Foraging plasticity of breeding Northern Rockhopper Penguins, Eudyptes moseleyi, in response to changing energy requirements

  • Jenny M. Booth
  • Antje Steinfurth
  • Marco Fusi
  • Richard J. Cuthbert
  • Christopher D. McQuaid
Original Paper

Abstract

During the breeding season, seabirds must balance the changing demands of self- and off-spring provisioning with the constraints imposed by central-place foraging. Recently, it was shown that Northern Rockhopper Penguins at Tristan da Cunha in the South Atlantic Ocean switch diet from lower to higher trophic level prey throughout their breeding cycle. Here, we investigated if this switch is reflected in their foraging behaviour, using time-depth recorders to study the diving behaviour of 27 guard and 10 crèche birds during the breeding season 2010 at Tristan da Cunha and obtaining complementary stomach contents of 20 birds. While no significant effects of breeding stage were detected on any foraging trip or dive parameters, stage/prey had a significant effect on feeding dive parameters, with dive duration, bottom time, and maximum depth explaining the majority of the dissimilarity amongst categories. We verified the previously shown dietary shift from zooplankton and cephalopods during the guard stage to a higher-energy fish-based diet during the crèche stage, which was reflected in a change in dive behaviour from shorter, shallower to longer, deeper dives. This prey switching behaviour may reflect preferential selection to account for the increased physiological needs of chicks or simply mirror changes in local prey abundance. Nonetheless, we show that Northern Rockhopper Penguins demonstrate behavioural plasticity as a response to their changing energy requirements, which is a critical trait when living in a spatio-temporally heterogeneous environment. This ability is likely to be particularly important under extrinsic constraints such as long-term environmental change.

Keywords

Northern rockhopper penguin Eudyptes moseleyi Tristan da Cunha Dietary shift Generalist Foraging plasticity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was carried out under the auspices of the Flagship Species Fund of the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and Fauna & Flora International with funding from DEFRA, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and other donors under Project FSF-Defra- 10-48. The Department of Environmental Affairs through the South African National Antarctic Programme and the Tristan da Cunha conservation department provided logistical support. Thanks to T. Glass, J. Repetto, G. Swain, C. Repetto, M. Green and K. Green of the Tristan Conservation Department for their support in the field. M. Connan and anonymous reviewers provided helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. This work is based upon research supported by the South African Research Chairs Initiative of the Department of Science and Technology and the National Research Foundation. Funding was provided by SARCHI (Grant Number 64801).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Animal rights

Full permission for all methods used in this study and access to the penguin colonies were granted by the Tristan da Cunha government. Animal ethics approval was given by Rhodes University Ethics Committee (ZOOL-17-2010). All applicable international and institutional guidelines for the use of animals were followed.

References

  1. Ainley DG, Ballard G, Barton KJ, Karl BJ, Rau GH, Ribic A, Wilson PR (2003) Spatial and temporal variation of diet within a presumed meta-population of Adélie penguins. Condor 105:95–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson M, Gorley RN, Clarke RK (2008) Permanova + for primer: guide to software and statistical methods. Plymouth Marine Laboratory, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  3. Boersma PD, Rebstock GA, García-Borboroglu P (2015) Marine protection is needed for Magellanic penguins in Argentina based on long-term data. Biol Cons 182:197–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Booth JM (2011) Trophic ecology of breeding northern rockhopper penguins, Eudyptes Moseleyi, at Tristan da Cunha, South Atlantic Ocean. Dissertation, Rhodes UniversityGoogle Scholar
  5. Booth JM, McQuaid CD (2013) Northern rockhopper penguins prioritise future reproduction over chick provisioning. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 486:289–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 II 54:248–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Box GE, Jenkins GM, Reinsel GC (1994) Time series analysis: forecasting and control, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  8. Breslow NE, Clayton DG (1993) Approximate inference in generalized linear mixed models. J Am Stat Assoc 88:9–25Google Scholar
  9. Brown CR (1987) Energy requirements for growth and maintenance in macaroni and rockhopper penguins. Polar Biol 8:95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Charassin JB, Bost CA, Pütz K, Lage J, Dahier T, Zorn T, Le Maho Y (1998) Foraging strategies of incubating and brooding King penguins Aptenodytes patagonicus. Oecologia 114(2):194–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cherel Y, Tremblay Y, Guinard E, Georges JY (1999) Diving behaviour of female Northern rockhopper penguins Eudyptes chrysocome moseleyi during the brooding period at Amsterdam Island (Southern Indian Ocean). Mar Biol 134:375–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cherel Y, Hobson KA, Guinet C, Vanpe C (2007) Stable isotopes document seasonal changes in trophic niches and winter foraging individual specialization in diving predators from the Southern Ocean. J Anim Ecol 76:826–836CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Clarke KR, Gorley RN (2006) Primer v6: user manual/tutorial. PRIMER-E Ltd, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  14. Crossin GT, Takahashi A, Sakamoto KQ, Trathan PN, Williams TD (2015) Habitat selection by foraging macaroni penguins correlates with hematocrit, an index of aerobic condition. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 530:163–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Croxall JP, Davis LS (1999) Penguins: paradoxes and patterns. Mar Ornithol 27:1–12Google Scholar
  16. Cuthbert R (2013) Northern Rockhopper Penguin Eudyptes moseleyi. In: Gracia-Borboroglu P, Boersma PD (eds) Penguins: natural history and conservation. University of Washington Press, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  17. Cuthbert R, Cooper J, Burle MH, Glass CJ, Glass JP, Glass S, Glass T, Hilton GM, Sommer ES, Wanless RM, Ryan PG (2009) Population trends and conservation status of the Northern Rockhopper penguins Eudyptes moseleyi at Tristan da Cunha and Gough Island. Bird Conserv Int 19:109–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Davis LS, Cuthbert RL (2001) Reproductive ecology of seabirds. In: Steel JH, Thorpe SA, Turekian KK (eds) Encyclopaedia of ocean sciences. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Davoren GK, Montevecchi WA, Anderson JT (2003) Search strategies of a pursuit-diving marine bird and the persistence of prey patches. Ecol Monogr 73:463–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Deagle BE, Gales NJ, Hindell MA (2008) Variability in foraging behaviour of chick-rearing Macaroni penguins Eudyptes chrysolophus. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 359:295–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dehnhard N, Ludynia K, Masello JF, Voigt CC, McGill RA, Quillfeldt P (2016) Plasticity in foraging behaviour and diet buffers effects of inter-annual environmental differences on chick growth and survival in southern rockhopper penguins Eudyptes chrysocome chrysocome. Polar Biol 39:1627–1641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Elliott KH, Woo K, Gaston AJ, Benvenuti S, Dall’Antonia L, Davoren GK, (2008) Seabird foraging behaviour indicates prey type. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 354:289–303.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps07221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Elliott KH, Ricklefs RE, Gaston AJ, Hatch SA, Speakman JR, Davoren GK (2013) High flight costs, but low dive costs, in auks support the biomechanical hypothesis for flightlessness in penguins. PNAS 110:9380–9384CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Gales RP (1987) Validation of the stomach-flushing technique for obtaining stomach contents of penguins. Ibis 129:335–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gaston AJ (2004) Seabirds: a natural history. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Hagihara R, Jones RE, Sheppard JK, Hodgson AJ, Marsh H (2011) Minimizing errors in the analysis of dive recordings from shallow-diving animals. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 399:173–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Handley JM, Baylis AM, Brickle P, Pistorius P (2016) Temporal variation in the diet of gentoo penguins at the Falkland Islands. Polar Biol 39:283–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Handley JM, Connan M, Baylis AM, Brickle P, Pistorius P (2017) Jack of all prey, master of some: influence of habitat on the feeding ecology of a diving marine predator. Mar Biol 164:82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heath RGM, Randall RM (1985) Growth of Jackass penguin chicks (Spheniscus demersus) hand reared on different diets. J Zool 205:91–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ichii T, Naganobu M, Ogisima T (1996) Competition between the krill fishery and penguins in the South Shetland Islands. Polar Biol 16:63–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jansen JK, Russell RW, Meyer WR (2002) Seasonal shifts in the provisioning behavior of chinstrap penguins, Pygoscelis antarctica. Oecologia 131:306–318CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Lack D (1968) Ecological adaptations for breeding in birds. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Lescroël A, Bost CA (2005) Foraging under contrasting oceanographic conditions: the Gentoo penguin at Kerguelen Archipelago. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 302:245–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ludynia K, Roux JP, Jones R, Kemper J, Underhill LG (2010) Surviving off junk: low-energy prey dominates the diet of African penguins Spheniscus demersus at Mercury Island, Namibia, between 1996 and 2009. Afr J Mar Sci 32:563–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lyver POB, MacLeod CJ, Ballard G, Karl BJ, Barton KJ, Adams J, Ainley DG, Wilson PR (2011) Intra-seasonal variation in foraging behaviour among Adélie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae) breeding at Cape Hallett Ross Sea Antarctica. Polar Biol 34:49–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. MacArthur RH, Pianka ER (1966) On optimal use of a patchy environment. Am Nat 100:603–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mauchline J (1980) The biology of mysids and euphausiids. Adv Mar Biol 18:1–681Google Scholar
  38. Mori Y (1998) The optimal patch use in divers: optimal time budget and the number of dive cycles during bout. J Theor Biol 190:187–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Orians GH, Pearson NE (1979) On the theory of central place foraging. In: Horn DJ, Mitchell RD, Stairs GR (eds) Analysis of ecological systems. Ohio State University Press, ColombusGoogle Scholar
  40. Pichegru L, Ropert-Coudert Y, Kato A, Takahashi A, Dyer BM, Ryan PG (2011) Diving patterns of female Macaroni penguins breeding on Marion Island, South Africa. Polar Biol 34:945–954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pichegru L, Cook T, Handley J, Voogt N, Watermeyer J, Nupen L, McQuaid CD (2013) Sex-specific foraging behaviour and a field sexing technique for Endangered African penguins. Endangered Species Res 25:255–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, Core Team R (2009) nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3(1–131):1Google Scholar
  43. R Development Core Team. 2010. R: a language and environment for statistical computingGoogle Scholar
  44. Ratcliffe N, Takahashi A, O’Sullivan C, Adlard S, Trathan PN, Harris MP, Wanless S (2013) The roles of sex, mass and individual specialisation in partitioning foraging-depth niches of a pursuit-diving predator. PLoS ONE 8:e79107CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Ratcliffe N, Crofts S, Brown R, Baylis AM, Adlard S, Horswill C, Venables H, Taylor P, Trathan PN, Staniland IJ (2014) Love thy neighbour or opposites attract? Patterns of spatial segregation and association among crested penguin populations during winter. J Biogeogr 41:1183–1192CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Raya Rey A, Trathan P, Schiavini A (2007) Inter-annual variation in provisioning behaviour of Southern Rockhopper Penguins Eudyptes chrysocome chrysocome at Staten Island, Argentina. Ibis 149:826–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Raya Rey A, Pütz K, Simeone A, Hiriart-Bertrand L, Reyes-Arriagada R, Riquelme V, Lüthi B (2013) Comparative foraging behaviour of sympatric Humboldt and Magellanic Penguins reveals species-specific and sex-specific strategies. Emu 113:145–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Robson B, Glass T, Glass N, Glass J, Green J, Repetto C, Rodgers G, Ronconi RA, Ryan PG, Swain G, Cuthbert RJ (2011) Revised population estimate and trends for the Endangered Northern Rockhopper Penguin Eudyptes moseleyi at Tristan da Cunha. Bird Conserv Int 21:454–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ropert-Coudert Y, Kato A, Bost CA, Rodary D, Sato K, Le Maho Y, Naito Y (2002) Do Adélie penguins modify their foraging behaviour in pursuit of different prey? Mar Biol 140:647–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ropert-Coudert Y, Kato A, Wilson RP, Cannell B (2006) Foraging strategies and prey encounter rate of free-ranging Little penguins. Mar Biol 149:139–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sala JE, Wilson RP, Quintana F (2012) How much is too much? Assessment of prey consumption by Magellanic penguins in Patagonian colonies. PLoS ONE 7:e51487CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Sala JE, Wilson RP, Frere E, Quintana F (2014) Flexible foraging for finding fish: variable diving patterns in Magellanic penguins Spheniscus magellanicus from different colonies. J Ornithol 155:801–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schiavini A, Raya Rey A (2004) Long days, long trips: foraging ecology of female rockhopper penguins Eudyptes chrysocome chrysocome at Tierra del Fuego. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 275:251–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stein RW, Williams TD (2013) Extreme intraclutch egg-size dimorphism in Eudyptes penguins, an evolutionary response to clutch-size maladaptation. Am Nat 182:260–270CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Tremblay Y, Cherel Y (2000) Benthic and pelagic dives: a new foraging behaviour in rockhopper penguins. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 204:257–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tremblay Y, Cherel Y (2003) Geographic variation in the foraging behaviour diet and chick growth of rockhopper penguins. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 251:279–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tremblay Y, Cherel Y (2005) Spatial and temporal variation in the provisioning behaviour of female rockhopper penguins Eudyptes chrysocome filholi. J Avian Biol 36:135–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tremblay Y, Guinard E, Cherel Y (1997) Maximising diving depths of Northern rockhopper penguins (Eudyptes chrysocome moseleyi) at Amsterdam Island. Polar Biol 17:119–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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
  60. Van de Putte A, Flores H, Volckaert F, van Franekar JA (2006) Energy content of Antarctic mesopelagic fishes: implications for the marine food webs. Polar Biol 29:1045–1051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Random and mixed effects. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Weimerskirch H, Doncaster C, Cuenot-Chaillet F (1994) Pelagic seabirds and the marine environment: foraging patterns of wandering albatrosses in relation to prey availability and distribution. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 255:91–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Whitehead TO, Kato A, Ropert-Coudert Y, Ryan PG (2016) Habitat use and diving behaviour of macaroni Eudyptes chrysolophus and eastern rockhopper E. chrysocome filholi penguins during the critical pre-moult period. Mar Biol 163:19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Williams TD, Rothery P (1990) Factors affecting variation in foraging and activity patterns of gentoo penguins (Pygoscelis papua) during the breeding season at Bird Island, South Georgia. J Appl Ecol 1:1042–1054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wilson RP (1985) The Jackass penguin (Spheniscus demersus) as a pelagic predator. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 25:219–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wilson RP, Ryan PG, Wilson MP (1989) Sharing food in the stomachs of seabirds between adults and chicks – a case for delayed gastric emptying. Comp Biochem Physiol A Physiol 94:461–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wilson RP, Ropert-Coudert Y, Kato A (2002) Rush and grab strategies in foraging marine endotherms: the case for haste in penguins. Anim Behav 63:85–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wilson RP, Scolaro JA, Grémillet D, Kierspel MAM, Laurenti S, Upton J, Galleli H, Quintana F, Frere E, Müller G, Straten MT, Zimmer I (2005) How do Magellanic penguins cope with variability in their access to prey? Ecol Monogr 75:379–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Xavier JC, Trathan PN, Ceia FR, Tarling GA, Adlard S, Fox D, Edwards EW, Vieira RP, Medeiros R, De Broyer C, Cherel Y (2017) Sexual and individual foraging segregation in Gentoo penguins Pygoscelis papua from the Southern Ocean during an abnormal winter. PLoS ONE 12:e0174850CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. Ydenberg RC, Welham CV, Schmid-Hempel R, Schmid-Hempel P, Beauchamp G (1994) Time and energy constraints and the relationships between currencies in foraging theory. Behav Ecol 5:28–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zimmer I, Ropert-Coudert Y, Poulin N, Kato A, Chiaradia A (2011) Evaluating the relative importance of intrinsic and extrinsic factors on the foraging activity of top predators: a case study on female little penguins. Mar Biol 158:715–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jenny M. Booth
    • 1
    • 4
  • Antje Steinfurth
    • 2
    • 3
  • Marco Fusi
    • 4
  • Richard J. Cuthbert
    • 3
    • 5
  • Christopher D. McQuaid
    • 1
  1. 1.Coastal Research Group, Department of Zoology and EntomologyRhodes UniversityGrahamstownSouth Africa
  2. 2.Percy FitzPatrick Institute of African OrnithologyUniversity of Cape TownRondeboschSouth Africa
  3. 3.RSPB Centre for Conservation ScienceCambridgeUK
  4. 4.Red Sea Research CenterKing Abdullah University of Science and TechnologyThuwalKingdom of Saudi Arabia
  5. 5.Conservation SolutionsBelperUK

Personalised recommendations