Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34039419›Full record

ArticleMovement ecology2021

Interspecific and intraspecific foraging differentiation of neighbouring tropical seabirds.

R E Austin, F De Pascalis, S C Votier, J Haakonsson, J P Y Arnould, G Ebanks-Petrie, J Newton, J Harvey, J A Green

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Movement ecology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

R E AustinSchool of Environmental Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3GP, UK. rhiannoneaustin@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7411-6191
F De PascalisSchool of Environmental Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3GP, UK.
S C VotierThe Lyell Centre, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, EH14 4AP, UK.
J HaakonssonDepartment of Environment, Cayman Islands Government, George Town, Grand Cayman, KY1-1002, Cayman Islands.
J P Y ArnouldSchool of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, VIC, 3125, Australia.
G Ebanks-PetrieDepartment of Environment, Cayman Islands Government, George Town, Grand Cayman, KY1-1002, Cayman Islands.
J NewtonNERC National Environmental Isotope Facility, Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre, Scottish Enterprise Technology Park, East Kilbride, G75 0QF, UK.
J HarveyDepartment of Environment, Cayman Islands Government, George Town, Grand Cayman, KY1-1002, Cayman Islands.
J A GreenSchool of Environmental Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3GP, UK.
University College of the Cayman Islands · KYUniversity of Liverpool · GBDeakin University · AUHeriot-Watt University · GBScottish Enterprise · GB

Funding

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs DPLUS044
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial interactions, reproductive demands and intrinsic constraints all influence foraging decisions in animals. Understanding the relative importance of these factors in shaping the way that coexisting species within communities use and partition resources is central to knowledge of ecological and evolutionary processes. However, in marine environments, our understanding of the mechanisms that lead to and allow coexistence is limited, particularly in the tropics.

methodsUsing simultaneous data from a suite of animal-borne data loggers (GPS, depth recorders, immersion and video), dietary samples and stable isotopes, we investigated interspecific and intraspecific differences in foraging of two closely-related seabird species (the red-footed booby and brown booby) from neighbouring colonies on the Cayman Islands in the Caribbean.

resultsThe two species employed notably different foraging strategies, with marked spatial segregation, but limited evidence of interspecific dietary partitioning. The larger-bodied brown booby foraged within neritic waters, with the smaller-bodied red-footed booby travelling further offshore. Almost no sex differences were detected in foraging behaviour of red-footed boobies, while male and female brown boobies differed in their habitat use, foraging characteristics and dietary contributions. We suggest that these behavioural differences may relate to size dimorphism and competition: In the small brown booby population (n < 200 individuals), larger females showed a higher propensity to remain in coastal waters where they experienced kleptoparasitic attacks from magnificent frigatebirds, while smaller males that were never kleptoparasitised travelled further offshore, presumably into habitats with lower kleptoparasitic pressure. In weakly dimorphic red-footed boobies, these differences are less pronounced. Instead, density-dependent pressures on their large population (n > 2000 individuals) and avoidance of kleptoparasitism may be more prevalent in driving movements for both sexes.

conclusionsOur results reveal how, in an environment where opportunities for prey diversification are limited, neighbouring seabird species segregate at-sea, while exhibiting differing degrees of sexual differentiation. While the mechanisms underlying observed patterns remain unclear, our data are consistent with the idea that multiple factors involving both conspecifics and heterospecifics, as well as reproductive pressures, may combine to influence foraging differences in these neighbouring tropical species.

Indexed as

Brown boobyCompetitionForaging ecologyRed-footed boobyResource partitioning

Identifiers

PMID34039419
PMCPMC8152358
OpenAlexW3164809505

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.