Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-10T01:45:36.163Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intra-population variability of the non-breeding distribution of southern giant petrels Macronectes giganteus is mediated by individual body size

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2018

Lucas Krüger ,
Vitor H. Paiva ,
Julia V.G. Finger ,
Elisa Petersen ,
José C. Xavier ,
Maria V. Petry  and
Jaime A. Ramos
Lucas Krüger*
Affiliation:
MARE – Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre, Department of Life Sciences, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia Antárctico de Pesquisas Ambientais - INCT-APA, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil Instituto Antártico Chileno, Plaza Muñoz Gamero 1055, Punta Arenas, Chile
Vitor H. Paiva
Affiliation:
MARE – Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre, Department of Life Sciences, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
Julia V.G. Finger
Affiliation:
Laboratório de Ornitologia e Animais Marinhos, Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos, São Leopoldo, RS, Brazil Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia Antárctico de Pesquisas Ambientais - INCT-APA, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
Elisa Petersen
Affiliation:
Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia Antárctico de Pesquisas Ambientais - INCT-APA, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil Instituto Oceanográfico da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
José C. Xavier
Affiliation:
MARE – Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre, Department of Life Sciences, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal British Antarctic Survey, NERC, Cambridge, UK
Maria V. Petry
Affiliation:
Laboratório de Ornitologia e Animais Marinhos, Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos, São Leopoldo, RS, Brazil Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia Antárctico de Pesquisas Ambientais - INCT-APA, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
Jaime A. Ramos
Affiliation:
MARE – Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre, Department of Life Sciences, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
*
*biokruger@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Literature reports that body size can be associated with latitudinal distribution, for instance larger animals inhabit higher latitudes and colder habitats. This rule can be applied for species and populations within a species. The potential influence of body size on non-breeding distribution and habitat use at the intra-population level was investigated for southern giant petrels Macronectes giganteus (Gmelin) from Elephant Island, South Shetland Islands. The non-breeding distribution of 23 individuals was tracked, and total body length, culmen length, wing length, wing load and body mass were measured. Positions of core areas were used to estimate the latitudinal distribution of each individual. Smaller individuals were found to be associated more with lower latitudes, where warmer conditions and more coastal and productive waters prevail, whereas large males were associated more with higher latitudes, with colder conditions near sea ice caps, presumably feeding on carrion or preying on penguins. This association reflects a latitudinal gradient, with smaller individuals positioning themselves towards the north, and larger individuals towards the south. In this case, body size, individual distribution and habitat use were found to be associated, highlighting the importance of studying potential effects of individual body size on the ecology of seabirds.

Keywords

Antarcticbody masshabitat useseabirdstracking
Type
Biological Sciences
Information
Antarctic Science , Volume 30 , Issue 5 , October 2018 , pp. 271 - 277
Copyright
© Antarctic Science Ltd 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barbraud, C. 2000. Natural selection on body size traits in a long-lived bird, the snow petrel Pagodroma nivea . Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 13, doi: 10.1046/j.1420-9101.2000.00151.x.Google Scholar
Bolnick, D.I. 2004. Can intraspecific competition drive disruptive selection? An experimental test in natural populations of sticklebacks. Evolution, 58, doi: 10.1554/03-326.Google Scholar
Cain, K.E. & Ketterson, E.D. 2013. Costs and benefits of competitive traits in females: aggression, maternal care and reproductive success. PLoS ONE, 8, e77816.Google Scholar
Calenge, C. 2006. The package “adehabitat” for the R software: a tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals. Ecological Modelling, 197, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.03.017.Google Scholar
Cardini, A., Jansson, A.U. & Elton, S. 2007. A geometric morphometric approach to the study of ecogeographical and clinal variation in vervet monkeys. Journal of Biogeography, 34, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2007.01731.x.Google Scholar
Cronin, M., Pomeroy, P. & Jessopp, M. 2012. Size and seasonal influences on the foraging range of female grey seals in the northeast Atlantic. Marine Biology, 160, doi: 10.1007/s00227-012-2109-0.Google Scholar
Forero, M., González-Solís, J., Hobson, K., Donázar, J., Bertellotti, M., Blanco, G. & Bortolotti, G. 2005. Stable isotopes reveal trophic segregation by sex and age in the southern giant petrel in two different food webs. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 296, doi: 10.3354/meps296107.Google Scholar
Gardner, J.L., Peters, A., Kearney, M.R., Joseph, L. & Heinsohn, R. 2011. Declining body size: a third universal response to warming? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 26, doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.03.005.Google Scholar
Geist, V. 1987. Bergmann’s rule is invalid. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 65, doi: 10.1139/z87-164.Google Scholar
González-Solís, J. 2004. Sexual size dimorphism in northern giant petrels: ecological correlates and scaling. Oikos, 105, 247–254.Google Scholar
González-Solís, J., Croxall, J.P. & Afanasyev, V. 2008. Offshore spatial segregation in giant petrels Macronectes spp.: differences between species, sexes and seasons. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 17, doi: 10.1002/aqc.911.Google Scholar
González-Solís, J., Croxall, J. & Wood, A. 2000a. Foraging partitioning between giant petrels Macronectes spp. and its relationship with breeding population changes at Bird Island, South Georgia. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 204, doi: 10.3354/meps204279.Google Scholar
González-Solís, J., Croxall, J.P. & Wood, A.G. 2000b. Sexual dimorphism and sexual segregation in foraging strategies of northern giant petrels, Macronectes halli, during incubation. Oikos, 90, doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.900220.x.Google Scholar
Grémillet, D., Dell’Omo, G., Ryan, P., Peters, G., Ropert-Coudert, Y. & Weeks, S. 2004. Offshore diplomacy or how seabirds mitigate intra-specific competition: a case study based on GPS tracking of Cape gannets from neighbouring colonies. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 268, doi: 10.3354/meps268265.Google Scholar
Grémillet, D., Lewis, S., Drapeau, L., van Der Lingen, C.D., Huggett, J. A., Coetzee, J.C., Verheye, H.M., Daunt, F., Wanless, S. & Ryan, P.G. 2008. Spatial match–mismatch in the Benguela upwelling zone: should we expect chlorophyll and sea-surface temperature to predict marine predator distributions? Journal of Applied Ecology, 45, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01447.x.Google Scholar
Hahn, S. & Peter, H.-U. 2003. Feeding territoriality and the reproductive consequences in brown skuas Catharacta antarctica lonnbergi . Polar Biology, 26, doi: 10.1007/s00300-003-0522-z.Google Scholar
Hijmans, M.R.J. 2013. raster: Geographic data analysis and modeling. CRAN, available at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/raster/raster.pdf.Google Scholar
Hill, S.L., Keeble, K., Atkinson, A. & Murphy, E.J. 2012. A foodweb model to explore uncertainties in the South Georgia shelf pelagic ecosystem. Deep-Sea Research II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 59–60, doi: 10.1016/j.dsr2.2011.09.001.Google Scholar
Hunter, S. 1984. Breeding biology and population dynamics of giant petrels Macronectes at South Georgia (Aves: Procellariiformes). Journal of Zoology, 203, doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1984.tb02343.x.Google Scholar
Krüger, L., Paiva, V.H., Petry, M.V. & Ramos, J.A. 2017. Strange lights in the night: using abnormal peaks of light in geolocator data to infer interaction of seabirds with nocturnal fishing vessels. Polar Biology, 40, doi: 10.1007/s00300-016-1933-y.Google Scholar
Layman, C.A., Winemiller, K.O., Arrington, D.A. & Jepsen, D.B. 2005. Body size and trophic position in a diverse tropical food web. Ecology, 86, doi: 10.1890/04-1098.Google Scholar
McNab, B.K. 1971. On the ecological significance of Bergmann’s rule. Ecology, 52, doi: 10.2307/1936032.Google Scholar
Meiri, S. & Dayan, T. 2003. On the validity of Bergmann’s rule. Journal of Biogeography, 30, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2699.2003.00837.x.Google Scholar
Mullen, L.M. & Hoekstra, H.E. 2008. Natural selection along an environmental gradient: a classic cline in mouse pigmentation. Evolution, 62, doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00425.x.Google Scholar
Nunes, G.T., Mancini, P.L. & Bugoni, L. 2017. When Bergmann’s rule fails: evidences of environmental selection pressures shaping phenotypic diversification in a widespread seabird. Ecography, 40, doi: 10.1111/ecog.02209.Google Scholar
Ohlberger, J. 2013. Climate warming and ectotherm body size – from individual physiology to community ecology. Functional Ecology, 27, doi: 10.1111/1365-2435.12098.Google Scholar
Oksanen, J., Blanchet, F.G., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., Minchin, P.R., O’Hara, R.B., Simpson, G.L., Solymos, P., Stevens, M.H.H. & Wagner, H. 2013. Community ecology package. CRAN, available at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/vegan/vegan.pdf.Google Scholar
Olson, V.A., Davies, R.G., Orme, C.D.L., Thomas, G.H., Meiri, S., Blackburn, T.M., Gaston, K.J., Owens, I.P.F. & Bennett, P.M. 2009. Global biogeography and ecology of body size in birds. Ecology Letters, 12, doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01281.x.Google Scholar
Palmer, M.W. 1993. Putting things in even better order: the advantages of Canonical Correspondence Analysis. Ecology, 74, doi: 10.2307/1939575.Google Scholar
Partridge, L. & Coyne, J.A. 1997. Bergmann’s rule in ectotherms: is it adaptive? Evolution, 51, doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1997.tb02454.x.Google Scholar
Phillips, R.A., Silk, J.R.D., Phalan, B., Catry, P. & Croxall, J.P. 2004a. Seasonal sexual segregation in two Thalassarche albatross species: competitive exclusion, reproductive role specialization or foraging niche divergence? Proceedings of the Royal Society B , 271, doi: 10.1098/rspb.2004.2718.Google Scholar
Phillips, R.A., Silk, J., Croxall, J., Afanasyev, V. & Briggs, D. 2004b. Accuracy of geolocation estimates for flying seabirds. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 266, doi: 10.3354/meps266265.Google Scholar
Phillips, R.A., Xavier, J.C. & Croxall, J.P. 2003. Effects of satellite transmitters on albatrosses and petrels. The Auk, 120, doi: 10.1642/0004-8038(2003)120[1082:EOSTOA]2.0.CO;2.Google Scholar
Porter, W.P. & Kearney, M. 2009. Size, shape, and the thermal niche of endotherms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0907321106.Google Scholar
Rey, A.R., Polito, M., Archuby, D. & Coria, N. 2012. Stable isotopes identify age- and sex-specific dietary partitioning and foraging habitat segregation in southern giant petrels breeding in Antarctica and southern Patagonia. Marine Biology, 159, doi: 10.1007/s00227-012-1912-y.Google Scholar
Salewski, V. & Watt, C. 2017. Bergmann’s rule: a biophysiological rule examined in birds. Oikos, 126, doi: 10.1111/oik.03698.Google Scholar
Salomon, M. & Voisin, J.-F. 2010. Ecogeographical variation in the Southern Giant Petrel (Macronectes giganteus). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 88, doi: 10.1139/Z09-134.Google Scholar
Santora, J.A. 2014. Environmental determinants of top predator distribution within the dynamic winter pack ice zone of the northern Antarctic Peninsula. Polar Biology, 37, doi: 10.1007/s00300-014-1502-1.Google Scholar
Searcy, W.A. 1980. Optimum body sizes at different ambient temperatures: an energetics explanation of Bergmann’s rule. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 83, doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(80)90190-3.Google Scholar
Serrano-Meneses, M. A & Székely, T. 2006. Sexual size dimorphism in seabirds: sexual selection, fecundity selection and different niche-utilisation. Oikos, 113, doi: 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2006.14246.x.Google Scholar
Shaffer, S.A., Weimerskirch, H. & Costa, D.P. 2001. Functional significance of sexual dimorphism in Wandering Albatrosses, Diomedea exulans. Functional Ecology, 15, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2435.2001.00514.x.Google Scholar
Thiers, L., Delord, K., Barbraud, C., Phillips, R., Pinaud, D. & Weimerskirch, H. 2014. Foraging zones of the two sibling species of giant petrels in the Indian Ocean throughout the annual cycle: implication for their conservation. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 499, doi: 10.3354/meps10620.Google Scholar
Wakefield, E.D., Phillips, R.A. & Matthiopoulos, J. 2009. Quantifying habitat use and preferences of pelagic seabirds using individual movement data: a review. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 391, doi: 10.3354/meps08203.Google Scholar
Wojczulanis-Jakubas, K., Jakubas, D., Welcker, J., Harding, A.M.A., Karnovsky, N.J., Kidawa, D., Steen, H., Stempniewicz, L. & Camphuysen, C.J. 2011. Body size variation of a high-Arctic seabird: the dovekie (Alle alle). Polar Biology, 34, doi: 10.1007/s00300-010-0941-6.Google Scholar