Jellyfish and other gelata as food for four penguin species – insights from predator‐borne videos

Thiebot, Jean‐Baptiste; Arnould, John P. Y.; Gómez‐Laich, Agustina; Ito, Kentaro; Kato, Akiko; Mattern, Thomas; Mitamura, Hiromichi; Noda, Takuji; Poupart, Timothée; Quintana, Flavio; Raclot, Thierry; Ropert‐Coudert, Yan; Sala, Juan Emilio; Seddon, Philip J.; Sutton, Grace J.; Yoda, Ken; Takahashi, Akinori

doi:10.1002/fee.1529

Cited by 67 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Foraging trip distance during breeding depends on the stage of the breeding season, and ranges from a few kilometers to > 600 km (Boersma & Rebstock 2009). Magellanic penguins feed in the ocean, usually on small schooling fish and squid, and sometimes crustaceans and jellyfish (Frere, Gandini & Lichtschein 1996;Thiebot et al 2017;Wilson et al 2005). They often feed in small groups and in association with other seabirds and marine mammals (Gómez-Laich, Yoda & Quintana 2018 ;Jehl 1974;Wilson & Wilson 1990), and use their bills for prey capture and handling.…”

Section: Study Site and Speciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer Review #2 of "Lateralization (handedness) in Magellanic penguins (v0.1)"

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Brain lateralization is considered adaptive for an individual, and often results in "handedness", "footedness", or a side preference, manifest in behavior and morphology. We tested for lateralization in several behaviors in a wild population of Magellanic penguins Spheniscus magellanicus breeding at Punta Tombo, Argentina. We found no preferred foot in the population (each penguin observed once) in stepping up onto an obstacle: 53% stepped up with the right foot, 47% with the left foot (n = 300, binomial test p = 0.27). We found mixed evidence for a dominant foot when a penguin extended a foot for thermoregulation, possibly depending on the ambient temperature (each penguin observed once). Penguins extended the right foot twice as often as the left foot (n = 121, p < 0.0005) in two years when we concentrated our effort during the heat of the day. In a third year when we observed penguins early and late in the day, there was no preference (n = 232, p = 0.59). Penguins use their flippers for swimming, including searching for and chasing prey. We found morphological evidence of a dominant flipper in individual adults: 60.5% of sternum keels curved one direction or the other (n = 76 sterna from carcasses), and 11% of penguins had more feather wear on one flipper than the other (n = 1217). Right-flippered and left-flippered penguins were equally likely in both samples (keels: p = 0.88, feather wear: p = 0.26), indicating individual but not population lateralization. In fights, aggressive penguins used their left eyes preferentially, consistent with the right side of the brain controlling aggression. Penguins that recently fought (each penguin observed once) were twice as likely to have blood only on the right side of the face (69%) as only on the left side (31%, n = 175, p < 0.001). The proportion of penguins with blood only on the right side increased with the amount of blood. In most fights, the more aggressive penguin used its left eye and attacked the other penguin's right side.

show abstract

Section: Study Site and Speciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer Review #2 of "Lateralization (handedness) in Magellanic penguins (v0.1)"

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, they have been found to be more than an incidental part of the diet of many larger animals (Fig. 5), including albatrosses and Adélie penguins ( Pygoscelis adeliae ) in the Southern Ocean (Jarman et al 2013; Thiebot et al 2016; McInnes et al 2017; Thiebot et al 2017;). Although secondary ingestion cannot be excluded when using DNA analysis, results suggest that they are common prey item (Jarman et al 2013; McInnes et al 2017).…”

Section: Energy Density Of Zooplankton and Nekton Speciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although secondary ingestion cannot be excluded when using DNA analysis, results suggest that they are common prey item (Jarman et al 2013; McInnes et al 2017). Video observations captured Adélie penguins feeding on jellyfish, even when other preys were available (Thiebot et al 2016, 2017). Certain jellyfish species are regularly invested with parasitic amphipods, and although there was no evidence that the penguins were targeting these, they may prove to be a profitable addition (Thiebot et al 2016).…”

Section: Energy Density Of Zooplankton and Nekton Speciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review: the energetic value of zooplankton and nekton species of the Southern Ocean

Schaafsma¹,

Cherel

Flores

et al. 2018

Mar Biol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the energy flux through food webs is important for estimating the capacity of marine ecosystems to support stocks of living resources. The energy density of species involved in trophic energy transfer has been measured in a large number of small studies, scattered over a 40-year publication record. Here, we reviewed energy density records of Southern Ocean zooplankton, nekton and several benthic taxa, including previously unpublished data. Comparing measured taxa, energy densities were highest in myctophid fishes (ranging from 17.1 to 39.3 kJ g−1 DW), intermediate in crustaceans (7.1 to 25.3 kJ g−1 DW), squid (16.2 to 24.0 kJ g−1 DW) and other fish families (14.8 to 29.9 kJ g−1 DW), and lowest in jelly fish (10.8 to 18.0 kJ g−1 DW), polychaetes (9.2 to 14.2 kJ g−1 DW) and chaetognaths (5.0–11.7 kJ g−1 DW). Data reveals differences in energy density within and between species related to size, age and other life cycle parameters. Important taxa in Antarctic food webs, such as copepods, squid and small euphausiids, remain under-sampled. The variability in energy density of Electrona antarctica was likely regional rather than seasonal, although for many species with limited data it remains difficult to disentangle regional and seasonal variability. Models are provided to estimate energy density more quickly using a species’ physical parameters. It will become increasingly important to close knowledge gaps to improve the ability of bioenergetic and food web models to predict changes in the capacity of Antarctic ecosystems to support marine life.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s00227-018-3386-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…Consequently, investigating seabird interactions with prey is logistically challenging. With recent technological advances, the use of animal-borne video data loggers has made observing predator-prey interactions possible from the perspective of the predator (Thiebot et al, 2017;Tremblay et al, 2014;Watanabe and Takahashi, 2013;Wells et al, 2016). These interactions can help us to understand the choices made while foraging, and increase our knowledge on the foraging ecology of seabird species (Fauchald, 2009;Votier et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors influencing prey capture success and profitability in Australasian gannets (Morus serrator)

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge of the factors influencing foraging efficiency in top predators can provide insights into the effects of environmental variability on their populations. Seabirds are important marine predators foraging in a highly temporally and spatially variable environment. While numerous studies have focussed on search time and its effects on foraging energetics in seabirds, relatively little is known about the factors influencing capture success and prey profitability in these predators. In the present study, animal-borne cameras were used to investigate the chase durations, capture success, handling durations and profitability of prey consumed by Australasian gannets (Morus serrator) (n=95) from two breeding colonies in southeastern Australia exposed to different oceanographic conditions. Capture success was generally lower when individuals foraged alone. However, foraging in multi-species groups and in high prey densities increased chase time, while larger prey elicited longer handling times. While prey type influenced profitability, high prey density and foraging in multi-species groups was found to lower prey profitability due to increased time expenditure. While previous studies have found group foraging reduces search time, the increased profitability explains why some animals may favour solitary foraging. Therefore, future studies should combine search time and the currently found factors.

show abstract

Jellyfish and other gelata as food for four penguin species – insights from predator‐borne videos

Cited by 67 publications

References 25 publications

Peer Review #2 of "Lateralization (handedness) in Magellanic penguins (v0.1)"

Peer Review #2 of "Lateralization (handedness) in Magellanic penguins (v0.1)"

Review: the energetic value of zooplankton and nekton species of the Southern Ocean

Factors influencing prey capture success and profitability in Australasian gannets (Morus serrator)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About