Abstract
Sexual segregation in foraging occurs in some species and populations of boobies (Sulidae), but it is not a general pattern. Sexual segregation in foraging may occur to avoid competition for food, and this competition may intensify during specific stages of breeding. We examined sexual segregation in foraging in relation to breeding stage in masked boobies Sula dactylatra at Rapa Nui by tracking simultaneously incubating and chick-rearing birds using GPS recorders (n = 18) and collected a total of 11 regurgitate samples. Stable isotope analyses (δ13C and δ15N) of whole blood samples were carried out in 20 birds. There were no differences in foraging trip parameters or diet between females and males. Both sexes traveled farther and for longer while incubating than while rearing chicks. Isotopic niches (δ13C and δ15N) overlapped to some degree among all groups at all times, but the lowest overlap between sexes occurred during incubation. While preying on ephemerally distributed flying fish, vertical or horizontal competition avoidance may be almost impossible, and thus females and males share their foraging grounds. Since birds were tracked simultaneously, shorter foraging trips of chick-rearing birds must be an effect of the constraints of provisioning the chick. Differences observed in δ15N and δ13C values between sexes may be caused by subtle differences in their foraging behaviors, or by differences in physiology linked to breeding. Our findings suggest that local oceanography and its inherent food distribution are determinants for sexual segregation in foraging patterns in masked boobies and possibly also other booby species.
Significance statement
In some animals, females and males forage on different areas or prey on different species to avoid competition for food resources. In boobies (Sula sp.), some studies show evidence of sexual segregation in foraging and others do not. Here, we tested if sexual segregation in foraging occurred in masked boobies on the Pacific island of Rapa Nui by studying simultaneously incubating and chick-rearing birds. We found no evidence of sexual segregation on foraging behavior or diet. We discuss that the difference between this and other studies in boobies may be an effect of the local prey availability. When the prey community is more diverse and heterogeneously distributed, each sex may access different resources and thus sexual foraging segregation will occur. In contrast, in areas like Rapa Nui where prey resources are distributed ephemerally, sexual segregation in foraging will not be useful and is thus less likely to occur.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Sexual segregation in foraging is a widespread behavioral and ecological phenomenon among animal taxa (Wearmouth and Sims 2008). In many bird species, females and males differ in terms of their spatio-temporal distribution, at sea behavior, and feeding ecology (González-Solís et al. 2000; Catry et al. 2005; Forero et al. 2005; Phillips et al. 2011). Such differences in areas used and prey species consumed by sex have been often seen as a response to alleviate competition for food resources (Selander 1966; Phillips et al. 2011). The larger sex may dominate intraspecific interactions close to the colony, forcing the smaller sex, which also has a better flying efficiency (Shaffer et al. 2001), to travel farther away for foraging (González-Solís et al. 2000). Among boobies (Sula spp.), females are persistently larger than males (Nelson 1978; van Oordt et al. 2018), and this notable reversed sexual size dimorphism has frequently been associated with differences in foraging behavior and diet within this taxonomic group.
Sex-related foraging differences in boobies may involve the use of different areas for foraging (Weimerskirch et al. 2006; Stauss et al. 2012), or different diving depths (Lewis et al. 2002; Weimerskirch et al. 2006; Zavalaga et al. 2007), diets (Zavalaga et al. 2007; Miller et al. 2018), or trophic levels (Young et al. 2010b; González-Medina et al. 2017). However, contrasting results have been found within the Sulidae, making it difficult to interpret the persistence of sexual segregation in foraging among boobies (Table 1). For example, female brown boobies (Sula leucogaster) foraged farther from their colonies than males at Clipperton Island and at Raine Island, while no sexual differences were noted in the same species foraging in the Isla San Jorge. Likewise, female and male brown and blue-footed boobies (Sula nebouxii), respectively, had different δ13C and δ15N values, whereas no sexual differences in isotope levels were found in red-footed (Sula sula) or masked boobies (Sula dactylatra; Table 1). These contrasting results in terms of foraging ecology among species and colonies of boobies suggest that sexual segregation in foraging do not occur consistently and might reflect changes in competition levels and local food abundance and availability.
In seabirds, the switch from incubating to chick provisioning triggers pronounced changes in foraging behavior (Hipfner et al. 2013; Navarro et al. 2014). Chick-rearing seabirds may perform shorter trips to assure a regular food delivery to prevent reduced growth of their chicks (Shoji et al. 2015), whereas incubating seabirds are free to forage farther. Accordingly, a decrease in trip duration from the incubation to the chick-rearing stage has been observed in several seabird species (Navarro et al. 2009; Ito et al. 2010; Sommerfeld and Hennicke 2010; Hedd et al. 2014), including Sulids (Castillo-Guerrero et al. 2016; Mendez et al. 2016; Poli et al. 2017). Performing shorter foraging trips during chick-rearing in comparison to incubating birds is likely a strategy that birds use to minimize their time at sea and maximize their food delivery to chicks at short temporal intervals. However, seabirds foraging closer to their colonies may be more severely affected by competition given that the areas closer to the colony must be subject to greater depletion of food resources (Birt et al. 1987; Oppel et al. 2015). Therefore, the apparently conflicting results regarding foraging segregation in Sulids may be a consequence of the fact that previous work has focused mainly on detecting sexual segregation in foraging either during incubation or during chick-rearing, or without considering possible interactions between sex and breeding stage (see Table 1). Indeed, sexual segregation in foraging during discrete breeding stages have been reported in various tropical seabirds in the Mozambique Channel (Cherel et al. 2008) at Christmas Island (Navarro et al. 2014), and even in temperate seabirds such as northern gannets (Morus bassanus) (Lewis et al. 2002; Ismar et al. 2017). Sex-related foraging differences may therefore be a result of constraints imposed by breeding, in interaction with local food availability.
In most study systems in temperate and polar areas, and where most seabird research has been performed (Ballance and Pitman 1999; Reboredo-Segovia et al. 2020), birds breed synchronously and there is only little temporal overlap between incubating and chick-rearing birds (Hamer et al. 2002). Since both stages happen consecutively in such study systems, one can thus never know if differences in foraging area use between incubating and chick-rearing birds are due to temporal shifts in prey availability, prey depletion in areas used during incubation, or due to the need of parents to provision the chicks with food regularly which forced them to forage near colonies (Navarro et al. 2009; Ito et al. 2010; Hedd et al. 2014; Besel et al. 2018). However, some tropical seabirds breed through the year (Reynolds et al. 2014; Tarburton 2018) and thus, incubating and chick-rearing individuals can be tracked simultaneously. By tracking simultaneously incubating and chick-rearing individuals, one can rule out that changes in temporal prey availability created the differences in foraging parameters between birds, and thus, test for sexual segregation in foraging while facing the constraints due to chick provisioning. Understanding the differences between sexes during different stages of breeding is important, because dissimilarities in fitness or survival rates caused by differential exposure of males and females to different conditions or threats may lead to an imbalanced sex ratio, with population dynamic consequences (Phillips et al. 2005; Harrison et al. 2011; García-Tarrasón et al. 2015; Gianuca et al. 2019). Furthermore, understanding the persistence of foraging behaviors among members of a population improves the ability to manage areas in relation to seabird life stages (Oppel et al. 2018).
Masked boobies are an ideal species to test for the effects of sex and breeding stage on foraging behavior and diet because females and males are easy to differentiate: females are bigger and have a rough voice, whereas males are smaller and have a high-pitched voice (Nelson 1978). In addition, in contrast with most temperate areas, where breeding occurs synchronously (Hamer et al. 2002), masked boobies may breed throughout the year (Marin and Caceres 2010; Flores et al. 2014), offering the opportunity to study the foraging behavior and diet of incubating and chick-rearing birds simultaneously. The current study used tracking technology and stable isotope analyses to test the hypothesis that masked boobies display sexual segregation in foraging, and to test if sexual segregation in foraging is related to constraints imposed by breeding. We expected adults of both sexes to travel farther away during incubation than during chick-rearing. We considered that sexual segregation in foraging would occur during periods of increased demands (during chick-rearing), whereas sexual segregation would not occur during incubation. Thus, we expected to find that the larger size of females enables local dominance as suggested to occur in Sulids and other seabirds (Gilardi 1992; González-Solís et al. 2000; Stahl and Sagar 2000) particularly while rearing chicks. Accordingly, we expect that by foraging in different areas and depths, females encounter different prey, and thus expect to find differences in the isotopic signatures between chick-rearing females and males.
Methods
Study area
Rapa Nui (also known as Easter Island) is located in the middle of the South Pacific Gyre (Fig. S1). The South Pacific Gyre has oligotrophic waters characterized by low zooplankton biomass and low nutrient concentrations (Reid et al. 1978; Moraga et al. 1999; Morel et al. 2010), which are often associated with low food resources (Longhurst and Pauly 1987). The fish fauna of Rapa Nui is considered to be extremely impoverished, but with a similar abundance and biomass of fish compared with analogously isolated islands (Randall and Cea 2010; Friedlander et al. 2013). Masked boobies at Rapa Nui breed on Motu Nui (109.4° W, 21.2°S), a small (3.9 ha) rock islet located in the southwest of Rapa Nui. During the breeding season, females lay two eggs which are incubated in turns by both parents for a period of 42 days (Nelson 1978; Priddel et al. 2005). Both eggs may hatch, but only one chick is raised (Nelson 1978; Marchant and Higgins 1990; Priddel et al. 2005). The masked booby colony at Rapa Nui consisted of 56 breeding pairs in 2016, including 32 incubating and 24 chick-rearing pairs.
Data collection
Fieldwork consisted of 4–6-day visits twice a month in October and November 2016. Incubating or chick-rearing individuals were opportunistically selected based on reachability of nest sites and studied simultaneously. It was not possible to record data blind because our study involved focal animals in the field. Focal nests contained one or two eggs, or one chick. A total of 17 eggs were measured by length (L) and breadth (B) using Vernier calipers. Egg volume was calculated using the formula egg volume = 0.00051 (LB2) + 1.22 (Clifford and Anderson 2002). Length (64.9 ± 4.2 mm), breadth (43.3 ± 1.5 mm), and egg volume (63.3 ± 6.3 g) were within normal ranges for masked boobies’ populations (Priddel et al. 2005). Chicks from tagged birds were covered with down and weighed 0.4–2.1 kg, giving an estimated chick age of 1–8 weeks (Priddel et al. 2005). To deploy the tracking devices, adult birds were captured at their nests by hand or using a hand net from a distance of 1 m. Devices (see below) were attached to the three central rectrix feathers using TESA tape, and retrieved after 3–6 days. During manipulation, the adults were weighed, measured, and the sex was determined by size and vocalizations. Measurements included bill length (from nasofrontal hinge to the tip) and wing length (from backbone to wing tip). The total manipulation time did not exceed 10 min.
Diet samples were collected opportunistically from masked boobies that regurgitated spontaneously in response to our presence in the colony or during tagging efforts. Regurgitates from four female and three male incubating masked boobies, and one female and three male chick-rearing birds were collected. Fish and squid were identified to family level using a Pacific fish guide (Fischer et al. 1995) and a site-specific fish guide (Randall and Cea 2010).
Whole blood samples were collected from the brachial vein of individual birds during device recovery, using a 25 G needle and non-coated capillary tubes. Stable isotope whole blood samples were collected from four female and six male incubating masked boobies, and four female and six male chick-rearing birds. The samples were placed on glass microscope slides and transported to the lab (Bugoni et al. 2008). Dry whole blood samples (0.2–0.6 mg) from masked boobies were scraped from the slides and placed in tin cups. The isotope signatures of all samples were analyzed at the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research, Berlin, Germany. The values were expressed in delta notation as the deviation from international standards (in air nitrogen for nitrogen and V-PDB for carbon) according to the equation δX = [(Rsample/Rstandard) − 1] × 1000, where X is the 13C or 15N and R is the ratio 13C/12C or 15N/14N, respectively. The accuracy of the δ13C and δ15N measurements was better than 0.4 ‰ (one standard deviation (SD)) for laboratory standards. δ13C values indicated the foraging regions and feeding preferences, because δ13C values are enriched in inshore compared to offshore food webs (Cherel and Hobson 2007) and may reflect differences between plankton and benthic primary productions (Hobson et al. 1994). δ15N values provided a useful proxy for determining the trophic position of the organism (Bearhop et al. 2004; Inger and Bearhop 2008), because levels increase by 3–5‰ with each successive trophic level (DeNiro and Epstein 1981; Hobson and Clark 1992).
To confirm the low productivity of the waters surrounding Rapa Nui, data on chlorophyll-a concentration (CHL) and sea surface temperature (SST) were downloaded from http://coastwatch.pfeg.noaa.gov/erddap from November 2016 with a resolution of 0.025° (approx. 2.5 km) from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) sensor carried onboard NASA’s Aqua satellite. Average environmental conditions were extracted using the raster data for CHL and SST within radii of 50 km (core) and 100 km (wider area), using the function “extract” in the package “raster” (Hijmans 2019). CHL and SST were used as they have been proven to be good proxies for seabird prey availability (Kappes et al. 2010; Paiva et al. 2010).
Data processing
GPS loggers (model CatLog-S, weight 26 g, dimensions 3.7 × 2.2 × 0.8 cm) and time-depth recorders (TDRs; weight 6.5 g, model G5+, Cefas Technology, UK) were deployed to record foraging trip parameters. The GPS loggers recorded time, latitude, and longitude every 4 min, and the TDR devices were programmed to record pressure data every 1 s. Masked boobies weighed 1.6–2.6 kg, thus both devices together weighed 2% of the mass of the lightest adult measured and were below the acceptable threshold for seabirds (Vandenabeele et al. 2012). Tracking and diving data were processed in R 3.5.2 (R Core Team 2019). Foraging trip parameters of trip duration, maximum distance from the colony, and total distance were obtained using the function “tripsplit” in the package “marine IBA” provided by Lascelles et al. (2016). The maximum foraging trip distance was measured as the most distant point in a straight line from the colony. Trip duration was the total time between departure and return to the colony. Total distance traveled was the sum of the distance between consecutive fixes from departure to return to the colony. Foraging trips were considered to be trips exceeding a 1.5 km radius from the colony. This threshold was chosen based on observations of flying fish presence and masked boobies foraging in the vicinity of the colony. Regarding the TDR data, a zero offset correction for surface drift was applied, and to correct for noise and potential bathing dives, only dives deeper than 0.5 m were considered as true foraging dives. A total of 20 birds were studied but due to device failure, 18 birds contributed GPS tracks and 11 birds contributed TDR data.
Habitat use was quantified using the function “kernelUD” in the package “adehabitatHR” based on the GPS locations excluding those < 1.5 km from the colony (Calenge 2006). Kernel estimations of the utilization distribution (UD) in the core (50%) and wider (95%) areas were delimited using the reference bandwidth (0.06–0.11). The Bhattacharyya coefficient (BA) was used to calculate the overlap in areas used according to groups of sex and breeding stage. BA is a measure of similarity between two probability distributions, which reflects the overlap in kernel density estimates and can range from 0 (no overlap) to 1 (identical UD). This method has been proven to be useful for detecting spatial overlap in seabirds (Carneiro et al. 2016; Winner et al. 2018; Dehnhard et al. 2020).
Statistical analyses
The degree of sexual dimorphism among Sulids differs (Nelson 1978; van Oordt et al. 2018), and sexual size dimorphism of masked boobies at Rapa Nui was therefore calculated and compared. For bill and wing length, Welch’s t tests were used. First, for testing for potential differences in size between incubating and chick-rearing individuals, and later, given that there were no significant differences among breeding stages (all P > 0.05), for testing differences between sexes pooling together incubating and chick-rearing individuals. Since body mass is a dynamic variable (Apanius et al. 2008), the effect of sex and breeding stage on body mass were tested using analysis of variance (ANOVA) with body mass as dependent variable, and sex, breeding stage, and the interaction as independent variables. Prior to the analyses, body mass variations with time of the day were tested, but time of the day was not significant (P > 0.05) and thus not included in further analyses.
Sexual segregation in foraging was evaluated using generalized linear mixed models fitted using the package “lme4” (Bates et al. 2015). Single models were performed for each foraging trip parameter (maximum foraging range, trip duration, total distance traveled) and dive parameter (dive depth and dive duration) separately. Models were constructed with the foraging trip parameter or dive parameter as dependent variables; sex, breeding stage, and their interaction were used as fixed effects. Additional models were constructed including sex nested within either body mass, bill, or wing length to account for a possible effect of size following the procedure of Cansee et al. (2020). All models used gamma distribution and included bird ID as a random effect to account for pseudo-replication. An information theoretic approach was adopted to assess the factors influencing the foraging trip parameter and diving parameter. Models were ranked per foraging trip parameter and diving parameter using the Akaike information criterion corrected for small sample sizes (AICc) using the package “MuMIn” (Sutton et al. 2017; Barton 2020). If multiple models were within two AIC units, the model average was calculated. An analysis of similarity (ANOSIM) was run to test if similar areas were used by both sexes and breeding stages, based on the BA using the package “vegan” (Oksanen 2019). The number of prey items by sex and by breeding stage was compared using chi-square tests.
The isotopic values (δ15N and δ13C) were used to calculate the isotopic niche width using the Bayesian framework implemented in the “SIBER” package (Jackson et al. 2011). Standard ellipse areas corrected for small sample sizes were estimated for each sex and breeding stage together with the pairwise overlap percentage value between ellipses (Nunes et al. 2018; Dehnhard et al. 2020). The niche-interaction metrics were calculated between sexes and breeding stages as the Euclidean distance between their positions in δ15N and δ13C space (Turner et al. 2010).
Results
Bill lengths of females was on average 1.0% longer than that of males (females mean 10.7 ± SD 1.1 cm, males mean 10.6 ± SD 2.1 cm; Welch’s t test, t = 2.21, P = 0.04). Wing lengths of females was not significantly different from those of males (females mean 46.7 ± SD 1.1 cm, males mean 45.9 ± SD 1.3 cm; Welch’s t test, t = 1.18, P = 0.25). Both incubating and chick-rearing mean body mass differed significantly between females and males, particularly during chick-rearing (interaction sex and breeding stage ANOVA, F(1,14) = 5.36, P = 0.03). Females were on average 21% heavier than males during chick-rearing and 9% heavier during incubation (Fig. 1).
A total of 30 trips were recorded from incubating birds (12 trips from 4 females, 18 trips from 5 males) and 56 from chick-rearing birds (15 trips from 3 females, 41 trips from 6 males) (Fig. 2). Although females appeared to forage farther and longer than males, the best model comparing foraging parameters retained breeding stage, but not sex, the interaction between breeding stage and sex, or body mass or size of birds (Tables 2 and 3, Fig. 2). On average, birds from both sexes traveled 59% farther and 66% longer during incubation than during chick-rearing (Table 2), but there were no significant differences in the areas used between females and males during the incubation and chick-rearing periods (50% UD BA 0.68–0.99, ANOSIM R = 0.10, P = 0.15; 95% UD BA 0.68–0.99 ANOSIM R = 0.10, P = 0.14) (Fig. 2). The average CHL was 0.02 ± 0.01 mg m−3 and average SST was 22.2 ± 0.3 °C in both the core (50 km) and wider (100 km) areas (Fig. S1). For dive parameters from incubating (3 female, 2 male) and chick-rearing (2 female, 4 male) masked boobies, the best models retained sex and breeding stage (Table 3), but modeling indicated that neither of these factors had a significant effect on the diving depth or duration (Table 4). Body mass, bill, or wing length were not supported in the models for dive behavior (Table 3).
There was some degree of overlap in the isotopic niche areas (δ13C and δ15N values) among incubating and chick-rearing females and males, but the overlap was lowest between incubating females and males (Table 5, Fig. 3). Furthermore, the Euclidian distance between centroid locations (taking both δ15N and δ13C values) only differed significantly between males and females during incubation (Table 5). The most frequent prey item in regurgitates from masked boobies was flying fish in both breeding stages and both sexes (Fig. S2). Anchovies only occurred in the diet of incubating birds and sardines only in chick-rearing birds. Female diet included jacks, while that of males included sardines, dolphinfish, and halfbeaks (Fig. S2). Nevertheless, the prey items were homogeneously distributed between the sexes (chi-square test, χ28 = 4.67, P = 0.79) and breeding stages (chi-square test, χ28 = 6.00, P = 0.64).
Discussion
In line with our predictions, breeding stage was an important determinant of the foraging behavior: incubating birds consistently traveled farther and for longer periods than chick-rearing individuals. We expected masked boobies to show different foraging strategies between sexes during chick-rearing due to increased competition for areas close to the colony. Instead, females and males showed no significant differences in foraging trip parameters or diving behavior at either breeding stage. Despite a strong overlap in foraging behavior among females and males, the overlap in isotopic niches was lowest between incubating males and females, but not between chick-rearing males and females as we expected.
Breeding phase and foraging trip parameters
The observation that masked boobies at Rapa Nui traveled farther and longer during the incubation period matched with the results of other studies of masked boobies (Oppel et al. 2015; Poli et al. 2017) and our expectations. In our study system, since we tracked incubating and chick-rearing birds simultaneously, we can rule out that changes in temporal prey availability created the differences in foraging parameters between incubating and chick-rearing birds, and thus, the differences between incubating and chick-rearing birds might be a reaction to constraints of chick provisioning. Notably, chlorophyll-a concentrations and sea surface temperatures were similar in the core and wider areas at Rapa Nui, indicating that incubating and chick-rearing birds experienced similar environmental conditions. Optimal foraging theory suggests that predators make foraging decisions that optimize energy intake with minimal energy investment (Charnov 1976; Pyke et al. 1977; Louzao et al. 2014), hence the energy investment of traveling farther in incubating birds must have some advantages. Although our interpretations are limited by a lack of information on food abundance, the areas closer to the colony must be subject to greater depletion of food resources by individuals from the colony, creating an Ashmole’s halo (Birt et al. 1987; Oppel et al. 2015), while this effect is reduced farther away from the colony. Incubating birds which are more flexible by not having to constantly feed their chick may thus forage farther (Ito et al. 2010; Shoji et al. 2015). More distant areas from the colony, outside of Ashmole’s halo may offer less competition for food resources, but only be accessible to incubating individuals or non-breeders.
Sex-specific foraging trip parameters
Against our expectations, we found no differences in the foraging behavior between incubating or chick-rearing females and males. Body mass and body size did not affect foraging behavior either. This is surprising since differences in body mass, found here between both sexes, have previously been associated with differences in foraging behavior in Sulids (Lewis et al. 2005; Weimerskirch et al. 2006; Zavalaga et al. 2007; Sommerfeld et al. 2013). Thus, the larger size of females did not enable local dominance as suggested to occur in Sulids and other seabirds (Gilardi 1992; González-Solís et al. 2000; Stahl and Sagar 2000), and the lighter weight of males cannot account for longer-ranging foraging trips (Shaffer et al. 2001). Sexual size dimorphism alone therefore cannot explain the results on sexual segregation in foraging on our study and those of previous studies.
The food resources around Rapa Nui may be scarce (Randall and Cea 2010; Friedlander et al. 2013), but prey may be distributed in a way that sexual segregation in area use or depth does not reduce competition for food among the sexes. Flying fish, the most frequent prey item of masked boobies in this study, is distributed ephemerally, thus showing high spatio-temporal variation in its occurrence (Oxenford et al. 1995). In addition, boobies may catch flying fish and squid in the surface waters or above the water (Au and Pitman 1986; Davenport 1994; Weimerskirch and Le Corre 2005). Consequently, avoidance of competition for catching this kind of prey may be almost impossible. This agrees with a study by Mancini et al. (2013), which found that in general, tropical seabirds showed less isotopic differences among sexes compared to polar and temperate species, likely since foraging segregation is limited by the low food abundance and patchy distribution of prey at tropical regions (Longhurst and Pauly 1987; Ballance and Pitman 1999; Weimerskirch 2007). However, other tropical seabird species did show sexual segregation in foraging behavior (see Table 1 and Mancini et al. 2013). Possibly, the inconsistency in finding sexual segregation in foraging in Sulids is an effect of the distribution of their prey resources according to the geography (Garthe et al. 2007; Tait et al. 2014; Castillo-Guerrero et al. 2016), and time of the study (Hamer et al. 2007; Harding et al. 2007; Garthe et al. 2011).
Boobies primarily prey on epipelagic fish (Nelson 1978), and epipelagic fish communities are more diverse and heterogeneously distributed in coastal than in oceanic habitats (Hunt Jr. 1990; Angel 1993; Reese et al. 2011; Lewallen et al. 2017). In addition, prey species vary in their nutritional content (water-lipid-protein ratio) (Machovsky-Capuska et al. 2016; Miller et al. 2018; Machovsky-Capuska and Raubenheimer 2020). Female and male seabirds may react to the nutritional content of the available prey by foraging differently to cover their sex-specific nutritional requirements (Lewis et al. 2002; Machovsky-Capuska et al. 2016). The more complex prey community, heterogeneous distribution, and different nutritional content of prey items in coastal habitats may thus promote foraging segregation, whereas oceanic areas, which have a less diverse and more ephemerally distributed prey community, may prevent this (Ashmole 1971). Indeed, booby species such as blue-footed boobies and brown boobies which have a more diverse diet (Mellink et al. 2001; Ancona et al. 2012; Castillo-Guerrero et al. 2016; González-Medina et al. 2018; Miller et al. 2018) were more likely to exhibit sexual segregation in foraging (see Table 1). This contrasts to pelagic species such as red-footed boobies and masked boobies, which rely mostly on flying fish and squid (Schreiber and Hensley 1976; Young et al. 2010a). Therefore, in less diverse homogeneous environments such as at Rapa Nui, sexual segregation in foraging would be expected to be weak. A comparative study focusing on prey communities and their nutritional content would be needed to further explore if these are the main causes for sexual segregation in foraging between booby species and colonies.
Sex-specific isotopic niches
Sexual segregation in isotopic niches of incubating birds contrasts with previous studies which found no sex-related differences in isotopic signatures in masked boobies (Young et al. 2010a; Mancini et al. 2013). The aforementioned studies, however, did not separate between the breeding stages of the individuals (see Table 1).
It is important to draw attention to the fact that stable isotopes in whole blood reflect the diet assimilated over a period of 3–4 weeks before blood sampling (Vander Zanden et al. 2015). Our stable isotope results therefore integrate a longer period of time, which does not fully match our tracking data. There may be a residual influence of the pre-laying period for incubating birds and of the incubation period for chick-rearing birds. Non-breeding boobies may move over larger distances (Kohno et al. 2019), and during the pre-laying period, males perform shorter foraging trips to expend more time defending a territory and to avoid extra-pair paternity (Osorio-Beristain and Drummond 2001), whereas females are not fixed to the nest yet. Therefore, females and males may exploit different food webs and isoscapes previous to the incubating period. Nevertheless, it is likely that masked boobies from Rapa Nui during the pre-laying period stayed within the same oligotrophic food web. Firstly, the high degree of isolation of Rapa Nui (Flores et al. 2014) makes it unlikely for boobies from Rapa Nui to travel very far away, even during the pre-laying period. Secondly, the Gyre covers an area of 37 million square kilometers (Reintjes et al. 2019), so even when located on one of the neighboring islands, the food web will be similarly oligotrophic. Finally, the pre-laying period lasts about 30 days in Sulids (Osorio-Beristain and Drummond 1998), during which birds occupying nest sites are therefore restrained in their movements. Hence, the studied birds were very likely, already foraging in the homogeneous, oligotrophic waters of Rapa Nui during the pre-laying period, and thus in an area where segregation in foraging behavior between females and males should not occur.
A possible explanation for the stable isotopic difference between males and females during incubation might be that incubating and/or pre-laying females were consuming different prey while using similar areas as males. This would agree with results on monomorphic Australasian gannets (Morus serrator) (Ismar et al. 2017) and dimorphic Magellanic penguins (Spheniscus magellanicus) (Raya Rey et al. 2012), species in which males and females segregate in diet but not in their foraging areas. In masked boobies, both sexes require energy to exhibit dynamic traits in the feet color and facial mask during the pre-laying period which signal individual quality (Rull et al. 2016), and for females, the egg formation is a highly energy-demanding period (Nager et al. 2001). Females may thus consume different prey or different proportions of the same prey to meet the nutritional requirements associated with egg production and laying (Lewis et al. 2002; Xavier and Croxall 2006; García-Tarrasón et al. 2015; Connan et al. 2019).
Female-masked boobies at Rapa Nui laid on average two eggs, which may represent up to 6% of the incubating female’s body mass, and incubating females had lower body mass than chick-rearing females. The wing lengths of female and male-masked boobies differed by ~ 2% at Clipperton (Weimerskirch et al. 2009a), Phillip Island (Sommerfeld et al. 2013), and in the current study. However, in terms of body mass, chick-rearing females were 14% heavier than males at Clipperton, 16% heavier at Phillip Island, and 21% heavier at Rapa Nui. In contrast to chick-rearing birds, the difference in body mass on incubating birds was smaller between males and females, with females being only 9% heavier than males (this study). In seabirds, high-quality parents may breed earlier in the season (Arnold et al. 2004). Thus, differences in body mass can be an effect of including high-quality females which started breeding earlier in the season. However, in Rapa Nui, there is not a clear temporality in breeding (Marin and Caceres 2010) and thus, we would not expect that there are early or late breeding individuals. However, to formally rule this out, one would need to monitor if the heavier chick-rearing females (higher quality) are able to rear their chick, and the lighter incubating females (lower quality) fail later in incubation or hatching (Arnold et al. 2004). Unfortunately, due to the complicated logistics to reach this island, we did not monitor breeding success. Alternatively, the body mass differences between incubating and chick-rearing females could suggest that chick-rearing females may have recovered from the investment of egg laying. In Sulids, the energetic demands of breeding may particularly affect female body condition (Velando and Alonso-Alvarez 2003; González-Medina et al. 2017). Thus, foraging to meet or recover from the nutritional requirements associated with egg production and laying seems plausible. Our results coincide with patterns of body mass variations of breeding female blue-footed boobies (Lerma 2014) but contrast with the results in Nazca boobies and brown boobies. Nazca boobies showed a decline in parental body mass during the breeding season (Apanius et al. 2008), while body condition in brown boobies was not affected by breeding stage (Dehnhard and Hennicke, 2013). These inconsistencies among species may once more reflect different food availability at different colonies.
Finally, we must consider that the differences in δ13C and δ15N values rely on the premise that these measurements are primarily determined by the foraging behavior and diet of the consumers. Although this is largely true (Hobson 1993; Cherel et al. 2008; Parnell et al. 2013), isotope levels may also be affected by physiological and biochemical factors, which are rarely taken into account and tested. Our results on body mass suggest that incubating females were in poorer body condition than males, and rather than indicating sex-related differences in foraging ecology, the different isotopic signatures between the sexes in this study may therefore reflect differences in the physiological states of individuals. For seabird species with reversed sexual size dimorphism, physiological condition and energy requirements of the larger sex were also suspected to cause differences in stable isotope levels (Mancini et al. 2013).
Conclusion
Birds of both sexes foraged farther away and for longer periods during incubation compared to chick-rearing as an effect of breeding demands. Although Rapa Nui is an oligotrophic area with potentially low food resources, which could promote foraging segregation, there were no obvious foraging differences between the sexes. We suggest that this occurred as an effect of food resources at Rapa Nui being distributed in a way that sexual segregation in foraging will not be useful to avoid inter-sexual competition for resources. The observed differences in stable isotopes are somewhat inconclusive. Larger sample sizes, an isotope study of the underlying food web and possibly a different study design, including tracking during the pre-laying period or investigating stable isotopes in plasma (which reflects the diet of few days; Vander Zanden et al. 2015), would be needed to understand the reasons for the sex-specific isotopic niches (δ13C and δ15N) within this population. Overall, sexual size dimorphism in boobies does not seem to be the primary reason for sexual segregation in foraging. Instead, the pattern of sexual segregation in foraging is probably given by local prey distribution and the nutritional needs that each sex has to meet. In this context, when the prey community is more diverse and heterogeneously distributed, sexual segregation in foraging would be useful to meet sex-specific nutritional requirements. However, in environments like around Rapa Nui, where prey resources distribute ephemerally, sexual segregation in foraging can be expected to be weak.
References
Ancona S, Calixto-Albarrán I, Drummond H (2012) Effect of El Niño on the diet of a specialist seabird, Sula nebouxii, in the warm eastern tropical Pacific. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 462:261–271. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps09851
Angel MV (1993) Biodiversity of the pelagic ocean. Soc Conserv Biol 7:760–772
Apanius V, Westbrock MA, Anderson DJ (2008) Reproduction and immune homeostasis in a long-lived seabird, the Nazca booby (Sula granti). Ornithol Monogr 65:1–46. https://doi.org/10.1525/om.2008.65.1.1
Arnold JM, Hatch JJ, Nisbet ICT (2004) Seasonal declines in reproductive success of the common tern Sterna hirundo: timing or parental quality. J Avian Biol 35:33–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0908-8857.2004.03059.x
Ashmole NP (1971) Seabird ecology and the marine environment. In: Farner DS, King JR (eds) Avian biology. Academic Press, New York, pp 224–271
Au DWK, Pitman RL (1986) Seabird interaction with dolphins and tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific. Condor 88:304–317. https://doi.org/10.2307/1368877
Ballance LT, Pitman RL (1999) Foraging ecology of tropical seabirds. In: Adams NJ, Slotow RH (eds) Proceedings of the 22 International Ornithological Congress. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg, Durban, pp 2057–2071
Barton K (2020) MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference, https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/MuMIn/index.html
Bates D, Machler M, Bolker B, Walter S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effect models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Bearhop S, Adams CE, Waldron S, Waldron S, Fuller RA, MacLeod H (2004) Determining trophic niche width: a novel approach using stable isotope analysis. J Anim Ecol 73:1007–1012. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-8790.2004.00861.x
Besel D, Hauber ME, Hunter C, Ward-Smith T, Raubenheimer D, Millar CD, Ismar SMH (2018) Multifactorial roles of interannual variability, season, and sex for foraging patterns in a sexually size monomorphic seabird, the Australasian gannet (Morus serrator). Mar Biol 165:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-018-3332-0
Birt VL, Birt TP, Goulet D, Cairns DK, Montevecchi WA (1987) Ashmole’s halo: direct evidence for prey depletion by a seabird. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 40:205–208. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps040205
Bugoni L, McGill RAR, Furness RW (2008) Effects of preservation methods on stable isotope signatures in bird tissues. Rapid Commun Mass Sp 22:2457–2462. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcm.3633
Calenge C (2006) The package “adehabitat” for the R software: a tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals. Ecol Model 197:516–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.03.017
Cansee R, Fauchet L, Wells MR, Arnould JPY (2020) Factors influencing prey capture success and profitability in Australasian gannets (Morus serrator). Biol Open 9:bio047514. https://doi.org/10.1242/bio.047514
Carneiro APB, Manica A, Clay TA, Silk JRD, King M, Phillips R (2016) Consistency in migration strategies and habitat preferences of brown skuas over two winters, a decade apart. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 553:267–281. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11781
Castillo-Guerrero JA, Mellink E (2011) Ocassional inter-sex differences in diet and foraging behavior of the blue-footed booby: maximizing chick rearing in a variable environment? J Ornithol 152:269–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-010-0575-z
Castillo-Guerrero JA, Lerma M, Mellink E, Suazo-Guillén E, Peñaloza-Padilla EA (2016) Environmentally-mediated flexible foraging strategies in brown boobies in the Gulf of California. Ardea 104:33–47. https://doi.org/10.5253/arde.v104i1.a3
Catry P, Phillips RA, Croxall JP (2005) Sexual segregation in birds: patterns, processes and implications for conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Charnov EL (1976) Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. Theor Popul Biol 9:129–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-5809(76)90040-X
Cherel Y, Hobson KA (2007) Geographical variation in carbon stable isotope signatures of marine predators: a tool to investigate their foraging areas in the Southern Ocean. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 329:281–287. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps329281
Cherel Y, Le Corre M, Jaquemet S, Ménard F, Richard P, Weimerskirch H (2008) Resource partitioning within a tropical seabird community: new information from stable isotopes. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 366:281–291. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps07587
Clifford LD, Anderson DJ (2002) Clutch size variation in the Nazca booby: a test of the egg quality hypothesis. Behav Ecol 13:274–279. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/13.2.274
Connan M, Dilley BJ, Whitehead TO, Davies D, McQuaid CD, Ryan PG (2019) Multidimensional stable isotope analysis illuminates resource partitioning in a sub-Antarctic island bird community. Ecography 42:1948–1959. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.04560
Davenport J (1994) How and why do flying fish fly? Rev Fish Biol Fish 4:184–214
Dehnhard N, Hennicke J (2013) Leucocyte profiles and body condition in breeding brown boobies and red-tailed tropicbirds: effects of breeding stage and sex. Aust J Zool 61:178–185. https://doi.org/10.1071/ZO12123
Dehnhard N, Achurch H, Clarke J, Michel LN, Southwell C, Sumner MD, Eens M, Emmerson L (2020) High inter- and intraspecific niche overlap among three sympatrically breeding, closely related seabird species: generalist foraging as an adaptation to a highly variable environment? J Anim Ecol 89:104–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.13078
DeNiro MJ, Epstein S (1981) Influence of diet on the distribution of nitrogen isotopes in animals. Geochim Cosmochim 45:341–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7037(78)90199-0
Fischer W, Krupp F, Schneider W, Sommer C, Carpenter KE, Niem VH (1995) Guía FAO para la identificación de especies para los fines de la pesca. Pacifico, centro-oriental. FAO, Roma
Flores MA, Schlatter RP, Hucke-Gaete R (2014) Seabirds of Easter Island, Salas y Gomez Island and Desventuradas Islands, southeastern Pacific Ocean. Lat Am J Aquat Res 42:752–759
Forero MG, González-Solís J, Hobson KA, Donázar JA, Bertellotti M, Blanco G, Bortolotti GR (2005) Stable isotopes reveal trophic segregation by sex and age in the southern petrel in two different food webs. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 296:107–113. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps296107
Friedlander AM, Ballesteros E, Beets J, Berkenpas E, Gaymer CF, Gorny M, Sala E (2013) Effects of isolation and fishing on the marine ecosystems of Easter Island and Salas y Gómez, Chile. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwat Ecosyst 23:515–531. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2333
García-Tarrasón M, Bécares J, Bateman S, Arcos JM, Jover L, Sanpera C (2015) Sex-specific foraging behavior in response to fishing activities in a threatened seabird. Ecol Evol 5:2348–2358. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1492
Garthe S, Montevecchi WA, Chapdelaine G, Rail JF, Hedd A (2007) Contrasting foraging tactics by northern gannets (Sula bassana) breeding in different oceanographic domains with different prey fields. Mar Biol 151:687–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-006-0523-x
Garthe S, Montevecchi WA, Davoren GK (2011) Inter-annual changes in prey fields trigger different foraging tactics in a large marine predator. Limnol Oceanogr 56:802–812. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2011.56.3.0802
Gianuca D, Votier SC, Pardo D, Wood AG, Sherley RB, Ireland L, Choquet R, Pradel R, Townley S, Forcada J, Tuck GN, Phillips RA (2019) Sex-specific effects of fisheries and climate on the demography of sexually dimorphic seabirds. J Anim Ecol 88:1366–1378. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.13009
Gilardi JD (1992) Sex-specific foraging distributions of brown boobies in the eastern tropical Pacific. Waterbirds 15:148–151. https://doi.org/10.2307/1521367
González-Medina E, Castillo-Guerrero JA, Santiago-Quesada F, Villegas A, Masero JA, Sánchez-Guzmán JM, Fernández G (2015) Regulation of breeding expenditure in the blue-footed booby, Sula nebouxii: an experimental approach. Anim Behav 108:9–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.06.025
González-Medina E, Castillo-Guerrero JA, Herzka SZ, Fernández G (2017) Flexibility in food resource allocation in parents and selectivity for offspring: variations in δ15N and δ13C values during breeding of the blue-footed booby. Mar Biol 164:38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-017-3070-
González-Medina E, Castillo-Guerrero JA, Herzka SZ, Fernández G (2018) High quality diet improves lipid metabolic profile and breeding performance in the blue-footed booby, a long-lived seabird. PLoS One 13:e0193136. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193136
González-Solís J, Croxall JP, Wood AG (2000) Sexual dimorphism and sexual segregation in foraging strategies of northern giant petrels, Macronectes halli, during incubation. Oikos 90:390–398. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICISCE.2016.51
Hamer KC, Schreiber EA, Burger J (2002) Breeding biology, life histories, and life history-environment interactions in seabirds. In: Schreiber EA, Burger J (eds) Biology of marine birds. CRC Press, NY, pp 217–262
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 338:295–305. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps338295
Harding AMA, Piatt JF, Schmutz JA, Schultz MT, Van Pelt TI, Kettle AB, Speckman SG (2007) Prey density and the behavioral flexibility of a marine predator: the common murre (Uria aalge). Ecology 88:2024–2033. https://doi.org/10.1890/06-1695.1
Harrison XA, Blount JD, Inger R, Norris DR, Bearhop S (2011) Carry-over effects as drivers of fitness differences in animals. J Anim Ecol 80:4–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2010.01740.x
Hedd A, Montevecchi WA, Phillips RA, Fifield DA (2014) Seasonal sexual segregation by monomorphic sooty shearwaters Puffinus griseus reflects different reproductive roles during the pre-laying period. PLoS One 9:e85572. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085572
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. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps10664
Hijmans RJ (2019) raster: geographic data analysis and modeling, https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/raster/index.html
Hipfner JM, Tranquilla LAM, Addison B, Hobson KA (2013) Trophic responses to the hatching of offspring in a central-place foraging seabird. J Ornithol 154:965–970. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-013-0962-3
Hobson KA (1993) Trophic relationships among high Arctic seabirds: insights from tissue-dependent stable-isotope models. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 95:7–18. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps095007
Hobson KA, Clark RG (1992) Assessing avian diets using stable isotopes I: turnover of C13 in tissues. Condor 94:189–197. https://doi.org/10.2307/1368807
Hobson KA, Piatt JF, Pitocchelli J (1994) Using stable isotopes to determine seabird trophic relationships. J Anim Ecol 63:786–798. https://doi.org/10.2307/5256
Hunt GL Jr (1990) The pelagic distribution of marine birds in a heterogeneous environment. Polar Res 8:43–54. https://doi.org/10.3402/polar.v8i1.6802
Inger R, Bearhop S (2008) Applications of stable isotope analyses to avian ecology. Ibis 150:447–461. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2008.00839.x
Ismar SMH, Raubenheimer D, Bury SJ, Millar CD, Hauber ME (2017) Sex-specific foraging during parental care in a size-monomorphic seabird, the Australasian gannet (Morus serrator). Wilson J Ornithol 129:139–147. https://doi.org/10.1676/1559-4491-129.1.139
Ito M, Takahashi A, Kokubun N, Kitaysky AS, Watanuki Y (2010) Foraging behavior of incubating and chick-rearing thick-billed murres Uria lomvia. Aquat Biol 8:279–287. https://doi.org/10.3354/ab00229
Jackson AL, Inger R, Parnell AC, Bearhop S (2011) Comparing isotopic niche widths among and within communities: SIBER - Stable Isotope Bayesian Ellipses in R. J Anim Ecol 80:595–602. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2011.01806.x
Kappes MA, Shaffer SA, Tremblay Y, Foley DG, Palacios DM, Robinson PW, Bograd SJ, Costa DP (2010) Hawaiian albatrosses track interannual variability of marine habitats in the North Pacific. Prog Oceanogr 86:246–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2010.04.012
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. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps09376
Kohno H, Mizutani A, Yoda K, Yamamoto T (2019) Movements and activity characteristics of the brown booby Sula leucogaster during the non-breeding period. Mar Ornithol 47:169–174
Lascelles BG, Taylor PR, Miller MGM et al (2016) Applying global criteria to tracking data to define important areas for marine conservation. Biol Res 22:422–431. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12411
Lerma M (2014) Condición corporal y concentración de metales pesados (Hg, Pb, Cd y Zn) en Sula nebouxii durante la época reproductiva en la Isla El Rancho, Sinaloa. MSc Thesis, Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, UNAM, https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.22279.80808
Lerma M, Castillo-Guerrero JA, Hernández-Vázquez S, Garthe S (2020) Foraging ecology of a marine top predators in the eastern tropical pacific over 3 years with different ENSO phases. Mar Biol 167:88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-020-03699-6
Lewallen EA, Bohonak AJ, Bonin CA, van Wijnen AJ, Pitman RL, Lovejoy NR (2017) Phylogenetics and biogeography of the two-wing flyingfish (Exocoetidae: Exocoetus). Ecol Evol 7:1751–1761. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2786
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 Lond Soc B 269:1687–1693. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.2083
Lewis S, Schreiber EA, Daunt F, Schenk GA, Orr K, Adams A, Wanless S, Hamer KC (2005) Sex-specific foraging behaviour in tropical boobies: does size matter? Ibis 147:408–414. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919x.2005.00428.x
Longhurst AR, Pauly D (1987) Ecology of tropical oceans. Academic Press, San Diego
Louzao M, Wiegand T, Brartumeus F, Weimerskirch H (2014) Coupling instantaneous energy-budget models and behavioural mode analysis to estimate optimal foraging strategy: an example with wandering albatrosses. Mov Ecol 2:8. https://doi.org/10.1186/2051-3933-2-8
Ludynia K, Garthe S, Luna-Jorquera G (2010) Distribution and foraging behaviour of the Peruvian booby (Sula variegata) off northern Chile. J Ornithol 151:103–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-009-0431-1
Machovsky-Capuska GE, Raubenheimer D (2020) The nutritional ecology of marine apex predators. Annu Rev Mar Sci 12:361–387. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-010318-095411
Machovsky-Capuska GE, Senior AM, Benn EC, Tait AH, Schuckard R, Stockin KA, Cook W, Ogle M, Barna K, Melville D, Wright B, Purvin C, Raubenheimer D (2016) Sex-specific macronutrient foraging strategies in a highly successful marine predator: the Australasian gannet. Mar Biol 163:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-016-2841-y
Mancini PL, Bond AL, Hobson KA, Duarte LS, Bugoni L (2013) Foraging segregation in tropical and polar seabirds: testing the intersexual competition hypothesis. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 449:186–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2013.09.011
Marchant S, Higgins P (1990) Orden Pelecaniformes. In: Handbook of Australian, New Zealand & Antarctic Birds. Oxford University Press, Melbourne, pp 763–772
Marin M, Caceres P (2010) Sobre las aves de isla de Pascua. Bol Mus Nac Hist Nat 59:75–95
Mellink E, Domínguez J, Luévano J (2001) Diet of Eastern Pacific brown boobies Sula leucogaster brewsteri on Isla San Jorge, north-eastern Gulf of California, and an April comparison with diets in the middle Gulf of California. Mar Ornithol 29:23–28
Mendez L, Cotté C, Prudor A, Weimerskirch H (2016) Variability in foraging behaviour of red-footed boobies nesting on Europa Island. Acta Oecol 72:87–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actao.2015.10.017
Mendez L, Borsa P, Cruz S, de Grissac S, Hennicke J, Lallemand J, Prudor A, Weimerskirch H (2017) Geographical variation in the foraging behaviour of the pantropical red-footed booby. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 568:217–230. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps12052
Miller M, Silva FRO, Machovsky-Capuska GE, Congdon BC (2018) Sexual segregation in tropical seabirds: drivers of sex-specific foraging in the brown booby Sula leucogaster. J Ornithol 159:425–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-017-1512-1
Moraga J, Valle-Levinson A, Olivares J (1999) Hydrography and geostrophy around Easter Island. Deep-Sea Res Pt I 46:715–731. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-0637(98)00083-1
Morel A, Claustre H, Gentili B (2010) The most oligotrophic subtropical zones of the global ocean: similarities and differences in terms of chlorophyll and yellow substance. Biogeosciences 7:3139–3151. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-7-3139-2010
Nager RG, Monaghan P, Houston DC (2001) The cost of egg production: increased egg production reduces future fitness in gulls. J Avian Biol 32:159–166. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-048X.2001.320209.x
Navarro J, Louzao M, Igual JM, Oro D, Delgado A, Arcos JM, Genovart M, Hobson KA, Forero MG (2009) Seasonal changes in the diet of a critically endangered seabird and the importance of trawling discards. Mar Biol 156:2571–2578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-009-1281-3
Navarro J, Moreno R, Braun L, Sanpera C, Hennicke JC (2014) Resource partitioning between incubating and chick-rearing brown boobies and red-tailed tropicbirds on Christmas Island. Zool Stud 53:27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40555-014-0027-1
Nelson JB (1978) The Sulidae: gannets and boobies. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Nunes GT, Bertrand S, Bugoni L (2018) Seabirds fighting for land: phenotypic consequences of breeding area constraints at a small remote archipelago. Sci Rep 8:665. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-18808-7
Oksanen J (2019) vegan: community ecology package, https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/vegan/index.html
Oppel S, Beard A, Fox D, Mackley E, Leat E, Henry L, Clingham E, Fowler N, Sim J, Sommerfeld J, Weber N, Weber S, Bolton M (2015) Foraging distribution of a tropical seabird supports Ashmole’s hypothesis of population regulation. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 69:915–926. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-015-1903-3
Oppel S, Bolton M, Carneiro APB, Dias MP, Green JA, Masello JF, Phillips RA, Owen E, Quillfeldt P, Beard A, Bertrand S, Blackburn J, Boersma PD, Borges A, Broderick AC, Catry P, Cleasby I, Clingham E, Creuwels J, Crofts S, Cuthbert RJ, Dallmeijer H, Davies D, Davies R, Dilley BJ, Dinis HA, Dossa J, Dunn MJ, Efe MA, Fayet AL, Figueiredo L, Frederico AP, Gjerdrum C, Godley BJ, Granadeiro JP, Guilford T, Hamer KC, Hazin C, Hedd A, Henry L, Hernández-Montero M, Hinke J, Kokubun N, Leat E, Tranquilla LMF, Metzger B, Militão T, Montrond G, Mullié W, Padget O, Pearmain EJ, Pollet IL, Pütz K, Quintana F, Ratcliffe N, Ronconi RA, Ryan PG, Saldanha S, Shoji A, Sim J, Small C, Soanes L, Takahashi A, Trathan P, Trivelpiece W, Veen J, Wakefield E, Weber N, Weber S, Zango L, Daunt F, Ito M, Harris MP, Newell MA, Wanless S, González-Solís J, Croxall J (2018) Spatial scales of marine conservation management for breeding seabirds. Mar Policy 98:37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.08.024
Osorio-Beristain M, Drummond H (1998) Non-aggressive mate guarding by the blue-footed booby: a balance of female and male control. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 43:307–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002650050496
Osorio-Beristain M, Drummond H (2001) Male boobies expel eggs when paternity is in doubt. Behav Ecol 12:16–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.beheco.a000373
Oxenford HA, Mahon R, Hunte W (1995) Distribution and relative abundance of flyingfish (Exocoetidae) in the eastern Caribbean. I. Adults. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 117:11–23. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps117011
Paiva VH, Geraldes P, Ramírez I, Meirinho GS, Ramos JA (2010) Foraging plasticity in a pelagic seabird species along a marine productivity gradient. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 398:259–274. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps08319
Parnell AC, Phillips DL, Bearhop S, Semmes BX, Ward EJ, Moore JW, Jackson AL, Inger R (2013) Bayesian stable isotope mixing models. Environmetrics 24:387–399. https://doi.org/10.1002/env.2221
Phillips DL, Newsome SD, Gregg JW (2005) Combining sources in stable isotope mixing models: alternative methods. Oecologia 144:520–527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-004-1816-8
Phillips RA, Mcgill RAR, Dawson DA, Bearhop S (2011) Sexual segregation in distribution, diet and trophic level of seabirds: insights from stable isotope analysis. Mar Biol 158:2199–2208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-011-1725-4
Poli CL, Harrison A-L, Vallarino A, Gerard PD, Jodice PGR (2017) Dynamic oceanography determines fine scale foraging behavior of masked boobies in the Gulf of Mexico. PLoS One 12:e0178318. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178318
Priddel D, Olsor S, Wheeler R (2005) Breeding biology of masked boobies (Sula dactylatra tasmani) on Lord Howe Island, Australia. Emu 105:105–113. https://doi.org/10.1071/MU04028
Pyke GH, Pulliam HR, Charnov E (1977) Optimal foraging: a selective review of theory and tests. Q Rev Biol 52:137–154. https://doi.org/10.1086/409852
R Core Team (2019) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna http://www.R-project.org
Randall JE, Cea A (2010) Shore fishes of Easter Island. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu
Raya Rey A, Pütz K, Scioscia G, Lüthi B, Schiavini A (2012) Sexual differences in the foraging behaviour of Magellanic penguins related to stage of breeding. Emu 112:90–96. https://doi.org/10.1071/MU11065
Reboredo-Segovia AL, Romano D, Armsworth PR (2020) Who studies where? Boosting tropical conservation research where it is most needed. Front Ecol Environ 18:159–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2146
Reese DC, O’Malley RT, Brodeur RD, Churnside JH (2011) Epipelagic fish distributions in relation to thermal fronts in a coastal upwelling system using high-resolution remote-sensing techniques. ICES J Mar Sci 68:1865–1874. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsr107
Reid JL, Brinton E, Fleminger A, Venrick EL, McGowan JA (1978) Ocean circulation and marine life. In: Charnock H, Deacon G (eds) Advances in oceanography. Springer, Boston, pp 65–130
Reintjes G, Tegetmeyer HE, Bürgisser M, Orlić S, Tews I, Zubkov M, Voß D, Zielinski O, Quast C, Glöckner FO, Amann R, Ferdelman TG, Fuchs BM (2019) On site analysis of bacterial communities of the ultra-oligotrophic South Pacific Gyre. Appl Environ Microbiol 85:14. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.00184-19
Reynolds SJ, Martin GR, Dawson A, Wearn CP, Hughes BJ (2014) The sub-annual breeding cycle of a tropical seabird. PLoS One 9:e93582. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093582
Rull IL, Nicolás L, Neri-Vera N, Argáez V, Martínez M, Torres R (2016) Assortative mating by multiple skin color traits in a seabird with cryptic sexual dichromatism. J Ornithol 157:1049–1062. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-016-1352-4
Schreiber RW, Hensley DA (1976) The diets of Sula dactylatra, Sula sula, and Fregata minor on Christmas Island, Pacific Ocean. Pacific Sci 30:241–248
Selander RK (1966) Sexual dimorphism and differential niche utilization in birds. Condor 68:113–151. https://doi.org/10.2307/1365712
Shaffer SA, Weimerskirch H, Costa DP (2001) Functional significance of sexual dimorphism in wandering albatrosses, Diomedea exulans. Funct Ecol 15:203–210
Shoji A, Aris-Brosou S, Fayet A, Padget O, Perrins C, Guilford T (2015) Dual foraging and pair coordination during chick provisioning by Manx shearwaters: empirical evidence supported by a simple model. J Exp Biol 218:2116–2123. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.120626
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. https://doi.org/10.1071/MU09053
Sommerfeld J, Kato A, Ropert-Coudert Y, Garthe S, Hindell MA (2013) 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-048X.2013.00135.x
Stahl JC, Sagar PM (2000) Foraging strategies and migration of southern Buller’s albatrosses Diomedea b. bulleri breeding on the Solander Is, New Zealand. J R Soc New Zeal 30:319–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/03014223.2000.9517625
Stauss C, Bearhop S, Bodey TW, Garthe S, Gunn C, Grecian WJ, Inger R, Knight ME, Newton J, Patrick SC, Phillips RA, Waggitt JJ, Votier SC (2012) Sex-specific foraging behaviour in northern gannets Morus bassanus: incidence and implications. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 457:151–162. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps09734
Sutton GL, Hoskins AJ, Berlincourt M, Arnould JPY (2017) Departure time influences foraging associations in little penguins. PLoS One 12:e0182734. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182734
Tait AH, Raubenheimer D, Stockin KA, Merriman M, Machovsky-Capuska GE (2014) Nutritional geometry and macronutrient variation in the diets of gannets: the challenges in marine field studies. Mar Biol 161:2791–2801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-014-2544-1
Tarburton MK (2018) Evidence for year-round breeding in birds in Samoan Islands, in the context of the Australasian and South Pacific regions. Notornis 65:92–108
Turner TF, Collyer ML, Krabbenhoft TJ (2010) A general hypothesis-testing framework for stable isotope ratios in ecological studies. Ecology 91:2227–2233. https://doi.org/10.1890/09-1454.1
van Oordt F, Torres-Mura JC, Hertel F (2018) Ecomorphology and foraging behavior of Pacific boobies. Ibis 160:313–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/ibi.12545
Vandenabeele SP, Shepard EL, Grogan A, Wilson RP (2012) When three per cent may not be three per cent; device-equipped seabirds experience variable flight constraints. Mar Biol 159:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-011-1784-6
Vander Zanden MJ, Clayton MK, Moody EK, Solomon CT, Weidel BC (2015) Stable isotope turnover and half-life in animal tissues: a literature synthesis. PLoS One 10:e0116182. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0116182
Velando A, Alonso-Alvarez C (2003) Differential body condition regulation by males and females in response to experimental manipulations of brood size and parental effort in the blue-footed booby. J Anim Ecol 72:846–856. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2656.2003.00756.x
Wearmouth VJ, Sims DW (2008) Sexual segregation in marine fish, reptiles, birds and mammals: behaviour patterns, mechanisms and conservation implications. Adv Mar Biol 54:107–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2881(08)00002-3
Weimerskirch H (2007) Are seabirds foraging for unpredictable resources? Deep-Sea Res Part II 54:211–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2006.11.013
Weimerskirch H, Le Corre M (2005) The three-dimensional flight of red-footed boobies: adaptations to foraging in a tropical environment? Proc R Soc Lond B 272:53–61. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2004.2918
Weimerskirch H, Le Corre M, Ropert-Coudert Y, Kato A, Marsac F (2006) Sex-specific foraging behaviour in a seabird with reversed sexual dimorphism: the red-footed booby. Oecologia 146:681–691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-005-0226-x
Weimerskirch H, Le Corre M, Gadenne H, Pinaud D, Kato A, Ropert-Coudert Y, Bost C-A (2009a) Relationship between reversed sexual dimorphism, breeding investment and foraging ecology in a pelagic seabird, the masked booby. Oecologia 161:637–649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-009-1397-7
Weimerskirch H, Shaffer SA, Tremblay Y, Costa DP, Gadenne H, Kato A, Ropert-Coudert Y, Sato K, Aurioles D (2009b) Species- and sex-specific differences in foraging behaviour and foraging zones in blue-footed and brown boobies in the Gulf of California. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 391:267–278. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps07981
Weimerskirch H, Bertrand S, Silva J, Bost C, Peraltilla S (2012) Foraging in Guanay cormorant and Peruvian booby, the major guano-producing seabirds in the Humboldt current system. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 458:231–245. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps09752
Wilkinson BP, Haynes-Sutton AM, Meggs L, Jodice PGR (2020) High spatial fidelity among foraging trips of masked boobies from Pedro Cays, Jamaica. PLoS One 15:e0231654. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231654
Winner K, Noonan MJ, Fleming CH, Olson KA, Mueller T, Sheldon D, Calabrese JM (2018) Statistical inference for home range overlap. Methods Ecol Evol 9:1679–1691. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13027
Xavier JC, Croxall JP (2006) Sexual differences in foraging behaviour and diets: a case study of wandering albatrosses. In: Rucksthul K, Neuhaus P (eds) Sexual segregation in vertebrates: ecology of the two sexes. Cambridge University Press, Cambriddge, pp 74–91
Young HS, Mccauley DJ, Dirzo R, Dunbar RB, Shaffer SA (2010a) Niche partitioning among and within sympatric tropical seabirds revealed by stable isotope analysis. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 416:285–294. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps08756
Young HS, Shaffer SA, McCauley DJ, Foley DG, Dirzo R, Block BA (2010b) Resource partitioning by species but not sex in sympatric boobies in the Central Pacific Ocean. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 403:291–301. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps08478
Zavalaga CB, Benvenuti S, Dall’Antonia L, Emslie SD (2007) Diving behavior of blue-footed boobies Sula nebouxii in northern Peru in relation to sex, body size and prey type. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 336:291–303. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps336291
Zavalaga CB, Halls JN, Mori GP, Taylor SA, Dell’Omo G (2010) At-sea movement patterns and diving behavior of Peruvian boobies Sula variegata in northern Peru. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 404:259–274. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps08490
Zavalaga CB, Emslie SD, Estela FA, Müller MS, Dell’Omo G, Anderson DJ (2012) Overnight foraging trips by chick-rearing Nazca boobies Sula granti and the risk of attack by predatory fish. Ibis 154:61–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2011.01198.x
Acknowledgments
We thank the CONAF-Rapa Nui for the field support in Motu Nui. Special thanks to Juan Serratosa and to the park rangers Pau Hito, Pedro Lazo, Pancho Icka, and Omar Duran “Tuma” for their support during fieldwork. We are grateful to the Hey family for housing and sample storage at Rapa Nui. We thank S. Furness for English editing. We thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments to improve the manuscript.
Data accessibility
Tracking data is stored in www.movebank.org
Code availability
R scripts to undertake the analyses of stable isotope analyses along with the dataset are attached as supplementary material.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. ML was funded by INAPI-CONACyT Scholarship no. 262277. Fieldwork was co-financed by the Chilean Millennium Initiative through the Millennium Nucleus Ecology and Sustainable Management of Oceanic Islands ESMOI, and the Research and Technology Centre (FTZ), University of Kiel.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
ML, GL, and SG experimental design; ML collection and analysis of the data; CCV and ML laboratory work; ML and ND writing of the manuscript; all authors commented and corrected the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
This study complies with the international, national, and institutional guidelines following ethical standards for the care and use of wild animals, and was supervised and approved by the Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero under the permits No. 310/2016 & 388/2017 Oficina Sectorial Rapa Nui, and No. 5343/2016 & 5024/2017 sector Santiago; the Comisión Nacional Forestal (CONAF-Rapa Nui); and the Ministerio de Agricultura certificate 04/101/18/0001.
Informed consent
Consent to participate is not applicable.
Additional information
Communicated by C. R. Brown
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Lerma, M., Dehnhard, N., Luna-Jorquera, G. et al. Breeding stage, not sex, affects foraging characteristics in masked boobies at Rapa Nui. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 74, 149 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-020-02921-1
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-020-02921-1