Shadowed by scale: subtle behavioral niche partitioning in two sympatric, tropical breeding albatross species

Movement Ecology

Scott A. Shaffer¹  Daniel P. Costa⁴  Elliott L. Hazen³  Melinda G. Conners² 

[1] Department of Biological Sciences, San José State University, One Washington Square, San Jose 95192, CA, USA;Department of Ocean Sciences, University of California Santa Cruz, 100 Shaffer Road, Santa Cruz 95060, CA, USA;Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, University of Hawai’i at Manoa, 1000 Pope Road, Honolulu 96822, HI, USA;Institute of Marine Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz 95060-5730, CA, USA

关键词: Phoebastria;    Albatrosses;    Behavioral plasticity;    Intraspecific variability;    Nocturnal foraging;    “Sit-and-wait” foraging;    Foraging strategies;    Niche partitioning;    Coexistence;   

Others  :  1227038
DOI  :  10.1186/s40462-015-0060-7

 received in 2015-02-12, accepted in 2015-09-06,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

To meet the minimum energetic requirements needed to support parents and their provisioned offspring, the timing of breeding in birds typically coincides with periods of high food abundance. Seasonality and synchrony of the reproductive cycle is especially important for marine species that breed in high latitudes with seasonal booms in ocean productivity. Laysan and black-footed albatrosses breeding in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands have a dual reliance on both seasonally productive waters of high latitudes and on nutrient-poor waters of low latitudes, because their foraging ranges contract during the short but critical brood-guard stage. Therefore, these species face an additional constraint of having to negotiate nutrient-poor waters during the most energetically-demanding stage of the breeding cycle. This constriction of foraging range likely results in a higher density of foraging competitors. Thus, our aim was to understand how Hawaiian albatross partition resources both between and within species in this highly constrained breeding stage while foraging in less productive waters and simultaneously experiencing increased competition. High-precision GPS dataloggers were deployed on black-footed (Phoebastria nigripes, n=20) and Laysan (Phoebastria immutabilis, n=18) albatrosses during the brood-guard stage of the breeding season in 2006 (n=8), 2009 (n=13), 2010 (n=16) and 2012 (n=1). We used GPS data and movement analyses to identify six different behavioral states in foraging albatrosses that we then used to characterize foraging trips across individuals and species. We examined whether variations in behavior were correlated with both intrinsic factors (sex, body size, body condition) and extrinsic factors (lunar phase, wind speed, year).

Results

Behavioral partitioning was revealed both between and within species in Hawaiian albatrosses. Both species were highly active during chick-brooding trips and foraged across day and night; however, Laysan albatrosses relied on foraging at night to a greater extent than black-footed albatrosses and exhibited different foraging patterns at night. For both species, foraging along direct flight paths and foraging on the water in a “sit-and-wait” strategy were just as prevalent as foraging in a searching flight mode, indicating flexibility in foraging strategies in Hawaiian albatross. Both species strongly increased drift forage at night when the lunar phase was the darkest, suggesting Hawaiian albatross feed on diel vertically-migrating prey to some extent. Black-footed albatrosses showed greater variation in foraging behavior between individuals which suggests a higher level of intra-specific competition. This behavioral variability in black-footed albatrosses was not correlated with sex or body size, but differences in body condition suggested varying efficiencies among foraging patterns. Behavioral variability in Laysan albatrosses was correlated with sex, such that females exhibited greater flight foraging than drift foraging, had longer trip durations and flew farther maximum distances from the breeding colony, but with no difference in body condition.

Conclusion

Fine-scale movement data and an analysis of multiple behavioral states identified behavioral mechanisms that facilitate coexistence within a community of albatross during a critical life-history period when energetic demands are high, resources are limited, and competition for food is greatest.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Conners et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 6.

Fig. 7.

Fig. 8.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Lack DL. Ecological adaptations for breeding in birds. 1968.
• [2]Stearns SC. The evolution of life histories. Volume 249 . Oxford University Press, Oxford; 1992.
• [3]Owens IPF, Bennett PM. Ancient ecological diversification explains life-history variation among living birds. Proc R Soc London B Biol Sci. 1995; 261:227-32.
• [4]Martin TE. Food as a limit on breeding birds. A life-history perspective. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 1987;18:453–87.
• [5]Weimerskirch H. Seabird Demography and Its Relationship with the Marine Environment. In Biology of Marine Birds. CRC Press; Boca Raton, Florida. 2001:115–136.
• [6]Ricklefs RE. Ecology. Freeman New York, New York; 1990.
• [7]Crossin GT, Phillips RA, Wynne-Edwards KE, Williams TD. Post-migratory body condition and ovarian steroid production predict breeding decisions by female gray-headed albatrosses. Physiol Biochem Zool. 2013;86:761–8.
• [8]Chastel O, Weimerskirch H, Jouventin P. Influence of body condition on reproductive decision and reproductive success in the blue petrel. Auk. 1995; 112:964-72.
• [9]Perrins CM. The timing of birds’ breeding seasons. Ibis. 1970; 112:242-55.
• [10]Le Corre M. Breeding seasons of seabirds at Europa Island (southern Mozambique Channel) in relation to seasonal changes in the marine environment. J Zool. 2001; 254:239-49.
• [11]Bertram DF, Mackas DL, McKinnell SM. The seasonal cycle revisited: interannual variation and ecosystem consequences. Prog Oceanogr. 2001; 49:283-307.
• [12]Ashmole NP. Seabird ecology and the marine environment. Avian Biol. 1971; 1:223-86.
• [13]Nelson JB. Contrasts in breeding strategies between some tropical and temperate marine pelecaniformes. Stud Avian Biol. 1983; 8:114.
• [14]Ainley DG. Feeding methods in seabirds: a comparison of polar and tropical nesting communities in the eastern Pacific ocean. In: Adaptations within Antarctic ecosystems. Proceedings of the Third SCAR Symposium on Antarctic Biology. Llano G, editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., USA; 1977: p.669-85.
• [15]Seki M, Polovina J. Biological enhancement at cyclonic eddies tracked with GOES thermal imagery in Hawaiian waters. Geophys Res Lett. 2001; 28:1583-6.
• [16]Haney J: Seabird affinities for Gulf Stream frontal eddies: responses of mobile marine consumers to episodic upwelling. J Mar Res. 1986:361–84.
• [17]Haney JC. Seabird Patchiness in Tropical Oceanic Waters: The Influence of Sargassum “Reefs.”. Auk. 1986; 103:141-51.
• [18]Tew Kai E, Rossi V, Sudre J, Weimerskirch H, Lopez C, Hernandez-Garcia E, et al. Top marine predators track Lagrangian coherent structures. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2009;106(20):8245–50.
• [19]Harrison CS. Seabirds of Hawaii: natural history and conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca; 1990.
• [20]Harris MP. Breeding seasons of sea-birds in the Galapagos Islands. J Zool. 1969; 159:145-65.
• [21]Schreiber RW, Ashmole NP. Sea-bird breeding seasons on Christmas Island, Pacific Ocean. Ibis. 1970; 112:363-94.
• [22]Ballance LT, Pitman RL. S34 . 4. Foraging ecology of tropical seabirds. 1999.
• [23]Hyrenbach K, Fernández P, Anderson D. Oceanographic habitats of two sympatric North Pacific albatrosses during the breeding season. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2002; 233:283-301.
• [24]Kappes MA. Comparative foraging ecology and energetics of albatrosses. Dissertation from University of California, Santa Cruz. 2009.
• [25]Tickell WLN. Albatrosses. Yale University Press. 2000.
• [26]Drent RH, Daan S. The prudent parent: energetic adjustments in avian breeding. Ardea. 1980; 68:225-52.
• [27]Ricklefs R. Comparative avian demography. In: Current Ornithology SE - 1. Volume 1 . Johnston R, editor. Springer US, USA; 1983: p.1-32. Current Ornithology
• [28]Weimerskirch H, Lys P. Seasonal changes in the provisioning behaviour and mass of male and female wandering albatrosses in relation to the growth of their chick. Polar Biol. 2000; 23:733-44.
• [29]Birt VL, Birt TP, Goulet D, Cairns DK. Ashmole’s halo: direct evidence for prey depletion by a seabird. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 1987; 40:205-8.
• [30]Ashmole NP. The regulation of numbers of tropical oceanic birds. Ibis. 1963; 103b:458-73.
• [31]Schreiber EA, Burger J: Biology of Marine Birds. CRC Press; Boca Raton, Florida. 2001.
• [32]Fernández P, Anderson DJ, Sievert PR, Huyvaert KP. Foraging destinations of three low‐latitude albatross (Phoebastria) species. J Zool. 2001; 254:391-404.
• [33]Kappes MA, Shaffer SA, Tremblay Y, Foley DG, Palacios DM, Robinson PW, et al. Hawaiian albatrosses track interannual variability of marine habitats in the North Pacific. Prog Oceanogr. 2010;86:246–60.
• [34]Fischer KN, Suryan RM, Roby DD, Balogh GR. Post-breeding season distribution of black-footed and Laysan albatrosses satellite-tagged in Alaska: Inter-specific differences in spatial overlap with North Pacific fisheries. Biol Conserv. 2009; 142:751-60.
• [35]Gutowsky SE, Gutowsky L, Jonsen ID, Leonard ML, Naughton MB, Romano MD, et al. Daily activity budgets reveal a quasi-flightless stage during non-breeding in Hawaiian albatrosses. Mov Ecol. 2014;2:23.
• [36]Zavalaga CB, Dell’Omo G, Becciu P, Yoda K. Patterns of GPS Tracks Suggest Nocturnal Foraging by Incubating Peruvian Pelicans (Pelecanus thagus). PLoS One. 2011; 6:e19966.
• [37]Ballance LT, Pitman RL, Reilly SB. Seabird community structure along a productivity gradient: importance of competition and energetic constraint. Ecology. 1997; 78:1502-18.
• [38]González-Solís J, Croxall JP, Wood AG. Sexual dimorphism and sexual segregation in foraging strategies of northern giant petrels, Macronectes halli, during incubation. Oikos. 2000; 90:390-8.
• [39]Harrison CS, Hida TS, Seki MP. Hawaiian Seabird Feeding Ecology. Wildl Monogr. 1983; 85:3-71.
• [40]Harrison CS, Sillman AJ. Personal communication. Univ. California, Davis. 2012.
• [41]Fernández P, Anderson DJ. Nocturnal and diurnal foraging activity of Hawaiian albatrosses detected with a new immersion monitor. Condor. 2000; 102:577-84.
• [42]Pitman RL, Walker WA, Everett WT, Gallo-Reynoso JP. Population status, foods and foraging of Laysan albatrosses Phoebastria immutabilis nesting on Guadalupe Island, Mexico. Mar Ornithol. 2004; 32:159-65.
• [43]Walker WA, Pitman RL, Ballance LT. Wanted: Dead or Alive? Hawaiian Albarosses Feed Mainly by Scavenging on Mesopelagic Cephalopods. Poster presented at the 40th Annual Pacific Seabird Group Meeting. 2013.
• [44]MacArthur RH. Population ecology of some warblers of northeastern coniferous forests. Ecology. 1958; 39:599-619.
• [45]Villegas-Amtmann S, Costa DP, Tremblay Y, Salazar S, Aurioles-Gamboa D. Multiple foraging strategies in a marine apex predator, the Galapagos sea lion Zalophus wollebaeki. Mar Ecol Ser. 2008; 363:299-309.
• [46]Masello JF, Mundry R, Poisbleau M, Demongin L, Voigt CC, Wikelski M, et al. Diving seabirds share foraging space and time within and among species. Ecosphere. 2010;1:art19.
• [47]Araújo MS, Bolnick DI, Machado G, Giaretta AA, dos Reis SF. Using delta13C stable isotopes to quantify individual-level diet variation. Oecologia. 2007; 152:643-54.
• [48]Jeglinski JWE, Goetz KT, Werner C, Costa DP, Trillmich F. Same size - same niche? Foraging niche separation between sympatric juvenile Galapagos sea lions and adult Galapagos fur seals. J Anim Ecol. 2013; 82(3):694-706.
• [49]Shaffer SA, Weimerskirch H, Costa DP. Functional significance of sexual dimorphism in wandering albatrosses, Diomedea exulans. Funct Ecol. 2001; 15:203-10.
• [50]Polis GA. Age Structure Component of Niche Width and Intraspecific Resource Partitioning: Can Age Groups Function as Ecological Species? Am Nat. 1984; 123:541.
• [51]Patrick SC, Weimerskirch H. Personality, foraging and fitness consequences in a long lived seabird. PLoS One. 2014; 9:e87269.
• [52]Patrick SC, Weimerskirch H. Consistency pays: sex differences and fitness consequences of behavioural specialization in a wide-ranging seabird. Biol Lett. 2014; 10:20140630.
• [53]Watanuki Y. Individual diet difference, parental care and reproductive success in slaty-backed gulls. Condor. 1992; 94:159-71.
• [54]Votier SC, Bearhop S, Ratcliffe N, Furness RW. Reproductive consequences for great skuas specializing as seabird predators. Condor. 2004; 106:275-87.
• [55]Svanbäck R, Bolnick DI. Intraspecific competition drives increased resource use diversity within a natural population. Proc Biol Sci. 2007; 274:839-44.
• [56]Tinker MT, Bentall G, Estes JA. Food limitation leads to behavioral diversification and dietary specialization in sea otters. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2008; 105:560-5.
• [57]Araújo MS, Bolnick DI, Layman CA. The ecological causes of individual specialisation. Ecol Lett. 2011; 14:948-58.
• [58]Nevitt GA, Losekoot M, Weimerskirch H. Evidence for olfactory search in wandering albatross, Diomedea exulans. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2008; 105:4576-81.
• [59]Suryan RM, Anderson DJ, Shaffer SA, Roby DD, Tremblay Y, Costa DP, et al. Wind, waves, and wing loading: morphological specialization may limit range expansion of endangered albatrosses. PLoS One. 2008;3:e4016.
• [60]Flint E. Hawaiian islands national wildlife refuge and midway atoll national wildlife refuge – annual nest counts through hatch year 2009.  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpublished report. 2009.
• [61]IUCN 2014. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. http://www. iucnredlist.org webcite
• [62]Véran S, Gimenez O, Flint E, Kendall WL, Doherty JRPF, Lebreton J-D. Quantifying the impact of longline fisheries on adult survival in the black-footed albatross. J Appl Ecol. 2007; 44:942-52.
• [63]Lewison RL, Crowder LB. Estimating fishery bycatch and effects on a vulnerable seabird population. Ecol Appl. 2003; 13:743-53.
• [64]Fritz H, Said S, Weimerskirch H. Scale-dependent hierarchical adjustments of movement patterns in a long-range foraging seabird. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2003; 270:1143-8.
• [65]Phillips RA, Xavier JC, Croxall JP, Burger AE. Effects of satellite transmitters on albatrosses and petrels. Auk. 2003; 120:1082-90.
• [66]Vandenabeele SP, Shepard EL, Grogan A, Wilson RP. When three per cent may not be three per cent; device-equipped seabirds experience variable flight constraints. Mar Biol. 2011; 159:1-14.
• [67]Fauchald P, Tveraa T. Using first-passage time in the analysis of area-restricted search and habitat selection. Ecology. 2003; 84:282-8.
• [68]Kareiva P, Odell G. Swarms of predators exhibit “prey-taxis” if individual predators Use area-restricted search. Am Nat. 1987;130:233–70.
• [69]Weimerskirch H, Pinaud D, Pawlowski F, Bost CA. Does prey capture induce area‐restricted search? A fine‐scale study using GPS in a marine predator, the wandering albatross. Am Nat. 2007;170:734–43.
• [70]Catry P, Phillips RA, Phalan B, Silk JRD, Croxall JP. Foraging strategies of grey-headed albatrosses Thalassarche chrysostoma: integration of movements, activity and feeding events. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2004;280:261-73.
• [71]Harper PC. Feeding behavior and other notes on 20 species of Procelleriformes at sea. Notornis. 1987; 34:169-92.
• [72]Barraquand F, Benhamou S. Animal movements in heterogeneous landscapes: identifying profitable places and homogeneous movement bouts. Ecology. 2008; 89:3336-48.
• [73]Pearson RK: Mining Imperfect Data: Dealing with Contamination and Incomplete Records. Siam; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 2005.
• [74]Bograd SJ, Rabinovich AB, LeBlond PH, Shore JA. Observations of seamount-attached eddies in the North Pacific. J Geophys Res. 1997; 102:12441.
• [75]Chaigneau A, Pizarro O, Rojas W. Global climatology of near-inertial current characteristics from Lagrangian observations. Geophys Res Lett. 2008; 35:L13603.
• [76]Weimerskirch H, Guionnet T, Martin J, Shaffer SA, Costa DP. Fast and fuel efficient? Optimal use of wind by flying albatrosses. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2000; 267:1869-74.
• [77]Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D. Nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. 2015.
• [78]Wood SN. Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models. J R Stat Soc Ser B Statistical Methodol. 2011; 73:3-36.
• [79]Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P. Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrical J. 2008; 50:346-63.
• [80]Suzuki R, Shimodaira H. Pvclust: an R package for assessing the uncertainty in hierarchical clustering. Bioinforma. 2006; 22(12):1540-2.
• [81]R Core Team (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna,Austria. http://www.R-project.org/.
• [82]Clarke KR. Non‐parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Aust J Ecol. 1993; 18:117-43.
• [83]Louzao M, Wiegand T, Bartumeus F, Weimerskirch H. Coupling instantaneous energy-budget models and behavioural mode analysis to estimate optimal foraging strategy: an example with wandering albatrosses. Mov Ecol. 2014; 2:8. BioMed Central Full Text
• [84]Cruz SM, Hooten M, Huyvaert KP, Proaño CB, Anderson DJ, Afanasyev V, et al. At-sea behavior varies with lunar phase in a nocturnal pelagic seabird, the swallow-tailed gull. PLoS One. 2013;8:e56889.
• [85]Jodice PGR, Roby DD, Suryan RM, Irons DB, Kaufman AM, Turco KR, et al. Variation in energy expenditure among black-legged kittiwakes: effects of activity-specific metabolic rates and activity budgets. Physiol Biochem Zool. 2003;76:375–88.
• [86]Roby DD, Turco KR, Anthony JA. Diet Composition, reproductive energetics, and productivity of seabirds damaged by the Exxon Valdez Oil spill. Restoration Project 97163 G Annual Report. Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. 1997.
• [87]Paredes R, Orben RA, Suryan RM, Irons DB, Roby DD, Harding AMA, et al. Foraging responses of black-legged kittiwakes to prolonged food-shortages around colonies on the Bering Sea shelf. PLoS One. 2014;9:e92520.
• [88]Tremblay Y, Roberts AJ, Costa DP. Fractal landscape method: an alternative approach to measuring area-restricted searching behavior. J Exp Biol. 2007; 210:935-45.
• [89]Nams V. The VFractal: a new estimator for fractal dimension of animal movement paths. Landsc Ecol. 1996; 11:289-97.
• [90]Weimerskirch H, Corre M, Ropert-Coudert Y, Kato A, Marsac F. Sex-specific foraging behaviour in a seabird with reversed sexual dimorphism: the red-footed booby. Oecologia. 2006; 146:681-91.
• [91]Weimerskirch H, Le Corre M, Jaquemet SA, Potier M. Foraging strategy of a top predator in tropical waters: great frigatebirds in the Mozambique Channel. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2004; 275:297-308.
• [92]Cairns DK, Bredin KA, Montevecchi WA. Activity budgets and foraging ranges of breeding common murres. Auk. 1987; 104:218-24.
• [93]Dias MP, Granadeiro J, Catry P. Working the day or the night shift? Foraging schedules of Cory’s shearwaters vary according to marine habitat. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2012; 467:245-52.
• [94]Drazen JC, De Forest LG, Domokos R. Micronekton abundance and biomass in Hawaiian waters as influenced by seamounts, eddies, and the moon. Deep Sea Res Part I Oceanogr Res Pap. 2011; 58:557-66.
• [95]Boehlert GW, Genin A. A review of the effects of seamounts on biological processes. In Geophysical Monograph. Edited by Keating B, Fryer P, Batiza R, Boehlert GW. American Geophysical Union; 1987:319–344.
• [96]Walker WA, Fitzgerald S. Preliminary results on the diet of Laysan albatross and the Use of fisheries by-caught marine birds in investigations of natural feeding strategy. Poster presented at the 40th Annual Pacific Seabird Group Meeting. 2013.
• [97]Shaffer SA, Costa DP, Weimerskirch H. Foraging effort in relation to the constraints of reproduction in free‐ranging albatrosses. Funct Ecol. 2003; 17:66-74.
• [98]Phalan B, Phillips RA, Silk JRD, Afanasyev V, Fukuda A, Fox J et al.. Foraging behaviour of four albatross species by night and day. Mar Ecol Ser. 2007; 340:271-86.
• [99]Mackley E, Phillips R, Silk JD, Wakefield E, Afanasyev V, Furness R. At-sea activity patterns of breeding and nonbreeding white-chinned petrels Procellaria aequinoctialis from South Georgia. Mar Biol. 2011; 158:429-38.
• [100]Regular PM, Hedd A, Montevecchi WA. Fishing in the dark: a pursuit-diving seabird modifies foraging behaviour in response to nocturnal light levels. PLoS One. 2011; 6:e26763.
• [101]Amarasekare P, Hoopes MF, Mouquet N, Holyoak M. Mechanisms of coexistence in competitive metacommunities. Am Nat. 2004; 164:310-26.
• [102]Begon M, Townsend CR, Harper JL. Ecology: from individuals to ecosystems. 2006.
• [103]Wakefield ED, Bodey TW, Bearhop S, Blackburn J, Colhoun K, Davies R et al.. Space partitioning without territoriality in gannets. Science. 2013; 341:68-71.
• [104]Grémillet D, Dell’Omo G, Ryan PG, Peters G, Ropert-Coudert Y, Weeks SJ. Offshore diplomacy, or how seabirds mitigate intra-specific competition: a case study based on GPS tracking of Cape gannets from neighbouring colonies. Mar Ecol Ser. 2004; 268:265-79.
• [105]Sokolowski MB, Pereira HS, Hughes K. Evolution of foraging behavior in Drosophila by density-dependent selection. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997; 94:7373-7.
• [106]Lewis S, Sherratt TN, Hamer KC, Wanless S. Evidence of intra-specific competition for food in a pelagic seabird. Nature. 2001; 412:816-9.
• [107]Lewis S, Benvenuti S, Dall–Antonia L, Griffiths R, Money L, Sherratt TN, et al. Sex-specific foraging behaviour in a monomorphic seabird. Proc R Soc London B Biol Sci. 2002;269:1687–93.
• [108]Thaxter CB, Daunt F, Hamer KC, Watanuki Y, Harris MP, Grémillet D, et al. Sex-specific food provisioning in a monomorphic seabird, the common guillemot Uria aalge: nest defence, foraging efficiency or parental effort? J Avian Biol. 2009;40:75–84.
• [109]Pinet P, Jaquemet S, Phillips RA, Le Corre M. Sex-specific foraging strategies throughout the breeding season in a tropical, sexually monomorphic small petrel. Anim Behav. 2012; 83:979-89.
• [110]Hedd A, Montevecchi WA, Phillips RA, Fifield DA. Seasonal sexual segregation by monomorphic Sooty Shearwaters Puffinus griseus reflects different reproductive roles during the pre-laying period. PLoS One. 2014; 9:e85572.
• [111]Phillips RA, Silk JRD, Phalan B, Catry P, Croxall JP. Seasonal sexual segregation in two Thalassarche albatross species: competitive exclusion, reproductive role specialization or foraging niche divergence? Proc Biol Sci. 2004; 271:1283-91.
• [112]Stauss C, Bearhop S, Bodey TW, Garthe S, Gunn C, Grecian WJ, et al. Sex-specific foraging behaviour in northern gannets Morus bassanus: incidence and implications. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2012;457:151–62.
• [113]Rice DW, Kenyon KW. Breeding cycles and behavior of Laysan and Black-footed Albatrosses. Auk. 1962; 79:517-67.
• [114]Arata JA, Sievert P, Naughton M. Status Assessment of Laysan and Black-Footed Albatrosses,North Pacific Ocean, 1923–2005. USGS/USFWS Technical Report. 2009.
• [115]Villegas-Amtmann S, Simmons SE, Kuhn CE, Huckstadt LA, Costa DP. Latitudinal range influences the seasonal variation in the foraging behavior of marine top predators. PLoS One. 2011; 6:e23166.
• [116]Thorne LH, Hazen EL, Bograd SJ, Foley DG, Conners MG, Kappes MA, Hyemi K, Tremblay Y, Costa DP, Shaffer SA: Sympatric North Pacific albatross species show contrasting responses to climate variability. Mov Ecol. Accepted September 2015.
• [117]Walter ST, Leberg PL, Dindo JJ, Karubian JK. Factors influencing Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) foraging movement patterns during the breeding season. J Zool. 2014; 891:885-91.
• [118]Lescroël A, Ballard G, Toniolo V, Barton KJ, Wilson PR, Lyver PO, et al. Working less to gain more: when breeding quality relates to foraging efficiency. Ecology. 2010;91:2044–55.
• [119]Nychka D. Bayesian confidence intervals for smoothing splines. J Am Stat Assoc. 1988; 83:1134-43.