ArticleOecologia2022
Food supply and individual quality influence seabird energy expenditure and reproductive success.
Article in Oecologia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Strategic development of a buffalo farming framework and optimization of the foraging behaviour using mathematical models.Tropical animal health and production · 2026Article
- Inter- and intra-annual differences in foraging ecology of the chick-rearing Brünnich's guillemots (Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Survival costs of reproduction are independent of energy costs in a seabird, the pelagic cormorant.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Breeding animals trade off maximizing energy output to increase their number of offspring with conserving energy to ensure their own survival, leading to an energetic ceiling influenced by external, environmental factors or by internal, physiological factors. We examined whether internal or external factors limited energy expenditure by supplementally feeding breeding black-legged kittiwakes varying in individual quality, based on earlier work that defined late breeders as low-quality and early breeders as high-quality individuals. We tested whether energy expenditure increased when food availability decreased in both low- and high-quality birds; we predicted this would only occur in high-quality individuals capable of sustaining high levels of energy expenditure. Here, we find that food-supplemented birds expended less energy than control birds because they spent more time at the colony. However, foraging trips of food-supplemented birds were only slightly shorter than control birds, implying that food-supplemented birds were limited by food availability at sea similarly to control birds. Late breeders expended less energy, suggesting that low-quality individuals may not intake the energy necessary for sustaining high-energy output. Food-supplemented birds had more offspring than control birds, but offspring number did not influence energy expenditure, supporting the idea that the birds reached an energy ceiling. Males and lighter birds expended more energy, possibly compensating for relatively higher energy intake. Chick-rearing birds were working near their maximum, with highest levels of expenditure for early-laying (high-quality) individuals foraging at sea. Due to fluctuating marine environments, kittiwakes may be forced to change their foraging behaviors to maintain the balance between reproduction and survival.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35716234What 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.