Foraging distribution of a tropical seabird supports Ashmole’s hypothesis of population regulation

Abstract

Many animals reproduce in large aggregations, which can vary in size from dozens to millions of individuals across species, time and space. The size of breeding colonies is a complex trade-off between multiple costs and benefits to an individual’s fitness, but the mechanisms by which colony size affects fitness are still poorly understood. One important cost of breeding in a large colony is the spatial constraint in resource use due to the need to regularly return to a central location. Large aggregations, like seabird breeding colonies, may therefore deplete food resources near the colony, forcing individuals to travel farther to find food, which may ultimately limit their reproductive output and population size. This hypothesis, proposed in 1963 by Ashmole for tropical oceanic islands, has so far not been tested at tropical seabird colonies, where food availability is less predictable than in colder waters. We compare the foraging distribution of a common tropical seabird, the masked booby Sula dactylatra, breeding on two islands in the South Atlantic that differ in the size of the breeding seabird community by 2 orders of magnitude, but are surrounded by similar oligotrophic waters. Foraging trips from the island with the smaller colony were on average 221 km (61 %) and 18.0 h (75 %) shorter because birds from the smaller colony rarely spent the night at sea and foraged on average 64 km (46 %) closer to the colony. Energy expenditure was significantly lower, and nest survival higher (47 vs. 37 %, n = 371) on the island with the smaller colony. These results are fully consistent with the predictions from Ashmole’s hypothesis and indicate that competition for food around tropical oceanic seabird colonies may indeed be a limiting factor for populations. Identifying important feeding areas for seabirds based on their foraging range may need to account for colony size of both the target and potential competitor species.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Agnew DJ, Pearce J, Pramod G, Peatman T, Watson R, Beddington JR, Pitcher TJ (2009) Estimating the worldwide extent of illegal fishing. PLoS ONE 4:e4570

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ainley DG, Boekelheide RJ (1983) An ecological comparison of oceanic seabird communities of the South Pacific Ocean. Stud Avian Biol 8:2–23

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ainley DG, Ford RG, Brown ED, Suryan RM, Irons DB (2003) Prey resources, competition, and geographic structure of kittiwake colonies in Prince William Sound. Ecology 84:709–723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ainley DG, Ballard G, Dugger KM (2006) Competition among penguins and cetaceans reveals trophic cascades in the western Ross Sea, Antarctica. Ecology 87:2080–2093

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Alves JA, Gunnarsson TG, Hayhow DB, Appleton GF, Potts PM, Sutherland WJ, Gill JA (2013) Costs, benefits, and fitness consequences of different migratory strategies. Ecology 94:11–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Anderson DJ (1990a) Evolution of obligate siblicide in boobies. 1. A test of the insurance-egg hypothesis. Am Nat 135:334–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Anderson DJ (1990b) Evolution of obligate siblicide in boobies. 2: food limitation and parent-offspring conflict. Evolution 44:2069–2082

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Anderson D, Ricklefs R (1987) Radio-tracking masked and blue-footed boobies (Sula spp.) in the Galapagos Islands. Natl Geogr Res 3:152–163

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ashmole NP (1963a) The extinct avifauna of St. Helena Island. Ibis 103b:390–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ashmole NP (1963b) The regulation of numbers of tropical oceanic birds. Ibis 103b:458–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ashmole NP (1971) Seabird ecology and the marine environment. In: Farner DS, King JR (eds) Avian biology. Academic Press, New York, pp 223–286

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ashmole NP, Ashmole MJ, Simmons KEL (1994) Seabird conservation and feral cats on Ascension Island, South Atlantic. In: Nettleship DN, Burger J, Gochfeld M (eds) Seabirds on islands: threats, case studies and action plans. BirdLife International, Cambridge, pp 94–121

    Google Scholar 

  13. Au DW, Pitman RL (1986) Seabird interactions with dolphins and tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific. Condor 88:304–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ballance LT, Ainley DG, Ballard G, Barton K (2009) An energetic correlate between colony size and foraging effort in seabirds, an example of the Adelie penguin Pygoscelis adeliae. J Avian Biol 40:279–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bertrand S, Joo R, Arbulu Smet C, Tremblay Y, Barbraud C, Weimerskirch H (2012) Local depletion by a fishery can affect seabird foraging. J Appl Ecol 49:1168–1177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Beyer HL, Morales JM, Murray D, Fortin M-J (2013) The effectiveness of Bayesian state-space models for estimating behavioural states from movement paths. Methods Ecol Evol 4:433–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. BirdLife International (2010) Marine important bird areas toolkit: standardised techniques for identifying priority sites for the conservation of seabirds at-sea. BirdLife International, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  18. Birt V, Birt T, Goulet D, Cairns D, Montevecchi W (1987) Ashmole’s halo: direct evidence for prey depletion by a seabird. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 40:205–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Birt-Friesen VL, Montevecchi WA, Cairns D, Macko SA (1989) Activity-specific metabolic rates of free-living Northern Gannets and other seabirds. Ecology 70:357–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHH, White J-SS (2009) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 24:127–135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bolnick DI, Svanbäck R, Fordyce JA, Yang LH, Davis JM, Hulsey CD, Forister ML (2003) The ecology of individuals: incidence and implications of individual specialization. Am Nat 161:1–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bolton M, Watt REF, Henry L, Clingham E (2011) Re-colonisation and successful breeding of Masked Boobies Sula dactylatra on mainland St Helena, South Atlantic, in the presence of Feral Cats Felis catus. Seabirds 24:60–71

    Google Scholar 

  23. Boyd C, Punt AE, Weimerskirch H, Bertrand S (2014) Movement models provide insights into variation in the foraging effort of central place foragers. Ecol Model 286:13–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Brown CR, Brown MB (1996) Coloniality in the cliff swallow: the effect of group size on social behavior. University Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  25. Brown CR, Brown MB (2001) Avian coloniality. Curr Ornithol 16:1–82

    Google Scholar 

  26. Brown CR, Brown MB, Roche EA (2013) Spatial and temporal unpredictability of colony size in cliff swallows across 30 years. Ecol Monogr 83:511–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Burger AE, Shaffer SA (2008) Application of tracking and data-logging technology in research and conservation of seabirds. Auk 125:253–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Calenge C (2011) Home range estimation in R: the adehabitatHR package. R package version 0.4.4. The Comprehensive R Archive Network, http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/adehabitatHR/index.html

  29. Charrassin J-B, Bost C, Pütz K, Lage J, Dahier T, Zorn T, le Maho Y (1998) Foraging strategies of incubating and brooding king penguins Aptenodytes patagonicus. Oecologia 114:194–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Danchin E, Wagner RH (1997) The evolution of coloniality: the emergence of new perspectives. Trends Ecol Evol 12:342–347

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Dean B, Freeman R, Kirk H, Leonard K, Phillips RA, Perrins CM, Guilford T (2012) Behavioural mapping of a pelagic seabird: combining multiple sensors and a hidden Markov model reveals the distribution of at-sea behaviour. J R Soc Interface 10:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Diamond AW (1978) Feeding strategies and population size in tropical seabirds. Am Nat 112:215–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Dodge S, Bohrer G, Weinzierl R, Davidson S, Kays R, Douglas D, Cruz S, Han J, Brandes D, Wikelski M (2013) The environmental-data automated track annotation (Env-DATA) system: linking animal tracks with environmental data. Mov Ecol 1:3

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Dorward D (1962) Comparative biology of the white booby and the brown booby Sula spp. at Ascension. Ibis 103:174–220

    Google Scholar 

  35. Dragon A, Bar-Hen A, Monestiez P, Guinet C (2012) Comparative analysis of methods for inferring successful foraging areas from Argos and GPS tracking data. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 452:253–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Elliott KH, Woo KJ, Gaston AJ, Benvenuti S, Dall’Antonia L, Davoren GK (2009) Central-place foraging in an Arctic seabird provides evidence for Storer-Ashmole’s halo. Auk 126:613–625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Gaston AJ, Ydenberg RC, Smith GJ (2007) Ashmole’s halo and population regulation in seabirds. Mar Ornithol 35:119–126

    Google Scholar 

  38. Goyert HF, Manne LL, Veit RR (2014) Facilitative interactions among the pelagic community of temperate migratory terns, tunas and dolphins. Oikos 123:1400–1408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Grecian WJ, Witt MJ, Attrill MJ, Bearhop S, Godley BJ, Grémillet D, Hamer KC, Votier SC (2012) A novel projection technique to identify important at-sea areas for seabird conservation: an example using Northern gannets breeding in the North East Atlantic. Biol Conserv 156:43–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hebblewhite M, Haydon DT (2010) Distinguishing technology from biology: a critical review of the use of GPS telemetry data in ecology. Philos T Roy Soc B 365:2303–2312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Hennicke JC, Weimerskirch H (2014) Coping with variable and oligotrophic tropical waters: foraging behaviour and flexibility of the Abbott’s booby Papasula abbotti. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 499:259–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Hilton GM, Cuthbert R (2010) The catastrophic impact of invasive mammalian predators on birds of the UK Overseas Territories: a review and synthesis. Ibis 152:443–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Hughes BJ, Martin GR, Reynolds SJ (2008) Cats and seabirds: effects of feral domestic cat Felis silvestris catus eradication on the population of Sooty Terns Onychoprion fuscata on Ascension Island, South Atlantic. Ibis 150:122–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kappes MA, Weimerskirch H, Pinaud D, le Corre M (2011) Variability of resource partitioning in sympatric tropical boobies. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 441:281–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Kubetzki U, Garthe S, Fifield D, Mendel B, Furness RW (2009) Individual migratory schedules and wintering areas of northern gannets. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 391:257–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Langrock R, King R, Matthiopoulos J, Thomas L, Fortin D, Morales JM (2012) Flexible and practical modeling of animal telemetry data: hidden Markov models and extensions. Ecology 93:2336–2342

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Lessells C, Boag PT (1987) Unrepeatable repeatabilities: a common mistake. Auk 104:116–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Lewis S, Sherratt T, Hamer K, Wanless S (2001) Evidence of intra-specific competition for food in a pelagic seabird. Nature 412:816–819

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Lewis F, Butler A, Gilbert L (2011) A unified approach to model selection using the likelihood ratio test. Methods Ecol Evol 2:155–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Mayfield HF (1975) Suggestions for calculating nest success. Wilson Bull 87:456–466

    Google Scholar 

  51. Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H (2010) Repeatability for Gaussian and non-Gaussian data: a practical guide for biologists. Biol Rev 85:935–956

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Nelson JB (1978) The Sulidae: gannets and boobies. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  53. Oppel S, Powell AN, Dickson DL (2009) Using an algorithmic model to reveal individually variable movement decisions in a wintering sea duck. J Anim Ecol 78:524–531

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Oppel S, Burns F, Ellick G, George K, Beard A, Henry L, Clingham E, Hillman JC, Hollins JD, Thorsen MJ (2012) Recent observations suggest Bulwer’s Petrel Bulweria bulwerii might breed on St Helena. Mar Ornithol 40:67–68

    Google Scholar 

  55. Patrick SC, Bearhop S, Grémillet D, Lescroël A, Grecian WJ, Bodey TW, Hamer KC, Wakefield E, le Nuz M, Votier SC (2014) Individual differences in searching behaviour and spatial foraging consistency in a central place marine predator. Oikos 123:33–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Patterson TA, Basson M, Bravington MV, Gunn JS (2009) Classifying movement behaviour in relation to environmental conditions using hidden Markov models. J Anim Ecol 78:1113–1123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Pauly D, Belhabib D, Blomeyer R et al (2013) China’s distant-water fisheries in the 21st century. Fish Fish 15:474–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Phillips RA, Xavier JC, Croxall JP (2003) Effects of satellite transmitters on albatrosses and petrels. Auk 120:1082–1090

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Pinaud D, Weimerskirch H (2005) Scale-dependent habitat use in a long-ranging central place predator. J Anim Ecol 74:852–863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Pitman RL, Ballance LT, Bost C (2005) Clipperton Island: pig sty, rat hole and booby prize. Mar Ornithol 33:193–194

    Google Scholar 

  61. Ratcliffe N, Pelembe T, White R (2008) Resolving the population status of Ascension frigatebird Fregata aquila using a ‘virtual ecologist’model. Ibis 150:300–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Ratcliffe N, Bell MB, Pelembe T, Boyle D, Benjamin R, White R, Godley BJ, Stevenson J, Sanders S (2010) The eradication of feral cats from Ascension Island and its subsequent recolonization by seabirds. Oryx 44:20–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Rowlands BW, Trueman T, Olson SL, McCulloch MN, Brooke RK (1998) The Birds of St Helena - an annotated checklist. British Ornithologists Union, Tring

    Google Scholar 

  64. R Development Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, http://www.R-project.org/

  65. Shaffer TL (2004) A unified approach to analyzing nest success. Auk 121:526–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Sommerfeld J, Hennicke JC (2010) Comparison of trip duration, activity pattern and diving behaviour by Red-tailed Tropicbirds (Phaethon rubricauda) during incubation and chick-rearing. Emu 110:78–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Sommerfeld J, Kato A, Ropert-Coudert Y, Garthe S, Hindell MA (2013a) Foraging parameters influencing the detection and interpretation of area-restricted search behaviour in marine predators: a case study with the Masked Booby. PLoS ONE 8:e63742

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Sommerfeld J, Kato A, Ropert-Coudert Y, Garthe S, Hindell MA (2013b) The individual counts: within sex differences in foraging strategies are as important as sex-specific differences in masked boobies Sula dactylatra. J Avian Biol 44:531–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Sommerfeld J, Kato A, Ropert-Coudert Y, Garthe S, Wilcox C, Hindell MA (2015) Flexible foraging behaviour in a marine predator, the Masked booby (Sula dactylatra), according to foraging locations and environmental conditions. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 463:79–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Stonehouse B (1962) Ascension Island and the British Ornithologists’ Union Centenary Expedition 1957-59. Ibis 103b:107–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Stonehouse B (1963a) The laying dates of some St Helenan sea-birds, 1958-59. Ibis 103b:480–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Stonehouse S (1963b) The Frigate Bird Fregata aquila of Ascension Island. Ibis 103b:409-422

  73. Szostek KL, Becker PH, Meyer BC, Sudmann SR, Zintl H (2013) Colony size and not nest density drives reproductive output in the Common Tern Sterna hirundo. Ibis 156:48–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Thaxter C, Lascelles B, Sugar K, Cook AS, Roos S, Bolton M, Langston R, Burton NH (2012) Seabird foraging ranges as a preliminary tool for identifying candidate Marine Protected Areas. Biol Conserv 156:53–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Tuck GN, Phillips RA, Small C, Thomson RB, Klaer NL, Taylor F, Wanless RM, Arrizabalaga H (2011) An assessment of seabird-fishery interactions in the Atlantic Ocean. ICES J Mar Sci 68:1628–1637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Votier SC, Bearhop S, Witt MJ, Inger R, Thompson D, Newton J (2010) Individual responses of seabirds to commercial fisheries revealed using GPS tracking, stable isotopes and vessel monitoring systems. J Appl Ecol 47:487–497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Wakefield ED, Bodey TW, Bearhop S et al (2013) Space partitioning without territoriality in gannets. Science 341:68–70

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Weimerskirch H (2007) Are seabirds foraging for unpredictable resources? Deep-Sea Res Pt II 54:211–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Weimerskirch H, Salamolard M, Sarrazin F, Jouventin P (1993) Foraging strategy of wandering albatrosses through the breeding season: a study using satellite telemetry. Auk 110:325–342

    Google Scholar 

  80. Weimerskirch H, le Corre M, Jaquemet S, Marsac F (2005) Foraging strategy of a tropical seabird, the red-footed booby, in a dynamic marine environment. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 288:251–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Weimerskirch H, le Corre M, Bost CA (2008) Foraging strategy of masked boobies from the largest colony in the world: relationship to environmental conditions and fisheries. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 362:291–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Weimerskirch H, le Corre M, Gadenne H, Pinaud D, Kato A, Ropert-Coudert Y, Bost C-A (2009) Relationship between reversed sexual dimorphism, breeding investment and foraging ecology in a pelagic seabird, the masked booby. Oecologia 161:637–649

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Wittenberger JF, Hunt GL (1985) The adaptive significance of coloniality in birds. In: Farner DS, King JR (eds) Avian Biology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 1–78

    Google Scholar 

  84. Woo KJ, Elliott KH, Davidson M, Gaston AJ, Davoren GK (2008) Individual specialization in diet by a generalist marine predator reflects specialization in foraging behaviour. J Anim Ecol 77:1082–1091

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Yeh YM, Huang HW, Dietrich KS, Melvin E (2013) Estimates of seabird incidental catch by pelagic longline fisheries in the South Atlantic Ocean. Anim Conserv 16:141–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Young HS, Shaffer SA, McCauley DJ, Foley DG, Dirzo R, Block BA (2010) Resource partitioning by species but not sex in sympatric boobies in the central Pacific Ocean. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 403:291–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We appreciate the enthusiastic assistance and advice during data collection from Ian Fisher, Richard Hesketh, Dane Wade, Catherine Supple, Natasha Williams, Kenickie Andrews, Pete Mayhew, Annette Broderick and Brendan Godley, Judith Brown, Phil Lambdon, Shayla Ellick, Dave Higgins, the St. Helena National Trust, and staff in the Environmental Management Division of the Environmental and Natural Resources Directorate on St. Helena. The work on Ascension Island was partly funded by a Darwin Grant (# 19026) to Ascension Island Government and the University of Exeter (Annette Broderick and Brendan Godley), managed on-island by NW and SW. The work on St. Helena was partly funded by Enterprise St. Helena and the Seabird Group. Nigel Butcher and Andrew Asque assisted with preparation of loggers and equipment. Samantha Patrick, Phil Taylor and Mark Miller generously shared unpublished R code to analyse tracking data. Three anonymous reviewers, Henri Weimerskirch and Charles Brown provided helpful comments that improved the manuscript.

Ethical Standards

This research study was carried out under permission and with collaboration of the Ascension Island Government Conservation Department and the St. Helena Environmental Management Directorate. The capture and handling of birds and attachment of unconventional marks were carried out under licence from the British Trust for Ornithology.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steffen Oppel.

Additional information

Communicated by C. R. Brown

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 1370 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Oppel, S., Beard, A., Fox, D. et al. Foraging distribution of a tropical seabird supports Ashmole’s hypothesis of population regulation. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 69, 915–926 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-015-1903-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Ashmole’s halo
  • Central-place forager
  • Coloniality
  • Interference competition
  • Hidden Markov model
  • Marine protected area
  • Top predator