ArticleOecologia2022
Foraging costs drive within-colony spatial segregation in shearwaters from two contrasting environments in the North Atlantic Ocean.
Article in Oecologia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Contrasting foraging strategies of seasonally segregated populations of the band-rumped storm-petrel at St Helena, South Atlantic.Movement ecology · 2026Article
- Spatial segregation and bycatch risk as potential drivers of population trends of wandering albatrosses at South Georgia.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026Article
- Consistent long-distance foraging flights across years and seasons at colony level in a neotropical bat.Biology letters · 2024Article
- Boldness predicts foraging behaviour, habitat use and chick growth in a central place marine predator.Oecologia · 2024Article
- Contrasting environmental conditions precluded lower availability of Antarctic krill affecting breeding chinstrap penguins in the Antarctic Peninsula.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Foraging spatial segregation is frequent in central-place foragers during the breeding season, but very few studies have investigated foraging spatial segregation between adjacent sub-colonies. Here, we assessed for within-colony differences in the at-sea distribution, habitat use, trophic ecology and chick growth data of two Calonectris colonies differing in size, and breeding in two different environments in the North Atlantic Ocean. For this, we GPS tracked 52 Cory's shearwaters (Calonectris borealis) breeding in 2 small sub-colonies at Berlenga Island (Portugal) and 59 Cape Verde shearwaters (Calonectris edwardsii) breeding in 2 sub-colonies differing greatly in size at Raso Islet (Cabo Verde), over 2 consecutive breeding seasons (2017-2018), during chick-rearing. Cory's shearwaters from the two sub-colonies at Berlenga Island broadly overlapped in repeatedly used foraging patches close to the colony. In contrast, the foraging distribution of Cape Verde shearwaters was partially segregated in the colony surroundings, but overlapped at distant foraging areas off the west coast of Africa. Despite spatial segregation close to the colony, Cape Verde shearwaters from both sub-colonies departed in similar directions, foraged in similar habitats and exhibited mostly short trips within the archipelago of Cabo Verde. These results, corroborated with similar trophic ecology and chick growth rates between sub-colonies, support the idea that foraging spatial segregation in the colony surroundings was not likely driven by interference competition or directional bias. We suggest that high-quality prey patches are able to shape travel costs and foraging distribution of central-place foragers from neighbouring sub-colonies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35044501What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.