Seabirds show foraging site and route fidelity but demonstrate flexibility in response to local information.
Atlantic puffin
Black-legged kittiwake
Common guillemot
Foraging route fidelity
Foraging trip
Individual foraging site fidelity
Razorbill
Journal
Movement ecology
ISSN: 2051-3933
Titre abrégé: Mov Ecol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101635009
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 Jun 2024
13 Jun 2024
Historique:
received:
21
06
2023
accepted:
03
04
2024
medline:
14
6
2024
pubmed:
14
6
2024
entrez:
13
6
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Fidelity to a given foraging location or route may be beneficial when environmental conditions are predictable but costly if conditions deteriorate or become unpredictable. Understanding the magnitude of fidelity displayed by different species and the processes that drive or erode it is therefore vital for understanding how fidelity may shape the demographic consequences of anthropogenic change. In particular, understanding the information that individuals may use to adjust their fidelity will facilitate improved predictions of how fidelity may change as environments change and the extent to which it will buffer individuals against such changes. We used movement data collected during the breeding season across eight years for common guillemots, Atlantic puffins, razorbills, and black-legged kittiwakes breeding on the Isle of May, Scotland to understand: (1) whether foraging site/route fidelity occurred within and between years, (2) whether the degree of fidelity between trips was predicted by personal foraging effort, and (3) whether different individuals made more similar trips when they overlapped in time at the colony prior to departure and/or when out at sea suggesting the use of the same local environmental cues or information on the decisions made by con- and heterospecifics. All species exhibited site and route fidelity both within- and between-years, and fidelity between trips in guillemots and razorbills was related to metrics of foraging effort, suggesting they adjust fidelity to their personal foraging experience. We also found evidence that individuals used local environmental cues of prey location or availability and/or information gained by observing conspecifics when choosing foraging routes, particularly in puffins, where trips of individuals that overlapped temporally at the colony or out at sea were more similar. The fidelity shown by these seabird species has the potential to put them at greater risk in the face of environmental change by driving individuals to continue using areas being degraded by anthropogenic pressures. However, our results suggest that individuals show some flexibility in their fidelity, which may promote resilience under environmental change. The benefits of this flexibility are likely to depend on numerous factors, including the rapidity and spatial scale of environmental change and the reliability of the information individuals use to choose foraging sites or routes, thus highlighting the need to better understand how organisms combine cues, prior experience, and other sources of information to make movement decisions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Fidelity to a given foraging location or route may be beneficial when environmental conditions are predictable but costly if conditions deteriorate or become unpredictable. Understanding the magnitude of fidelity displayed by different species and the processes that drive or erode it is therefore vital for understanding how fidelity may shape the demographic consequences of anthropogenic change. In particular, understanding the information that individuals may use to adjust their fidelity will facilitate improved predictions of how fidelity may change as environments change and the extent to which it will buffer individuals against such changes.
METHODS
METHODS
We used movement data collected during the breeding season across eight years for common guillemots, Atlantic puffins, razorbills, and black-legged kittiwakes breeding on the Isle of May, Scotland to understand: (1) whether foraging site/route fidelity occurred within and between years, (2) whether the degree of fidelity between trips was predicted by personal foraging effort, and (3) whether different individuals made more similar trips when they overlapped in time at the colony prior to departure and/or when out at sea suggesting the use of the same local environmental cues or information on the decisions made by con- and heterospecifics.
RESULTS
RESULTS
All species exhibited site and route fidelity both within- and between-years, and fidelity between trips in guillemots and razorbills was related to metrics of foraging effort, suggesting they adjust fidelity to their personal foraging experience. We also found evidence that individuals used local environmental cues of prey location or availability and/or information gained by observing conspecifics when choosing foraging routes, particularly in puffins, where trips of individuals that overlapped temporally at the colony or out at sea were more similar.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The fidelity shown by these seabird species has the potential to put them at greater risk in the face of environmental change by driving individuals to continue using areas being degraded by anthropogenic pressures. However, our results suggest that individuals show some flexibility in their fidelity, which may promote resilience under environmental change. The benefits of this flexibility are likely to depend on numerous factors, including the rapidity and spatial scale of environmental change and the reliability of the information individuals use to choose foraging sites or routes, thus highlighting the need to better understand how organisms combine cues, prior experience, and other sources of information to make movement decisions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38872225
doi: 10.1186/s40462-024-00467-9
pii: 10.1186/s40462-024-00467-9
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
46Subventions
Organisme : Natural Environment Research Council
ID : NE/R016429/1
Organisme : Natural Environment Research Council
ID : NE/R016429/1
Organisme : Natural Environment Research Council
ID : NE/R016429/1
Organisme : Natural Environment Research Council
ID : NE/R016429/1
Organisme : Natural Environment Research Council
ID : NE/R016429/1
Organisme : Natural Environment Research Council
ID : NE/R016429/1
Organisme : Natural Environment Research Council
ID : NE/R016429/1
Organisme : Natural Environment Research Council
ID : NE/R016429/1
Organisme : Natural Environment Research Council
ID : NE/R016429/1
Organisme : Natural Environment Research Council
ID : NE/R016429/1
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Bolnick DI, Amarasekare P, Araújo MS, Bürger R, Levine JM, Novak M, et al. Why intraspecific trait variation matters in community ecology. Trends Ecol Evol. 2011;26(4):183–92.
pubmed: 21367482
pmcid: 3088364
doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.01.009
Woo KJ, Elliott KH, Davidson M, Gaston AJ, Davoren GK. Individual specialization in diet by a generalist marine predator reflects specialization in foraging behaviour. J Anim Ecol. 2008;77(6):1082–91.
pubmed: 18624834
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2008.01429.x
Sheppard CE, Inger R, McDonald RA, Barker S, Jackson AL, Thompson FJ, et al. Intragroup competition predicts individual foraging specialisation in a group-living mammal. Ecol Lett. 2018;21(5):665–73.
pubmed: 29542220
pmcid: 5947261
doi: 10.1111/ele.12933
Phillips R, Lewis S, González-Solís J, Daunt F. Causes and consequences of individual variability and specialization in foraging and migration strategies of seabirds. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2017;578:117–50.
doi: 10.3354/meps12217
Merkle JA, Cherry SG, Fortin D. Bison distribution under conflicting foraging strategies: site fidelity vs. energy maximization. Ecology. 2015;96(7):1793–801.
pubmed: 26378302
doi: 10.1890/14-0805.1
Ramellini S, Imperio S, Morinay J, De Pascalis F, Catoni C, Morganti M, et al. Individual foraging site fidelity increases from incubation to nestling rearing in a colonial bird. Anim Behav. 2022;193:145–55.
doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2022.07.014
Switzer PV. Site fidelity in predictable and unpredictable habitats. Evol Ecol. 1993;7(6):533–55.
doi: 10.1007/BF01237820
Piper WH. Making habitat selection more familiar: a review. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2011;65(7):1329–51.
doi: 10.1007/s00265-011-1195-1
Merkle JA, Abrahms B, Armstrong JB, Sawyer H, Costa DP, Chalfoun AD. Site fidelity as a maladaptive behavior in the Anthropocene. Front Ecol Environ. 2022;20(3):187–94.
doi: 10.1002/fee.2456
Gaston KJ, Blackburn TM, Goldewijk KK. Habitat conversion and global avian biodiversity loss. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2003;270(1521):1293–300.
doi: 10.1098/rspb.2002.2303
Sigaud M, Merkle JA, Cherry SG, Fryxell JM, Berdahl A, Fortin D. Collective decision-making promotes fitness loss in a fusion-fission society. Ecol Lett. 2017;20(1):33–40.
pubmed: 27873440
doi: 10.1111/ele.12698
Liermann CR, Nilsson C, Robertson J, Ng RY. Implications of dam obstruction for global freshwater fish diversity. Bioscience. 2012;62(6):539–48.
doi: 10.1525/bio.2012.62.6.5
Riotte-Lambert L, Matthiopoulos J. Environmental predictability as a cause and consequence of Animal Movement. Trends Ecol Evol. 2020;35(2):163–74.
pubmed: 31699411
doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2019.09.009
Fagan WF, Lewis MA, Auger-Méthé M, Avgar T, Benhamou S, Breed G, et al. Spatial memory and animal movement. Ecol Lett. 2013;16(10):1316–29.
pubmed: 23953128
doi: 10.1111/ele.12165
Merkle JA, Fortin D, Morales JM. A memory-based foraging tactic reveals an adaptive mechanism for restricted space use. Ecol Lett. 2014;17(8):924–31.
pubmed: 24811575
doi: 10.1111/ele.12294
Aarts G, Mul E, Fieberg J, Brasseur S, van Gils JA, Matthiopoulos J, et al. Individual-level memory is sufficient to create spatial segregation among Neighboring Colonies of Central Place Foragers. Am Nat. 2021;198(2):E37–52.
pubmed: 34260868
doi: 10.1086/715014
Jesmer BR, Merkle JA, Goheen JR, Aikens EO, Beck JL, Courtemanch AB, et al. Is ungulate migration culturally transmitted? Evidence of social learning from translocated animals. Science. 2018;361(6406):1023–5.
pubmed: 30190405
doi: 10.1126/science.aat0985
Morrison TA, Merkle JA, Hopcraft JGC, Aikens EO, Beck JL, Boone RB, et al. Drivers of site fidelity in ungulates. J Anim Ecol. 2021;90(4):955–66.
pubmed: 33481254
doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.13425
Weimerskirch H, Bertrand S, Silva J, Marques JC, Goya E. Use of Social Information in Seabirds: compass rafts indicate the heading of Food patches. PLoS ONE. 2010;5(3):e9928.
pubmed: 20360959
pmcid: 2847911
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009928
Ward P, Zahavi A. The importance of certain assemblages of birds as Information-centres for Food-Finding. Ibis. 1973;115(4):517–34.
doi: 10.1111/j.1474-919X.1973.tb01990.x
Votier SC, Fayet AL, Bearhop S, Bodey TW, Clark BL, Grecian J, et al. Effects of age and reproductive status on individual foraging site fidelity in a long-lived marine predator. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2017;284(1859):20171068.
doi: 10.1098/rspb.2017.1068
Trevail AM, Green JA, Bolton M, Daunt F, Harris SM, Miller PI, et al. Environmental heterogeneity promotes individual specialisation in habitat selection in a widely distributed seabird. J Anim Ecol. 2021;90(12):2875–87.
pubmed: 34492121
doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.13588
Wakefield ED, Cleasby IR, Bearhop S, Bodey TW, Davies RD, Miller PI, et al. Long-term individual foraging site fidelity—why some gannets don’t change their spots. Ecology. 2015;96(11):3058–74.
pubmed: 27070024
doi: 10.1890/14-1300.1
Patrick SC, Weimerskirch H. Reproductive success is driven by local site fidelity despite stronger specialisation by individuals for large-scale habitat preference. J Anim Ecol. 2017;86(3):674–82.
pubmed: 28117897
doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.12636
Weimerskirch H. Are seabirds foraging for unpredictable resources? Deep Sea Res Part II Top Stud Oceanogr. 2007;54(3):211–23.
doi: 10.1016/j.dsr2.2006.11.013
Durant JM, Stenseth NChr, Anker-Nilssen T, Harris MP, Thompson PM, Wanless S. Marine Birds and Climate Fluctuation in the North Atlantic. In: Stenseth NChr, Ottersen G, Hurrell JW, Belgrano A, editors. Marine Ecosystems and Climate Variation: The North Atlantic: A Comparative Perspective [Internet]. Oxford University Press; 2005 [cited 2023 Mar 4]. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198507499.003.0007 .
Trevail AM, Green JA, Sharples J, Polton JA, Arnould JPY, Patrick SC. Environmental heterogeneity amplifies behavioural response to a temporal cycle. Oikos. 2019;128(4):517–28.
doi: 10.1111/oik.05579
Camphuysen CJ, Scott BE, Wanless S. Distribution and foraging interactions of seabirds and marine mammals in the North Sea: multispecies foraging assemblages and habitat-specific feeding strategies. In: Top Predators in Marine Ecosystems: their role in monitoring and management [Internet]. Cambridge University Press; 2006 [cited 2023 Mar 4]. pp. 82–97. https://abdn.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/distribution-and-foraging-interactions-of-seabirds-and-marine-mam-2 .
Goyert HF. Foraging specificity and prey utilization: evaluating social and memory-based strategies in seabirds. Behaviour. 2015;152(7/8):861–95.
doi: 10.1163/1568539X-00003260
Camphuysen CJ, Webb A. Multi-species feeding associations in North Sea seabirds: jointly exploiting a patchy environment. Ardea. 1999;87(2):177–98.
Wanless S, Harris MP, Newell MA, Speakman JR, Daunt F. Community-wide decline in the occurrence of lesser sandeels Ammodytes marinus in seabird chick diets at a North Sea colony. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2018;600:193–206.
doi: 10.3354/meps12679
Guigueno MF, Shoji A, Elliott KH, Aris-Brosou S. Flight costs in volant vertebrates: a phylogenetically-controlled meta-analysis of birds and bats. Comp Biochem Physiol Mol Integr Physiol. 2019;235:193–201.
doi: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2019.06.003
Masden EA, Haydon DT, Fox AD, Furness RW. Barriers to movement: modelling energetic costs of avoiding marine wind farms amongst breeding seabirds. Mar Pollut Bull. 2010;60(7):1085–91.
pubmed: 20188382
doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.01.016
Bairos-Novak KR, Crook KA, Davoren GK. Relative importance of local enhancement as a search strategy for breeding seabirds: an experimental approach. Anim Behav. 2015;106:71–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.05.002
Harris MP, Bogdanova MI, Daunt F, Wanless S. Using GPS technology to assess feeding areas of Atlantic Puffins Fratercula arctica. Ringing Migr. 2012;27(1):43–9.
doi: 10.1080/03078698.2012.691247
Bogdanova MI, Wischnewski S, Cleasby I, Whyte K, Regan C, Gunn C et al. Seabird GPS tracking on the Isle of May, St Abb’s Head and Fowlsheugh in 2021 in relation to offshore wind farms in the Forth/Tay region. 2021.
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria [Internet]. 2022. https://www.R-project.org/ .
Pennycuick C. Actual and ‘optimum’ flight speeds: field data reassessed. J Exp Biol. 1997;200(17):2355–61.
pubmed: 9320274
doi: 10.1242/jeb.200.17.2355
Beal M, Oppel S, Handley J, Pearmain EJ, Morera-Pujol V, Carneiro APB, et al. track2KBA: an R package for identifying important sites for biodiversity from tracking data. Methods Ecol Evol. 2021;12(12):2372–8.
doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.13713
Wakefield ED, Owen E, Baer J, Carroll MJ, Daunt F, Dodd SG, et al. Breeding density, fine-scale tracking, and large-scale modeling reveal the regional distribution of four seabird species. Ecol Appl. 2017;27(7):2074–91.
pubmed: 28653410
doi: 10.1002/eap.1591
Bentley LK, Kato A, Ropert-Coudert Y, Manica A, Phillips RA. Diving behaviour of albatrosses: implications for foraging ecology and bycatch susceptibility. Mar Biol. 2021;168(3):36.
doi: 10.1007/s00227-021-03841-y
Camprasse ECM, Cherel Y, Arnould JPY, Hoskins AJ, Bost CA. Combined bio-logging and stable isotopes reveal individual specialisations in a benthic coastal seabird, the Kerguelen shag. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(3):e0172278.
pubmed: 28264057
pmcid: 5338780
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172278
Signer J, Fieberg J, Avgar T. Animal movement tools (amt): R package for managing tracking data and conducting habitat selection analyses. Ecol Evol [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2022 Jul 22];9(2). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/ https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4823 .
Pebesma E, lwgeom. Bindings to selected ‘liblwgeom’ functions for simple features [Internet]. 2021. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lwgeom .
Biro D, Freeman R, Meade J, Roberts S, Guilford T. Pigeons combine compass and landmark guidance in familiar route navigation. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2007;104(18):7471–6.
pubmed: 17452634
pmcid: 1863466
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0701575104
Chimienti M, Cornulier T, Owen E, Bolton M, Davies IM, Travis JMJ, et al. Taking movement data to new depths: inferring prey availability and patch profitability from seabird foraging behavior. Ecol Evol. 2017;7(23):10252–65.
pubmed: 29238552
pmcid: 5723613
doi: 10.1002/ece3.3551
Linnebjerg JF, Reuleaux A, Mouritsen KN, Frederiksen M. Foraging Ecology of three sympatric breeding alcids in a declining colony in Southwest Greenland. Waterbirds. 2015;38(2):143–52.
doi: 10.1675/063.038.0203
Evans T, Kadin M, Olsson O, Åkesson S. Foraging behaviour of common murres in the Baltic Sea, recorded by simultaneous attachment of GPS and time-depth recorder devices. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2013;475:277–89.
doi: 10.3354/meps10125
Thiebault A, Mullers R, Pistorius P, Meza-Torres MA, Dubroca L, Green D, et al. From colony to first patch: processes of prey searching and social information in Cape Gannets. Auk. 2014;131(4):595–609.
doi: 10.1642/AUK-13-209.1
Charnov EL. Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem. Theor Popul Biol. 1976;9(2):129–36.
pubmed: 1273796
doi: 10.1016/0040-5809(76)90040-X
Cox S, Scott B, Camphuysen C. Combined spatial and tidal processes identify links between pelagic prey species and seabirds. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2013;479:203–21.
doi: 10.3354/meps10176
Shamoun-Baranes J, Bouten W, Camphuysen CJ, Baaij E. Riding the tide: intriguing observations of gulls resting at sea during breeding. Ibis. 2011;153(2):411–5.
doi: 10.1111/j.1474-919X.2010.01096.x
Irons DB. Foraging Area Fidelity of Individual Seabirds in relation to tidal cycles and flock feeding. Ecology. 1998;79(2):647–55.
doi: 10.1890/0012-9658(1998)079[0647:FAFOIS]2.0.CO;2
Regular PM, Hedd A, Montevecchi WA. Must marine predators always follow scaling laws? Memory guides the foraging decisions of a pursuit-diving seabird. Anim Behav. 2013;86(3):545–52.
doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.06.008
Harris SM, Descamps S, Sneddon LU, Bertrand P, Chastel O, Patrick SC. Personality predicts foraging site fidelity and trip repeatability in a marine predator. J Anim Ecol. 2020;89(1):68–79.
pubmed: 31541578
doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.13106
Svanbäck R, Bolnick DI. Intraspecific competition affects the strength of individual specialization: an optimal diet theory method. 2005;7:993–1012.
Svanbäck R, Persson L. Individual diet specialization, niche width and population dynamics: implications for trophic polymorphisms. J Anim Ecol. 2004;73(5):973–82.
doi: 10.1111/j.0021-8790.2004.00868.x
Rebstock GA, Abrahms B, Boersma PD. Site fidelity increases reproductive success by increasing foraging efficiency in a marine predator. Behav Ecol. 2022;33(4):868–75.
doi: 10.1093/beheco/arac052
Bonnet-Lebrun AS, Collet J, Phillips RA. A test of the win-stay–lose-shift foraging strategy and its adaptive value in albatrosses. Anim Behav. 2021;182:145–51.
doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2021.10.010
Grémillet D, Boulinier T. Spatial ecology and conservation of seabirds facing global climate change: a review. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2009;391:121–37.
doi: 10.3354/meps08212
Abrahms B, Hazen EL, Bograd SJ, Brashares JS, Robinson PW, Scales KL, et al. Climate mediates the success of migration strategies in a marine predator. Ecol Lett. 2018;21(1):63–71.
pubmed: 29096419
doi: 10.1111/ele.12871
Ekroos J, Öst M, Karell P, Jaatinen K, Kilpi M. Philopatric predisposition to predation-induced ecological traps: habitat-dependent mortality of breeding eiders. Oecologia. 2012;170(4):979–86.
pubmed: 22700063
doi: 10.1007/s00442-012-2378-9
Kloskowski J. Win-stay/lose-switch, prospecting-based settlement strategy may not be adaptive under rapid environmental change. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):570.
pubmed: 33436762
pmcid: 7804401
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-79942-3
Sato K, Daunt F, Watanuki Y, Takahashi A, Wanless S. A new method to quantify prey acquisition in diving seabirds using wing stroke frequency. J Exp Biol. 2008;211(Pt 1):58–65.
pubmed: 18083733
doi: 10.1242/jeb.009811
Carroll G, Harcourt R, Pitcher BJ, Slip D, Jonsen I. Recent prey capture experience and dynamic habitat quality mediate short-term foraging site fidelity in a seabird. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2018;285(1883):20180788.
doi: 10.1098/rspb.2018.0788
Bocedi G, Heinonen J, Travis JMJ. Uncertainty and the Role of Information Acquisition in the evolution of context-dependent emigration. Am Nat. 2012;179(5):606–20.
pubmed: 22504543
doi: 10.1086/665004
Nevitt GA, Losekoot M, Weimerskirch H. Evidence for olfactory search in wandering albatross, Diomedea exulans. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2008;105(12):4576–81.
pubmed: 18326025
pmcid: 2290754
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0709047105
Lieber L, Langrock R, Nimmo-Smith WAM. A bird’s-eye view on turbulence: seabird foraging associations with evolving surface flow features. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2021;288(1949):20210592.
doi: 10.1098/rspb.2021.0592
Thiebault A, Mullers RHE, Pistorius PA, Tremblay Y. Local enhancement in a seabird: reaction distances and foraging consequence of predator aggregations. Behav Ecol. 2014;25(6):1302–10.
doi: 10.1093/beheco/aru132
Boyd C, Grünbaum D, Hunt GL Jr, Punt AE, Weimerskirch H, Bertrand S. Effectiveness of social information used by seabirds searching for unpredictable and ephemeral prey. Behav Ecol. 2016;27(4):1223–34.
doi: 10.1093/beheco/arw039
Stodola KW, Ward MP. The Emergent properties of Conspecific Attraction can limit a Species’ ability to Track Environmental Change. Am Nat. 2017;189(6):726–33.
pubmed: 28514629
doi: 10.1086/691469
Greene E. Individuals in an osprey colony discriminate between high and low quality information. Nature. 1987;329(6136):239–41.
doi: 10.1038/329239a0
Jones TB, Patrick SC, Arnould JPY, Rodríguez-Malagón MA, Wells MR, Green JA. Evidence of sociality in the timing and location of foraging in a colonial seabird. Biol Lett. 2018;14(7):20180214.
pubmed: 29997186
pmcid: 6083229
doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2018.0214
Smith JE, Pinter-Wollman N. Observing the unwatchable: integrating automated sensing, naturalistic observations and animal social network analysis in the age of big data. J Anim Ecol. 2021;90(1):62–75.
pubmed: 33020914
doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.13362