Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42458645›Full record

ArticleMovement ecology2026

Linkages among foraging movements, prey provisioning, and reproduction in a central place foraging seabird.

Aliya Caldwell, Elizabeth Craig, Nathan T Hermann, Nathan B Furey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Movement ecology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Aliya CaldwellDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of New Hampshire, 38 Academic Way, Durham, NH, 03824, USA. aliyaeverestcaldwell@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7180-7088
Elizabeth CraigShoals Marine Laboratory, Joint Program of Cornell University and the University of New Hampshire, 8 College Rd., Durham, NH, 03824, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8186-0077
Nathan T HermannRemote Ecologist, Inc., Darien, CT, 06820, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5913-5300
Nathan B FureyDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of New Hampshire, 38 Academic Way, Durham, NH, 03824, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8584-7889

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA seabird's ability to efficiently find prey directly affects reproduction, and seabird population declines are frequently linked to forage fish depletion. Reduced forage fish availability often limits seabird egg production and chick provisioning, but impacts to foraging movements remain largely unresolved, as does the effect of movement flexibility on provisioning and reproduction in conditions of reduced forage fish availability.

methodsThis study assesses drivers of foraging movement and the role of foraging movement in mediating provisioning and reproduction in a central place foraging seabird, the common tern (Sterna hirundo), by integrating movement (GPS telemetry), chick provisioning, and reproductive productivity data. Data were collected across four breeding seasons (2021-2024) on the largest common tern colony in the Gulf of Maine, where ocean warming is precipitating shifts in forage fish populations.

resultsIn poor prey and productivity years, when clutch size (eggs per nest), fledging success, and provisioning of preferred prey (herrings [Clupea harengus, Alosa spp.], hakes/rockling [Merluccius bilinearis, Urophycis spp., Enchelyopus cimbrius], sand lances [Ammodytes spp.]) were reduced, common terns increased foraging trip durations by 23%-87% and expanded foraging ranges by 17%-51%. Range expansions occurred regardless of sex or breeding status and were driven by increased use of distant waters (up to ~150 km from the colony) rich in forage fishes preferred by common terns. In years of increased reproductive success and high preferred prey provisioning, foraging movements were shorter, and foraging locations focused on waters immediately surrounding the colony (within ~10 km), as well as two nearby river mouths (Piscataqua River and Merrimack River).

conclusionsOur results suggest that common tern foraging movements are flexible in response to forage fish availability, but that increased movement effort in years of reduced prey availability may be insufficient to maintain chick diet and survival. In regions like the Gulf of Maine, where ocean-warming continues to induce shifts in forage fish populations, additional protection may be critical to central place foraging seabirds. Without proactive management, breeding seasons marked by increased foraging movement effort with little resulting reproductive success may become increasingly frequent.

Indexed as

Common ternDietForage fishGPS trackingHidden Markov modelingMovement ecologyPredator prey interactionSeabird

Identifiers

PMID42458645
PMCPMC13371458

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.