Animal Cognition

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 849–858 | Cite as

The contribution of private and public information in foraging by Australasian gannets

  • Gabriel E. Machovsky-Capuska
  • Mark E. Hauber
  • Eric Libby
  • Christophe Amiot
  • David Raubenheimer
Original Paper


Predators that forage on foods with temporally and spatially patchy distributions may rely on private or public sources of information to enhance their chances of foraging success. Using GPS tracking, field observations, and videography, we examined potential sites and mechanisms of information acquisition in departures for foraging trips by colonially breeding Australasian gannets (Morus serrator). Analyses of the bill-fencing ceremony between mated pairs of breeding gannets did not detect correlations between parameters of this reciprocal behavior and foraging trips, as would have been predicted if gannets used this behavior as a source of private information. Instead, 60 % of the departing birds flew directly to join water rafts of other conspecific en route to the feeding grounds. The departure of solitary birds from the water rafts was synchronized (within 60 s) with the arrival of incoming foragers and also among departing birds. Furthermore, solitary departing birds from the rafts left in the same directional quadrant (90º slices) as the prior arriving (67 %) and also prior departing forager (79 %). When associated plunge dives of conspecific were visible from the colony, providing a public source of information, gannets more often departed from the water rafts in groups. Our study thus provides evidence for the use of water rafts, but not the nest site, as locations of information transfer, and also confirms the use of local enhancement as a strategy for foraging flights by Australasian gannets.


Decision making Information-centre hypothesis Local enhancement Morus serrator Seabirds Water rafts 



We acknowledge T. Fettermann, S. Clements, G. Greyling, A. Boyer, L. Meynier, L. van Zonneveld, T. Greenawalt, E. Martínez, K. & S. Machovsky, and S. Ismar for assistance in the field. We also thank the Napier Department of Conservation office for the permission to use the ranger’s house during field work and the Cape Kidnappers’ landowners and farm managers for access to their property. We thank E. Martínez, S. Dwyer and L. Pichegru for helpful comments on early versions of the manuscript and I. Couzin for his assistance during the funding application. This research was funded by National Geographic Waitt Grant and the Massey University Research Fund.

Ethical standards

The experiments in the present study were conducted under Massey University Animal Ethics (09/76) and New Zealand Department of Conservation (DoC) permits (ECHB-23237-RES).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Adams N, Navarro R (2005) Foraging of a coastal seabird: flight patterns and movements of breeding Cape gannets Morus capensis. Afr J Mar Sci 27:239–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aidala Z, Huynen L, Brennan PLR, Musser J, Fidler A, Chong N, Machovsky-Capuska GE, Anderson MG, Talaba A, Lambert D, Hauber ME (2012) Ultraviolet visual sensitivity in three distinct avian lineages: paleognaths, parrots, and songbirds. J Comp Physiol A 198:495–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batschelet E (1981) Circular statistics in biology. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Beekman M, Lew JB (2008) Foraging in honeybees-when does it pay to dance? Behav Ecol 19:255–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bellier E, Cetain G, Chadoeuf J, Monestiez P, Bretagnolle V (2005) Spatial pattern in seabirds’ distribution: testing for influence of foraging strategies. The case of Northern gannets in the Bay of Biscay. ICES CM 2005/L:13Google Scholar
  6. Birt-Friesen VL, Montevecchl WA, Calms DK, Macko SA (1989) Activity-specific metabolic rates of free-living Northern gannets and other seabirds. Ecology 70:357–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown CR (1986) Cliff swallow colonies as information centers. Science 234:83–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buckley N (1997) Spatial-concentration effects and the importance of local enhancement in the evolution of colonial breeding in seabirds. Am Nat 149:1091–1112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burger AE (1997) Arrival and departure behavior of common Murres at colonies: evidence of an information Halo? Colon Waterbird 20:55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Conradt L (2011) When it pays to share decisions. Nature 471:40–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cunningham RO (1866) On the Solan Goose, or Gannet (Sula Bassana, Lim.). Ibis 8:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Curtin F, Schulz P (1998) Multiple correlations and Bonferroni’s correction. Biol Psychiatry 44:775–777PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Danchin E, Giraldeau LA, Valone TJ, Wagner RH (2004) Public information: from nosy neighbours to cultural evolution. Science 305:487–491PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davoren G, Montevecchi W, Anderson J (2003) Search strategies of a pursuit-diving marine bird and the persistence of prey patches. Ecol Monogr 73:463–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Drury WH Jr (1959) Orientation of gannets. Bird-Banding 30:118–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fernández-Juricic E, Siller S, Kacelnik A (2004) Flock density, social foraging and scanning: an experiment with starlings. Behav Ecol 15:371–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Garthe S, Montevecchi W, Davoren G (2007) Flight destinations and foraging behaviour of northern gannets (Sula bassana) preying on a small forage fish in a low-Arctic ecosystem. Deep-Sea Res Part II 54:311–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greif S, Siemers BM (2010) Innate recognition of water bodies in echolocating bats. Nat Commun 1:107PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grémillet D, Dell’Omo G, Ryan P, Peters G, Ropert-Coudert Y, Weeks S (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 268:265–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grünbaum D, Veit RR (2003) Black-browed albatrosses foraging on Antarctic krill: density-dependence through local enhancement? Ecology 84:3265–3275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hamer K, Phillips R, Hill J, 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
  22. 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
  23. Hamilton WD (1963) Evolution of altruistic behavior. Am Nat 97:354–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hauber ME, Zuk M (2010) Chapter 8: social influences on communication signals: from honesty to exploitation. In: Szekely T, Moore AJ, Komdeur J (eds) Social behaviour: genes, ecology and evolution. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 185–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Horn HS (1968) The adaptive significance of colonial nesting in the Brewer’s Blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus). Ecology 49:682–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ismar SMH, Daniel C, Stephenson BM, Hauber ME (2010a) Mate replacement entails a fitness cost for a socially monogamous seabird. Naturwissenschaften 97:109–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ismar SMH, Hunter C, Lay K, Ward-Smith T, Wilson PR, Hauber ME (2010b) A virgin flight across the Tasman Sea? Satellite tracking of postfledging movement in the Australasian Gannet Morus serrator. J Ornithol 151:755–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. King AJ, Cowlishaw G (2007) When to use social information: the advantage of large group size in individual decision making. Biol Lett 3:137–139PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Krebs JR (1974) Colonial nesting and social feeding as strategies for exploiting food resources in the great blue heron (Ardea herodias). Behaviour 51:99–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lewis S, Grémillet D, Daunt F, Ryan P, Crawford R, Wanless S (2006) Using behavioural and state variables to identify proximate causes of population change in a seabird. Oecol 147:606–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Machovsky-Capuska GE, Dwyer SL, Alley MR, Stockin KA, Raubenheimer D (2011a) Evidence for fatal collisions and kleptoparasitism while plunge diving in Gannets. Ibis 153:631–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Machovsky-Capuska GE, Vaughn RL, Würsig B, Katzir G, Raubenheimer D (2011b) Dive strategies and foraging effort in the Australasian gannet Morus serrator revealed by underwater videography. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 442:255–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Machovsky-Capuska GE, Huynen L, Lambert D, Raubenheimer D (2011c) UVS is rare in seabirds. Vision Res 51:1333–1337PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Machovsky-Capuska GE (2012) Hunting between the air and the water: the Australasian gannet (Morus serrator). PhD thesis, Massey University, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  35. Machovsky-Capuska GE, Howland HC, Vaughn RL, Würsig B, Raubenheimer D, Hauber ME, Katzir G (2012) Visual accommodation and active pursuit of prey underwater in a plunge diving bird: the Australasian gannet. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol 279:4118–4125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Machovsky-Capuska GE, Hauber ME, Libby E, Wikelski MC, Schuckard R, Melville D, Cook W, Houston M, Raubenheimer D (2013a) Foraging behaviour and habitat use of chick-rearing Australasian gannets in New Zealand. J Ornithol. doi: 10.1007/s10336-013-1018-4
  37. Machovsky-Capuska GE, Vaughn-Hirshorn RL, Würsig B, Raubenheimer D (2013b) Can gannets define their diving profile prior to submergence? Notornis 60:255–257Google Scholar
  38. McGillivray J (1842) Account of the Island of St Kilda, chiefly with reference to its natural history. Edinb New Philos J 32:47–70Google Scholar
  39. Meseth EH (1975) The dance of the Laysan albatross (Diomedea immutabilis). Behaviour 54:217–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mock D, Lamey T, Thompson D (1988) Falsifiability and the information centre hypothesis. Ornis Scand 19:231–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Montevecchi WA, Benvenuti S, Garthe S, Davoren GK, Fifield D (2009) Flexible foraging tactics by a large opportunistic seabird preying on forage and large pelagic fishes. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 385:295–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nelson JB (1978) The Sulidae: gannets and boobies. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  43. Nelson JB (2005) Pelicans, cormorants and their relatives. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  44. Pennycuick CJ (1989) Bird flight performance: a practical calculation manual. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  45. Pettex E, Bonadonna F, Enstipp MR, Siorat F, Grémillet D (2010) Northern gannets anticipate spatio-temporal occurrence of their prey. J Exp Biol 213:2365–2371PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pöysä H (1992) Group foraging in patchy environments: the importance of coarse-level local enhancement. Ornis Scand 23:159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Richner H, Heeb P (1995) Is the information center hypothesis a flop? Adv Study Behav 24:1–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Robertson D (1992) Diet of the Australasian gannet Morus serrator (G.R. Gray) around New Zealand. N Z J Ecol 16:77–81Google Scholar
  49. Schuckard R, Melville D, Cook W, Machovsky-Capuska GE (2012) Diet of the Australasian gannet (Morus serrator) at Farewell Spit, New Zealand. Notornis 59:66–70Google Scholar
  50. Stephenson B (2005) Variability in the breeding ecology of Australasian gannets (Morus serrator) at Cape Kidnappers, New Zealand. PhD thesis, Massey University, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  51. Stevens M (2013) Sensory ecology, behaviour, and evolution. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Thorpe WH (1963) Learning and instinct in animals. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  53. Tickell WLN (2003) White plumage. Waterbirds 26:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Townsend CW (1920) Courtship in birds. Auk 37:380–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Valone TJ (1993) Patch information and estimation—a cost of group foraging. Oikos 68:258–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. von Frisch K (1967) The dance language and orientation of bees 28–235. Harvard University Press, HarvardGoogle Scholar
  57. Wakefield ED, Bodey TW, Bearhop S, Blackburn J, Colhoun K, Davies R, Dwyer RG, Green JA, Grémillet D, Jackson AL, Jessopp MJ, Kane A, Langston RH, Lescroël A, Murray S, Le Nuz M, Patrick SC, Péron C, Soanes LM, Wanless S, Votier SC, Hamer KC (2013) Space partitioning without territoriality in gannets. Science 341:68–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Waltz E (1982) Resource characteristics and the evolution of information centers. Am Nat 119:73–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Waltz E (1987) A test of the information centre hypothesis in two colonies of common terns, Sterna hirundo. Anim Behav 35:48–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ward P, Zahavi A (1973) The importance of certain assemblages of birds as “Information Centres” for food finding. Ibis 115:517–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Weimerskirch H (2007) Are seabirds foraging for unpredictable resources? Deep-Sea Res Part II 54:211–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Weimerskirch H, Bertrand S, Silva J, Marques JC, Goya E (2010) Use of social information in seabirds: compass rafts indicate the heading of food patches. PLoS ONE 5:e9928. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009928 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zeil J (2008) Orientation, navigation and searching. In: Jorgensen SE, Fath BD (eds) Behavioral ecology (vol 3) of encyclopedia of ecology. Elsevier, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  64. Zhang S, Bock F, Si A, Tautz J, Srinivasan MV (2005) Visual working memory in decision making by honey bees. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:5250–5255PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabriel E. Machovsky-Capuska
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mark E. Hauber
    • 3
  • Eric Libby
    • 4
  • Christophe Amiot
    • 5
  • David Raubenheimer
    • 1
  1. 1.The Charles Perkins Centre and Faculty of Veterinary Science and School of Biological SciencesUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Coastal-Marine Research Group, Institute of Natural and Mathematical SciencesMassey UniversityAucklandNew Zealand
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyHunter College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New YorkNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.New Zealand Institute for Advanced Study, Institute of Natural and Mathematical SciencesMassey UniversityAucklandNew Zealand
  5. 5.Human-Wildllife Interaction Research Group, Institute of Natural and Mathematical SciencesMassey UniversityAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations