Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T13:48:41.538Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Biophysical influences on seabird trophic assessments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2009

C. J. Camphuysen
By
W. A. Montevecchi ,
S. Garthe  and
G. K. Davoren
Edited by
I. L. Boyd  and
S. Wanless
C. J. Camphuysen
Affiliation:
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
W. A. Montevecchi
Affiliation:
Cognitive and Behavioural Ecology Program, Memorial University St John's, Newfoundland, Canada A1B 3X9
S. Garthe
Affiliation:
Centre for Research and Technology Westkuste, University of Kiel Hafentörn, D-25761 Büsum, Germany
G. K. Davoren
Affiliation:
Zoology Department, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2
I. L. Boyd
Affiliation:
University of St Andrews, Scotland
S. Wanless
Affiliation:
NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UK
Get access

Summary

The foraging behaviour and ecology of top predators are expressions of trophic and ecosystem dynamics. Oceanographic fluctuations as well as biological interactions affect exothermic species and, through them, influence their endothermic predators. Planktivorous and piscivorous, surface-feeding and diving seabirds exhibit varying constraint, flexibility, specialization and opportunism in their responses to prey and environmental conditions. Responses can be direct in terms of foraging behaviour, prey capture and diet; or indirect in terms of egg and chick production, growth, breeding success, recruitment and population change. Protracted indirect effects lag behind and buffer environmental change with behaviour and life-history attributes. Focal forage species that fuel large vertebrate food webs exhibit extreme fluctuations in abundance, being highly sensitive to biophysical perturbations, including fishing. Changes in their biology often shift ecosystems to alternative states, yet forage species are understudied. Indications about forage species derived from seabirds can be broadly informative. Synoptic meso-scale studies that link colony measurements to vessel surveys of prey and predators within avian foraging ranges provide an approach for assessing predator responses to variation in prey fields and oceanography. Tracking free-ranging foragers with animal-borne data loggers (which record temperature, pressure, activity and position) details behavioural solutions to current conditions. These foraging tactics of individual predators are mechanisms of the social and population responses that we measure, estimate and model. Physical data from loggers, vessels and satellites can be combined to define thermal habitats and ‘hotspots’ used by predators and prey.

Type
Chapter
Information
Top Predators in Marine Ecosystems
Their Role in Monitoring and Management
 , pp. 118 - 130
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

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

Aikman, P. (1997). Industrial ‘Hoover’ Fishing: A Policy Vacuum. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Greenpeace.Google Scholar
Ainley, D. (2002). Adélie Penguin: Bellweather of Climate Change. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ancel, A., Kooyman, G. L., Ponganis, P. J. et al. (1992). Foraging behaviour of emperor penguins as a resource detector. Nature, 360, 336–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, P. J. & Piatt, J. F. (1999). Community reorganization in the Gulf of Alaska following ocean climate regime shift. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 189, 117–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baird, P. H. (1990). Influence of abiotic factors and prey distribution on diet and reproductive success of three seabird speices in Alaska. Ornis Scand., 21, 224–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, R. T. (1996). Prey harvest, chick growth, and production of three seabird species on Bleiks⊘y, North Norway during years of variable food availability. In Studies of High-Latitude Seabirds. 4. Trophic Relationships and Energetics of Endotherms in Cold Ocean Systems, ed. Montevecchi, W. A.. Canadian Wildlife ServiceOccasional Paper 91. Ottowa, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Wildlife Service, pp. 20–26.Google Scholar
Barrett, R. T. (2002). Puffin and guillemot chick food and growth as indicators of fish stocks in the Barents Sea. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 230, 275–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benvenuti, S., Bonadonna, F., Dall'Antonia, L. & Gudmundsson, G. A. (1998). Foraging flights of breeding thick-billed murres carrying direction recorders. Auk, 115, 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birt-Friesen, V., Montevecchi, W. A., Cairns, D. K. & Macko, S. A. (1989). Activity specific metabolic rates of free living seabirds with emphasis on Northern Gannets Sula bassanus. Ecology, 70, 357–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, I. L. (1996). Temporal scales of foraging in a marine predator. Ecology, 77, 426–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, I. L. & Murray, W. (2001). Monitoring marine ecosystems with responses of upper trophic level predators. J. Anim. Ecol., 70, 747–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burger, A. E. & Piatt, J. F. (1990). Flexible time-budgets in common murres: buffers against variable prey abundance. Stud. Avian Biol., 14, 71–83.Google Scholar
Cairns, D. K. (1987). Seabirds as indicators of marine food supplies. Biol. Oceanogr., 5, 261–71.Google Scholar
Cairns, D. K. (1989). Regulation of seabird colony size: a hinterland model. Am. Nat., 134, 141–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chavez, F. P., Ryan, J., Lluch-Cota, S. E., & Ñiquen, C. M. (2004). From anchovies to sardines and back: multi-decadal change in the Pacific Ocean. Science, 299, 217–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collie, J. S., Richardson, K. & Steele, J. H. (2004). Regime shifts: can ecological theory illuminate mechanisms?Prog. Oceanogr., 20, 281–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croll, D. A., Tershy, B. R., Hewitt, R. P. et al. (1998). An integrated approach to the foraging ecology of marine birds and mammals. Deep-Sea Res. Part II, 45, 1353–71.Google Scholar
Cury, P. & Shannon, L. (2004). Regime shifts in upwelling ecosystems: observed changes and possible mechanisms in the northern and southern Benquela. Prog. Oceanogr., 60, 223–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cury, P., Bakun, A., CrawFord, R. J. M. et al. (2000). Small pelagics in upwelling systems: patterns of interaction and structural changes in ‘wasp-waist’ ecosystems. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 57, 603–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davoren, G. K. & Montevecchi, W. A. (2003). Signals from seabirds indicate changing biology of capelin. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 258, 253–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davoren, G. K., Montevecchi, W. A. & Anderson, J. (2002). Scale-dependent associations of predators and prey: constraints imposed by flightlessness of murres. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 245, 259–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davoren, G. K., Montevecchi, W. A. & Anderson, J. (2003). Search strategies of a pursuit-diving seabird. Ecol. Monogr., 73, 463–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drinkwater, K. (1996). Atmospheric and oceanic variability in the northwest Atlantic during the 1980s and early 1990s. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci., 18, 77–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emslie, S. D., Berkman, P. A., Ainley, D. G., Coats, L. & Pollito, M. (2003). Late Holocene initiation of ice-free ecosystems in the southern Ross Sea, Australia. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 262, 19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garthe, S., Benvenuti, S. & Montevecchi, W. A. (2000). Pursuit-plunging by gannets feeding on capelin. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 267, 1717–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gjerdrum, C., Vallee, A. M., St Clair, C. C. et al. (2003). Tufted puffin reproduction reveals ocean climate variability. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 100, 9377–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grémillet, D., Dell'Omo, G., Ryan, P. G.et al. (2004). Offshore diplomacy, or how seabirds mitigate intra-specific competition: a case study based on GPS tracking of cape gannets from neighbouring colonies. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 268, 265–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hare, S. & Mantua, N. (2000). Empirical evidence of North Pacific regime shifts in 1977 and 1989. Prog. Oceanogr., 47, 103–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatch, S. A. & Sanger, G. A. (1992). Puffins as predators on juvenile pollock and forage fish in the Gulf of Alaska. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 80, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holling, C. & Meffe, G. (1996). Command, control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conserv. Biol., 10, 328–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooker, S. K., Boyd, I. L., Jessop, M.et al. (2002). Monitoring the prey-field of marine predators: combining digital imaging with datalogging tags. Mar. Mamm. Sci., 18, 680–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, I. L., Hunter, F. M. & Robertson, G. J. (2002). Annual adult survival of Least Auklets (Aves, Alcidae) varies with large-scale climatic conditions of the North Pacific Ocean. Oecologia, 133, 38–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jouventin, J. & Weimerskirch, H. (1990). Satellite tracking of wandering albatrosses. Nature, 343, 746–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitaysky, A. S. & Golubova, E. G. (2000). Climate change causes contrasting trends in reproductive performance of planktivorous and piscivorous alcids. J. Anim. Ecol., 69, 248–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, R., Beddington, J. R., Clark, C. W., Holt, S. J. & Laws, R. M. (1979). Management of multispecies fisheries. Science, 205, 267–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, A. K. & Sydeman, W. J. (2004). Rockfish response to low-frequency ocean climate change as revealed by the diet of a marine bird over multiple time scales. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 281, 207–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montevecchi, W. A. (1993). Birds as indicators of change in marine prey stocks. In Birds as Monitors of Environmental Change, eds. R. W. Furness, & Greenwood, . London: Chapman and Hall, pp. 217–66.Google Scholar
Montevecchi, W. A. (ed.) (1996). Studies of High-Latitude Seabirds. 4. Trophic Relationships and Energetics of Endotherms in Cold Ocean Systems. Canadian Wildlife Service Occasional Paper 91. Ontario, Canada: Canadian Wildlife Service.Google Scholar
Montevecchi, W. A. (2001). Interactions between fisheries and seabirds. In Biology of Marine Birds, eds. E. A. Schrieber, & Burger, . Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 527–57.Google Scholar
Montevecchi, W. A. & Berruti, A. (1991). Avian indication of pelagic fishery conditions in the southeast and northwest Atlantic. Acta Int. Ornithol. Cong., 20, 2246–56.Google Scholar
Montevecchi, W. A. & Myers, R. A. (1995). Seabird prey harvests reflect pelagic fish and squid abundance on multiple spatial and temporal scales. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 117, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montevecchi, W. A. & Myers, R. A. (1996). Dietary changes of seabirds reflect shifts in pelagic food webs. Sarsia, 80, 313–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montevecchi, W. A. & Myers, R. A. (1997). Centurial and decadal oceanographic influences on changes in northern gannet populations and diets in the Northwest Atlantic: implications for climate change. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 54, 608–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mowbray, F. (2003). Changes in the vertical distribution of capelin off Newfoundland. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 59, 942–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regehr, H. & Montevecchi, W. A. (1997). Effects of food shortage and predation on breeding failure of kittiwakes. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 155, 249–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, K. & Croxall, J. P. (2000). Environmental response of upper trophic-level predators reveals system change in an Antarctic ecosystem. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 268, 377–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, R., Hunt, G. L., Coyle, K. & Cooney, K. (1992). Foraging in a fractal environment: spatial patterns in a marine predator–prey system. Landscape Ecol., 7, 195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheffer, M., Carpenter, S., Foley, J. A., Folke, C. & Walker, B. (2001). Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature, 413, 591–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmidt, K. (1997). ‘No take’ zones spark fisheries debate. Science, 277, 489–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skov, H., Durinck, J. & Andell, P. (2000). Associations between wintering avian predators and schooling fish. J. Avian Biol., 31, 135–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Springer, A. M. & Speckman, S. G. (1997). A forage fish is what? Summary of symposium. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Role of Forage Fishes in Marine Ecosystems. Alaska Sea Grant College Program Publication AK-SG-97–01. Fairbanks, Alaska: University of Alaska Fairbanks, pp. 773–805.Google Scholar
Springer, A. M., Roseneau, D. G., Murphy, E. C. & Springer, M. I. (1984). Environmental controls of marine food webs: food habits of seabirds in the eastern Chukchi Sea. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 41, 1202–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steele, J. (1996). Regime shifts in fisheries management. Fish., Res., 25, 19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steele, J. (1998). Regime shifts in marine ecosystems. Ecological Applic., 8, S33–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, P. M. & Ollason, J. C. (2001). Lagged effects of ocean climate change on fulmar population dynamics. Nature, 413, 417–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wanless, S., Wright, P. J., Harris, M. P. & Elston, D. A. (2004). Evidence for a decrease in size of lesser sandeels Ammodytes marinus in a North Sea aggregation over a 30-yr period. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 279, 237–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R. P., Grémillet, D., Syder, D. et al. (2002). Remote-sensing systems and seabirds: use, abuse and potential for measuring environmental variables. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 228, 241–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yodzis, P. (1994). Predator–prey theory and management of multispecies fisheries. Ecological Applic., 4, 51–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Biophysical influences on seabird trophic assessments
    • By W. A. Montevecchi, Cognitive and Behavioural Ecology Program, Memorial University St John's, Newfoundland, Canada A1B 3X9, S. Garthe, Centre for Research and Technology Westkuste, University of Kiel Hafentörn, D-25761 Büsum, Germany, G. K. Davoren, Zoology Department, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2
  • Edited by I. L. Boyd, University of St Andrews, Scotland, S. Wanless, NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UK
  • C. J. Camphuysen, Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
  • Book: Top Predators in Marine Ecosystems
  • Online publication: 31 July 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511541964.009
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Biophysical influences on seabird trophic assessments
    • By W. A. Montevecchi, Cognitive and Behavioural Ecology Program, Memorial University St John's, Newfoundland, Canada A1B 3X9, S. Garthe, Centre for Research and Technology Westkuste, University of Kiel Hafentörn, D-25761 Büsum, Germany, G. K. Davoren, Zoology Department, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2
  • Edited by I. L. Boyd, University of St Andrews, Scotland, S. Wanless, NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UK
  • C. J. Camphuysen, Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
  • Book: Top Predators in Marine Ecosystems
  • Online publication: 31 July 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511541964.009
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Biophysical influences on seabird trophic assessments
    • By W. A. Montevecchi, Cognitive and Behavioural Ecology Program, Memorial University St John's, Newfoundland, Canada A1B 3X9, S. Garthe, Centre for Research and Technology Westkuste, University of Kiel Hafentörn, D-25761 Büsum, Germany, G. K. Davoren, Zoology Department, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2
  • Edited by I. L. Boyd, University of St Andrews, Scotland, S. Wanless, NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UK
  • C. J. Camphuysen, Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
  • Book: Top Predators in Marine Ecosystems
  • Online publication: 31 July 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511541964.009
Available formats
×