  35. Sidwell VD (1981) Chemical and nutritional composition of finfishes, whales, crustaceans, mollusks and their products. NOAA technical memorandum NMFS FISEC-IIGoogle Scholar
  36. Szekely T, Webb JN, Houston AI, McNamara JM (1996) An evolutionary approach to offspring desertion in birds. In: Nolan V Jr, Ketterson ED (eds) Current ornithology, vol 13. Plenum, New York, pp 271–330Google Scholar
  37. Tveraa T, Lorentsen SH, Saether B-E (1997) Regulation of foraging trips and costs of incubation shifts in the Antarctic petrel (Thalassoica antarctica). Behav Ecol 8:465–469Google Scholar
  38. Tveraa T, Saether B-E, Aanes R, Erikstad KE (1998) Body mass and parental decisions in the Antarctic petrel Thalassoica antarctica: how long should the parents guard the chick? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 43:73–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Weimerskirch H (1998) How can a pelagic seabird provision its chick when relying on a distant food resource? Cyclic attendance at the colony, foraging decision and body condition in sooty shearwaters. J Anim Ecol 67:99–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Weimerskirch H, Chastel O, Ackermann L, Chaurand T, Cuenot-Chaillet F, Hindermeyer X, Judas J (1994) Alternate long and short foraging trips in pelagic seabird parents. Anim Behav 47:472–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weimerskirch H, Cherel Y, Cuenot-Chaillet F, Ridoux V (1997a) Alternative foraging strategies and resource allocation by male and female wandering albatrosses. Ecology 78:2051–2063Google Scholar
  42. Weimerskirch H, Mougey T, Hindermeyer X (1997b) Foraging and provisioning strategies of black-browed albatrosses in relation to the requirements of the chick: natural variation and experimental study. Behav Ecol 8:635–643Google Scholar
  43. Weimerskirch H, Prince PA, Zimmermann L (2000) Chick provisioning by the yellow-nosed albatross Diomedea chlororhynchos: response of foraging effort to experimentally increased costs and demands. Ibis 142:103–110Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sue Lewis
    • 1
  • Keith C. Hamer
    • 2
    • 3
  • Luisa Money
    • 1
  • Richard Griffiths
    • 4
  • Sarah Wanless
    • 1
  • Thomas N. Sherratt
    • 2
    • 5
  1. 1.NERC Centre for Hydrology and EcologyBanchory Research StationBanchoryUK
  2. 2.School of Biological and Biomedical SciencesUniversity of DurhamDurhamUK
  3. 3.Ecology and Evolution Group, School of BiologyUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK
  4. 4.Ornithology Group, Division of Environmental and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of GlasgowGlasgow UK
  5. 5.Department of BiologyCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations