Foraging in a dynamic environment: Response of four sympatric sub‐Antarctic albatross species to interannual environmental variability

Abstract

Seasonal and annual climate variations are linked to fluctuations in the abundance and distribution of resources, posing a significant challenge to animals that need to adjust their foraging behavior accordingly. Particularly during adverse conditions, and while energetically constrained when breeding, animals ideally need to be flexible in their foraging behavior. Such behavioral plasticity may separate “winners” from “losers” in light of rapid environmental changes due to climate change. Here, the foraging behavior of four sub‐Antarctic albatross species was investigated from 2015/16 to 2017/18, a period characterized by pronounced environmental variability. Over three breeding seasons on Marion Island, Prince Edward Archipelago, incubating wandering (WA, Diomedea exulans ; n = 45), grey‐headed (GHA, Thalassarche chrysostoma ; n = 26), sooty (SA, Phoebetria fusca ; n = 23), and light‐mantled (LMSA, P. palpebrata ; n = 22) albatrosses were tracked with GPS loggers. The response of birds to environmental variability was investigated by quantifying interannual changes in their foraging behavior along two axes: spatial distribution, using kernel density analysis, and foraging habitat preference, using generalized additive mixed models and Bayesian mixed models. All four species were shown to respond behaviorally to environmental variability, but with substantial differences in their foraging strategies. WA was most general in its habitat use defined by sea surface height, eddy kinetic energy, wind speed, ocean floor slope, and sea‐level anomaly, with individuals foraging in a range of habitats. In contrast, the three smaller albatrosses exploited two main foraging habitats, with habitat use varying between years. Generalist habitat use by WA and interannually variable use of habitats by GHA, SA, and LMSA would likely offer these species some resilience to predicted changes in climate such as warming seas and strengthening of westerly winds. However, future investigations need to consider other life‐history stages coupled with demographic studies, to better understand the link between behavioral plasticity and population responses.

Spatial segregation in a sexually dimorphic central place forager: Competitive exclusion or niche divergence?

“…However, in our study, no clear and consistent habitat preferences could be detected (Figure S9). While our aim in this study was not to investigate habitat preferences in detail, but rather to control habitat models by environmental variability to directly investigate intraspecific competition, our results confirmed that wandering albatrosses displayed high flexibility in habitat preferences (Carpenter‐Kling et al., 2020), from both sexes and sites. While more advanced analyses on the differences in flight tactics between sexes in relation to more detailed wind measurements (e.g.…”

Habitat model forecasts suggest potential redistribution of marine predators in the southern Indian Ocean

“…climate change, distribution, marine mammals, prediction, projection, seabirds, Southern Ocean these marine predators may be somewhat plastic in their response to environmental variability (e.g. Carpenter-Kling et al, 2020), the tight coupling between climate and biophysical features in their foraging areas (e.g. Bost et al, 2015) means that climate change has the potential to significantly influence their future distributions (Grose et al, 2020).…”

Important marine areas for endangered African penguins before and after the crucial stage of moulting

“…The pre-moult distribution of African penguins departing from Dassen Island and Bird Island showed significant inter-annual variability. Plastic foraging distributions during the pre- and post-moult stages has been demonstrated for several penguin species 19 , 63 , 64 , 68 and other marine predators such as volant seabirds and seals 79 – 84 . The marine environment is highly dynamic with numerous biophysical factor determining the spatio-temporal distribution of prey 85 .…”