2020
DOI: 10.1111/jbi.13883
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Individual migration strategy fidelity but no habitat specialization in two congeneric seabirds

Abstract: Aim In migratory species, individuals often use fixed and individual‐specific migration strategies, which we term individual migration strategy fidelity (IMSF). Our goal was to test if guillemots have flexible or fixed individual migration strategies (i.e. IMSF), if this behaviour is consistent across large parts of the genus’ range and if they were philopatric to geographical sites or a habitat feature. Location North Atlantic. Taxon Uria spp. Methods We quantified consistent individual differences in inter‐a… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 71 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, we also observed temporal variation in space use, with EMD values being higher (i.e., migrations were less similar) when split into stages/periods, compared to the migration as a whole. This suggests a degree of temporal flexibility, such that individuals use the same areas in different years, but not necessarily at the same time during the non-breeding period, which has also been shown for other seabirds [ 37 , 54 ]. This temporal flexibility therefore seems to only occur within the range of known areas for a particular individual, suggesting that relying on familiar areas is more beneficial than switching to a new location [ 36 ], and implies that temporal variation in resource availability may not be very large at these scales.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 63%
“…However, we also observed temporal variation in space use, with EMD values being higher (i.e., migrations were less similar) when split into stages/periods, compared to the migration as a whole. This suggests a degree of temporal flexibility, such that individuals use the same areas in different years, but not necessarily at the same time during the non-breeding period, which has also been shown for other seabirds [ 37 , 54 ]. This temporal flexibility therefore seems to only occur within the range of known areas for a particular individual, suggesting that relying on familiar areas is more beneficial than switching to a new location [ 36 ], and implies that temporal variation in resource availability may not be very large at these scales.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 63%
“…Individuals with a high site fidelity may be less flexible to voluntarily change sites and more sensitive to displacement caused by disturbance. Consequently, less flexible individuals might adapt more slowly to a new environment, than an individual that is familiar with multiple sites and can use flexible strategies (Catry et al 2004;McFarlane et al 2014;Merkel et al 2021). Individual site utilisation and movements within and between years are, therefore, important to consider in conservation decisions (Croxall et al 2005;González-Solís et al 2007).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, because environmental heterogeneity in the dynamic marine environment reflects the complexity of habitat types that shape resource fluctuations over both space and time (Trevail, Green, Sharples, Polton, Arnould, et al., 2019), we establish whether habitat selection specifically (i.e. tracking habitat types), rather than fidelity to particular foraging site locations, is the mechanism by which individual specialisations in habitat selection while foraging arise in these populations (Merkel et al., 2020). To do so, we test whether environmental heterogeneity influences a population's degree of individual fidelity to specific foraging sites.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%