Foraging for high caloric anthropogenic prey is energetically costly

Abstract

Background Several generalist species benefit from food provided by human activities. Food from anthropogenic sources is often high in caloric value and can positively influence reproductive success or survival. However, this type of resource may require specific foraging skills and habitat experience with related costs and benefits. As a result, not all individuals utilize these resources equally, with some individuals preferentially foraging in habitats where natural resources of lower energy content are predominant, possibly due to lower energy expenditure of the specific foraging strategy. Methods Here we investigate whether foraging in habitats which contain high caloric resources of anthropogenic origin is energetically costlier than foraging in habitats with low caloric resources such as intertidal areas or agricultural and natural areas, for example due to increased flight costs, in a generalist seabird, the herring gull Larus argentatus . We use data from GPS trackers with tri-axial acceleration measurements that allow us to quantify time-energy budgets, representing energy expenditure during foraging trips of herring gulls for each habitat. Results We show that the rate of energy expenditure is on average 34% higher when individuals forage for high caloric prey in marine and urban areas compared to foraging for low caloric prey in intertidal and agricultural areas. Energetic estimates suggest that if birds would feed completely on these resources, they have to gather ~ 400 kJ per day more to compensate for the higher foraging costs. Conclusions Energy expenditure differs among foraging habitat and may thereby influence foraging decisions of individual herring gulls. As management of anthropogenic resources changes, so too may the costs and potential benefits of foraging strategies which are strongly tied to human activities. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s40462-019-0159-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Foraging movements of breeding Kelp Gulls in South Africa

“…We must bear in mind that our model on habitat choice explained only 47% of the variance using distance travelled and colonies as explanatory variables. The remaining variance might be explained by variables not measured in this study such as weather or energy expenditure [59,62]. Nevertheless, the results obtained in this study show the high trophic plasticity and opportunism of this species as has been described for other species of gulls e.g.…”

“…A higher calorific diet during breeding can lead to a better body condition, which is important for an increased breeding success [58]. By contrast, gulls might chose to forage in more natural areas close to the colony, reducing the energy costs associated with moving to the feeding area [59], which in turn might allow higher nest attendance [58]. As our birds were incubating, i.e.…”

GPS tracking reveals landfill closures induce higher foraging effort and habitat switching in gulls

“…Lesser black-backed gulls often forage extensively offshore when breeding [ 67 , 68 ], although our study gulls spent little time at-sea. This may be due to high value urban foraging opportunities in the vicinity of the colony at Ribble [ 69 ], or possibly a degraded local marine environment around both colonies, with for example, fewer fishery discards [ 70 ]. Alternatively, high rainfall in 2017 could have made agricultural soil invertebrates more accessible [ 57 ].…”

Time and energy costs of different foraging choices in an avian generalist species

“…Mean ODBA was calculated for trips where at least 90% of fixes had accelerometer measurements ( N = 1633; 55% of the original sample), and summed daily ODBA were calculated for days where at least 90% of fixes had accelerometer measurements ( N = 937 days; 61% of the original sample). We assumed ODBA to accurately reflect the energy expenditure rates (mean trip ODBA) and daily energy expenditure (summed daily ODBA) in our sample, given its direct relationship at both temporal scales with the amount of flapping flight (Additional file 1: Figure S5), which has elsewhere been used as a proxy for energy expenditures [64], based on the assumption that it is the most energetically expensive form of locomotion [65].…”