2002
DOI: 10.2307/3072095
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Conspecific Food Competition Explains Variability in Colony Size: A Test in Magellanic Penguins

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

4
47
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 42 publications
(51 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
4
47
0
Order By: Relevance
“…5). This evidence supporting an effect of the number of competitors per unit of habitat indicates that, as expected according to theory, the size of rook colonies in Spain decreased with a greater number of competitors relative to foraging habitat within 6 km from the colony site, which is in agreement with the findings of Griffin and Thomas (2000) for rooks in England, and is also compatible with that found for Scottish rooks (Gimona and Brewer 2006), and for other colonial species (for competence: Furness and Birkhead 1984;Forero et al 2002;for habitat: Gibbs et al 1987;Gibbs 1991;Ambrosini et al 2002;Barbraud et al 2002;. For the first time a derived variable made up of the combination of both number of competitors and area of foraging habitat is found to be associated with colony size.…”
Section: Food and Competition-related Hypothesessupporting
confidence: 86%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…5). This evidence supporting an effect of the number of competitors per unit of habitat indicates that, as expected according to theory, the size of rook colonies in Spain decreased with a greater number of competitors relative to foraging habitat within 6 km from the colony site, which is in agreement with the findings of Griffin and Thomas (2000) for rooks in England, and is also compatible with that found for Scottish rooks (Gimona and Brewer 2006), and for other colonial species (for competence: Furness and Birkhead 1984;Forero et al 2002;for habitat: Gibbs et al 1987;Gibbs 1991;Ambrosini et al 2002;Barbraud et al 2002;. For the first time a derived variable made up of the combination of both number of competitors and area of foraging habitat is found to be associated with colony size.…”
Section: Food and Competition-related Hypothesessupporting
confidence: 86%
“…If food is a determinant of colony size and foraging ranges overlap between colonies, competition for food by members of the same colony (competition intra-colony; Ashmole 1963) and the neighbouring colonies (competition inter-colony; Furness and Birkhead 1984) may reduce net food availability around colonies and ultimately affect their population sizes. This idea has been mainly supported by negative correlations found between colony size and the number of conspecifics breeding in neighbouring colonies (Furness and Birkhead 1984;Ainley et al 1995;Griffin and Thomas 2000;Forero et al 2002). However, this is not always the case (Gibbs et al 1987;Ainley et al 1995;Griffin and Thomas 2000;, and, therefore, evidence of the effect of neighbours is mixed.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 82%
“…For example, Magellanic penguin fledglings (Spheniscus magellanicus) feed mainly on anchovies, and to a lesser extent on squid . Anchovies have higher d 15 N values than squid, and individuals that consume a higher proportion of anchovies have higher body condition (Forero and Tella 2002). This would result in a positive relationship between d 15 N and BCI (the opposite of that found here), but in other circumstances, the relationship between these two variables may be negative.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 38%
“…However, several recent studies have suggested that an individual's physiology may also affect its isotopic signature (Gannes et al 1997;Wolf et al 2009;Ehrich et al 2010), potentially obscuring or biasing differences that are too often assumed to reflect only diet or foraging location. For instance, fractionation of heavy and light isotopes may vary during growth (Trueman et al 2005;Sears et al 2009) and in relation to body condition (Forero and Tella 2002) and nutritional stress (Hobson et al 1993;Cherel et al 2005a;Sears et al 2009). Moreover, physiological condition might also differ between sexes (Owen et al 2005), particularly in species with sexual size dimorphism where the larger sex has higher energy requirements (Magrath et al 2007).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Lindström et al 2005). As higher densities are expected on better-quality sites the strength of density dependence may be underestimated, so that this method usually cannot be used to give sensible results (but see, for example, Stokes and Boersma 2000;Forero et al 2002). …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%