Oecologia

, Volume 167, Issue 1, pp 49–59 | Cite as

Adverse foraging conditions may impact body mass and survival of a high Arctic seabird

  • Ann M. A. Harding
  • Jorg Welcker
  • Harald Steen
  • Keith C. Hamer
  • Alexander S. Kitaysky
  • Jérôme Fort
  • Sandra L. Talbot
  • Leslie A. Cornick
  • Nina J. Karnovsky
  • Geir W. Gabrielsen
  • David Grémillet
Behavioral ecology - Original Paper

Abstract

Tradeoffs between current reproduction and future survival are widely recognized, but may only occur when food is limited: when foraging conditions are favorable, parents may be able to reproduce without compromising their own survival. We investigated these tradeoffs in the little auk (Alle alle), a small seabird with a single-egg clutch. During 2005–2007, we examined the relationship between body mass and survival of birds breeding under contrasting foraging conditions at two Arctic colonies. We used corticosterone levels of breeding adults as a physiological indicator of the foraging conditions they encountered during each reproductive season. We found that when foraging conditions were relatively poor (as reflected in elevated levels of corticosterone), parents ended the reproductive season with low body mass and suffered increased post-breeding mortality. A positive relationship between body mass and post-breeding survival was found in one study year; light birds incurred higher survival costs than heavy birds. The results of this study suggest that reproducing under poor foraging conditions may affect the post-breeding survival of long-lived little auks. They also have important demographic implications because even a small change in adult survival may have a large effect on populations of long-lived species.

Keywords

Body mass Corticosterone Little auk Survival Tradeoff 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to M. Hall, H. Routti, J. Fort, R. Orben, E. Weston, M. Anne Pella-Donnelly, K. Holser, L. Borg, S. Christensen-Dalsgaard, J. Delingat, N. Seifert, S. Natterer, and J. Schultner for their energy and assistance in the field, and to M. Munck, NANU Travel, C. Egevang, F. Delbart, T. and T. Fischbach, R. and J. Harding, and W. Moskal for their logistical support. We thank Z. Kitaiskaia for her expertly performed hormonal assays and W. Walkusz for the analysis of chick diet. This project was funded by the French Polar Institute Paul-Emile Victor (Grant 388 to D.G.), the National Science Foundation (grant 0612504 to A.M.A.H. and N.J.K.), the Research Council of Norway (MariClim, 165112/S30), and was supported by the USGS–Alaska Science Center. Additional funding was provided by NPRB grant no. RO320 and NSF EPSCoR NSF no. 0346770 to ASK. Earlier drafts of the manuscript benefited from thoughtful comments by J. Schmutz, M. Hall, and two anonymous reviewers. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. All field work in East Greenland was conducted with the permission of the Greenland Home Rule Government, Ministry of Environment and Nature (Danish Polar Centre Scientific Expedition Permit 512-240) and under permits of the Ethics Committee of the French Polar Institute (MP/12/24/05/05). All field work on Spitsbergen was conducted with the permission of the Governor of Svalbard.

References

  1. Aagaard K, Foldvik A, Hillman SR (1987) The West Spitsbergen current-disposition and water mass transformation. J Geophys Res 92(C4):3778–3784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson DR, Burnham KP (1999) Understanding information criteria for selection among capture–recapture or ring recovery models. Bird Study 46[Suppl]:261–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beaugrand G, Ibanez F, Lindley JA, Reid P (2002a) Diversity of calanoid copepods in the North Atlantic and adjacent seas: species associations and biogeography. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 232:179–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaugrand G, Reid PC, Ibañez F, Lindley JA, Edwards M (2002b) Reorganization of North Atlantic marine copepod biodiversity and climate. Science 296(5573):1692–1694PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benowitz-Fredericks ZM, Shultz MT, Kitaysky AS (2008) Stress Hormones suggest opposite trends of food availability for planktivorous and piscivorous seabirds in 2 years. Deep-Sea Res II 55:1868–1876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bourke RH, Newton JL, Paquette RG, Tunnicliffe MD (1987) Circulation and water masses of the East-Greenland shelf. J Geophys Res 92:6729–6740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown CR, Brown MB, Brazeal KR (2008) Familiarity with breeding habitat improves daily survival in colonial cliff swallows. Anim Behav 76:1201–1210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bryant DM (1979) Reproductive costs in the house martin Delichon urbica. J Anim Ecol 48:655–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bryant DM (1988) Energy expenditure and body mass changes as measures of reproductive costs in birds. Funct Ecol 21:23–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buch E (2000) A monograph on the physical oceanography of the Greenland waters. Danish Meteorological Institute scientific report No. 00-12. Danish Meteorological Institute, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  11. Buck CL, O’Reilly KM, Kildaw SD (2007) Interannual variability of black-legged Kittiwake productivity is reflected in baseline plasma corticosterone. Gen Comp Endocrinol 150(3):430–436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Catchpole EA, Morgan BJT, Tavecchia G (2008) A new method for analyzing discrete life history data with missing covariate values. J R Stat Soc B 70:445–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Charlesworth B (1980) The evolution of age-structured populations. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Choquet R, Reboulet AM, Lebreton JD, Gimenez O, Pradel R (2005) U-Care 2.2 User’s manual. CEFE, Montpellier. Available at: http://ftp.cefe.cnrs.fr/biom/Soft-CR/)
  16. Croll DA, Gaston AJ, Noble DG (1991) Adaptive loss of mass in thick-billed Murres. Condor 93:496–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Doherty PF, Schreiber EA, Nichols JD, Hines JE, Link WA, Schenkm GA, Schreiber RW (2004) Testing life history prediction in a long-lived seabird: a population matrix approach with improved parameter estimation. Oikos 105:606–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Doody LM, Wilhelm SL, McKay DW, Walsh CJ, Storey AE (2008) The effects of variable foraging conditions on common murre (Uria aalge) corticosterone concentrations and parental provisioning. Horm Behav 53:140–148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Erikstad KE, Fauchald P, Tveraa T, Steen H (1998) On the cost of reproduction in long-lived birds: the influence of environmental variability. Ecology 79:1781–1788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fort J, Porter WP, Grémillet D (2009) Thermodynamic modelling predicts energetic bottleneck for seabirds wintering in the northwest Atlantic. J Exp Biol 212:2483–2490PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fort J, Cherel Y, Harding AMA, Egevang C, Steen H, Kuntz G, Porter WP, Grémillet D (2010) The feeding ecology of little auks raises questions about winter zooplankton stocks in North Atlantic surface waters. Biol Lett 6:682–684PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Golet GH, Irons DB (1999) Raising young reduced body condition and fat scores in black-legged kittiwakes. Oecologica 120:530–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Golet GH, Irons DB, Estes JA (1998) Survival costs of chick rearing in black-legged kittiwakes. J Anim Ecol 67:827–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Green AJ (2001) Mass/length residuals: measures of body condition or generators of spurious results? Ecology 82:1473–1483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hanssen SA, Hasselquist D, Folstad I, Erikstad KE (2005) Cost of reproduction in long-lived bird: incubation effort reduces immune function and future reproduction. Proc R Soc B 272:1039–1046PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haramis GM, Nichols JD, Pollock KH, Hines JE (1986) The relationship between body mass and survival of wintering Canvasbacks. Auk 103:506–514Google Scholar
  27. Harding AMA, Van Pelt TI, Lifjeld JT, Mehlum F (2004) Sex differences in Little Auk Alle alle parental care: transition from biparental to paternal-only care. Ibis 146:642–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harding AMA, Kitaysky AS, Hall ME, Welcker J, Karnovsky NJ, Talbot SL, Hamer KC, Grémillet D (2009a) Flexibility in the parental effort of an Arctic-breeding seabird. Funct Ecol 23:348–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harding AMA, Kitaysky AS, Hamer ME, Hall ME, Welcker J, Talbot SL, Karnovsky NJ, Gabrielsen GW, Grémillet D (2009b) Impacts of experimentally increased foraging effort on the family: offspring sex matters. Anim Behav 78:321–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harris MP, Anker-Nilssen T, McCleery RH, Erikstad KE, Shaws DN, Grosbois V (2005) Effect of wintering area and climate on the survival of adult Atlantic puffins Fratercula actica in the eastern Atlantic. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 297:283–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Holt S, Whitfield DP, Duncan K, Rae S, Smith RD (2002) Mass loss in incubating Eurasian dotterel: adaptation or constraint? J Avian Biol 33:219–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hurrel JW (2000) Climate: Northern Atlantic and Arctic oscillation (NAO/AO). In: Holton J, Pyle J, Curry J (eds) Encyclopedia of atmospheric sciences. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Jacobsen KO, Erikstad KE, Sæther B-E (1995) An experimental study of the costs of reproduction in the Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla). Ecology 76:1636–1642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jakubas D, Wojczulanis K (2007) Predicting the sex of dovekies by discriminant analysis. Waterbirds 30(1):92–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Karnovsky NJ, Kwazniewski S, Weslawski JM, Walkusz W, Beszczynska-Möller A (2003) Foraging behaviour of little auks in a heterogeneous environment. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 253:289–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Karnovsky N, Harding AMA, Walkusz V, Kwaśniewski S, Goszczko I, Wiktor J, Routti H, Bailey A, McFadden L, Brown Z, Beaugrand G, Grémillet D (2010) Foraging distributions of little auks (Alle alle) across the Greenland Sea: implications of present and future climate change. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 415:283–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kendall WL, Pollock KH, Brownie C (1995) A likelihood-based approach to capture-recapture estimation of demographic parameters under the robust design. Biometrics 51:293–308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kitaysky AS, Wingfield JC, Piatt JF (1999) Dynamics of food availability, body condition and physiological stress response in breeding black-legged kittiwakes. Funct Ecol 13:577–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kitaysky AS, Piatt JF, Wingfield JC (2007) Stress hormones link food availability and population processes in seabirds. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 352:245–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kitaysky AS, Piatt JF, Hatch SA, Kitaiskaia AV, Benowitz-Fredericks ZM, Shultz MT, Wingfield JC (2010) Food availability and population processes: severity of nutritional stress during reproduction predicts survival of long-lived seabirds. Funct Ecol 24:625–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lebreton J-D, Burnham KP, Clobert J, Anderson DR (1992) Modeling survival and testing biological hypotheses using marked animals—a unified approach with case-studies. Ecol Monogr 62:67–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lynn SE, Breuner CW, Wingfield JC (2003) Short-term fasting affects locomotor activity, corticosterone, and corticosterone binding globulin in a migratory songbird. Horm Behav 43:150–157PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moe B, Langseth I, Fyhn M, Gabrielsen GW, Bech C (2002) Changes in body condition in breeding kittiwakes Rissa tridactyla. J Avian Biol 33:225–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Monaghan P, Uttley JD, Burns MD, Thaine C, Blackwood J (1989) The relationship between food supply, reproductive effort and breeding success in Arctic Terns Sterna Paradisaea. J Anim Ecol 58:261–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nagy LR, Stanculescu D, Holmes RT (2007) Mass loss by breeding female songbirds: food supplementation supports energetic stress hypothesis in black-throated blue warblers. Condor 109:304–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nordberg RA (1981) Temporary weight decrease in breeding birds may result in more fledged young. Am Nat 118:838–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nur N (1984) The consequences of brood size for breeding blue tits. 1. Adult survival, weight change and the cost of reproduction. J Anim Ecol 53:479–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Olsson O, van der Jeugd HP (2002) Survival in king penguins Aptenodytes patagonicus: temporal and sex-specific effects on environmental variability. Oceologia 132:509–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Oro D, Furness RW (2002) Influences of food availability and predation on survival of kittiwakes. Ecology 83:2516–2528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pedersen CE, Falk K (2001) Chick diet of dovekies Alle alle in Northwest Greenland. Polar Biol 24:53–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Piatt JF, Harding AMA, Schultz M, Speckman SG, Van Pelt TI, Drew GS, Kettle AB (2007) Seabirds as indicators of marine food supplies: Cairns revisited. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 352:221–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pinaud D, Weimerskirch H (2002) Ultimate and proximate factors affecting the breeding performance of a marine top-predator. Oikos 99:141–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pollock KH, Nichols JD, Brownie C, Hines JE (1990) Statistical inference for capture–recapture experiments. Wildl Monogr 107:3–97Google Scholar
  54. Pravosudov VV, Kitaysky AS, Wingfield JC, Clayton NS (2001) Long-term unpredictable foraging conditions and physiological stress response in mountain chickadees (Poecile gambeli). Gen Comp Endocrinol 123:324–331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rands SA, Cuthill IC, Houston AI (2006) Explaining individual variation in patterns of mass loss in breeding birds. Theor Biol Med Model 3(20):1–24Google Scholar
  56. Reid WV (1987) The cost of reproduction in the glaucous-winged gull. Oecologia 74:458–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ritz MS (2007) Sex-specific mass loss in chick-rearing South Polar skuas Stercorarius maccormicki—stress induced or adaptive? Ibis 149:156–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Roff DA (1992) The evolution of life histories. Chapman and Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  59. Romero LM, Reed JM (2005) Collecting baseline corticosterone samples in the field: is under 3 minutes good enough? Comp Biochem Phys A 140:73–79Google Scholar
  60. Romero LM, Reed JM, Wingfield JC (2000) Effects of weather on corticosterone responses in wild free-living passerine birds. Gen Comp Endocrinol 118:113–122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Saloranta TM, Svendsen H (2001) Across the Arctic front west of Spitsbergen: high-resolution CTD sections from 1998–2000. Polar Res 20:177–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sandvik H (2005) The effect of climate on adult survival in five species of North Atlantic seabirds. J Anim Ecol 74:817–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schmutz JA (2009) Stochastic variation in avian survival rates: life-history predictions, population consequences, and the potential responses to human perturbations and climate change. In: Thomson DL, Cooch EG, Conroy MJ (eds) Modeling demographic processes in marked populations. Springer, New York, pp 441–461Google Scholar
  64. Scott CL, Kwasniewski S, Falk-Petersen S, Sargent JR (2000) Lipids and life strategies of Calanus finmarchicus, Calanus glacialis and Calanus hyperboreus in late autumn, Konsgsfjorden, Svalbard. Polar Biol 23:510–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Seber GAF (1982) The estimation of animal abundance and related parameters. Charles Griffin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  66. Slagsvold T, Johansen MA (1998) Mass loss in female pied flycatchers Ficedula hypoleuca during late incubation: supplementation fails to support the reproductive stress hypothesis. Ardea 86:203–211Google Scholar
  67. Stearns SC (1992) The evolution of life histories. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  68. Stempniewicz L (2001) Alle alle little auk. J Birds West Palearct (BWP update) 3:175–201Google Scholar
  69. Velando A, Alonso-Alvarez C (2003) Differential body condition regulation by males and females in response to experimental manipulation of brood size and parental effort in the blue-footed booby. J Anim Ecol 72:846–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Webb JN, Webb JM, Székely T, Houston AI, McNamara JM (2002) A theoretical analysis of the energetic costs and consequences of parental care decisions. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 357:331–340PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Weimerskirch H, Zimmermann L, Prince PA (2001) Influence of environmental variability on breeding effort in a long-lived seabird, the yellow-nosed albatross. Behav Ecol 12(1):22–30Google Scholar
  72. Welcker J, Harding AMA, Karnovsky NJ, Steen H, Strøm H, Gabrielsen GW (2009a) Flexibility in the bimodal foraging strategy of a high Arctic alcid, the little auk Alle alle. J Avian Biol 40:388–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Welcker J, Harding AMA, Kitaysky AS, Speakman JR, Gabrielsen GW (2009b) Daily energy expenditure increases in response to low nutritional stress in an Arctic-breeding seabird with no effect on mortality. Funct Ecol 23:1081–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. White GC, Burnham KP (1999) Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46:120–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wingfield JC, Vleck CM, Moore MC (1992) Seasonal changes in the adrenocortical response to stress in birds of the Sonoran Desert. J Exp Zool 264:419–428PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wingfield JC, Maney DL, Breuner CW, Jacobs JD (1998) Ecological basis of hormone–behavior interactions: the “emergency life history stage”. Am Zool 38:191–206Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ann M. A. Harding
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jorg Welcker
    • 3
  • Harald Steen
    • 3
  • Keith C. Hamer
    • 2
  • Alexander S. Kitaysky
    • 4
  • Jérôme Fort
    • 5
  • Sandra L. Talbot
    • 6
  • Leslie A. Cornick
    • 1
  • Nina J. Karnovsky
    • 7
  • Geir W. Gabrielsen
    • 3
  • David Grémillet
    • 5
  1. 1.Environmental Science DepartmentAlaska Pacific UniversityAnchorageUSA
  2. 2.Institute of Integrative and Comparative BiologyUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK
  3. 3.Norwegian Polar InstitutePolarmiljøsenteretTromsøNorway
  4. 4.Department of Biology and Wildlife, Institute of Arctic BiologyUniversity of Alaska FairbanksFairbanksUSA
  5. 5.Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CEFE)Montpellier Cedex 5France
  6. 6.Alaska Science CentreUS Geological SurveyAnchorageUSA
  7. 7.Department of BiologyPomona CollegeClaremontUSA

Personalised recommendations