2016
DOI: 10.1007/s00300-015-1887-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Plasticity in foraging behaviour and diet buffers effects of inter-annual environmental differences on chick growth and survival in southern rockhopper penguins Eudyptes chrysocome chrysocome

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 73 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In our study, a decreased SST resulted in a considerably reduced foraging trip duration and foraging range. The same phenomenon, to a lesser extent, has been observed in SRP during the chick-rearing period (Dehnhard et al 2016). Furthermore, it could be shown that lower SST increased not only the likelihood of SRP individual survival over the winter months (Raya Rey et al 2007;Dehnhard et al 2013) but also individual body mass at the onset of the reproduction period (Dehnhard et al 2015a).…”
Section: Trip Duration and Sstmentioning
confidence: 72%
“…In our study, a decreased SST resulted in a considerably reduced foraging trip duration and foraging range. The same phenomenon, to a lesser extent, has been observed in SRP during the chick-rearing period (Dehnhard et al 2016). Furthermore, it could be shown that lower SST increased not only the likelihood of SRP individual survival over the winter months (Raya Rey et al 2007;Dehnhard et al 2013) but also individual body mass at the onset of the reproduction period (Dehnhard et al 2015a).…”
Section: Trip Duration and Sstmentioning
confidence: 72%
“…African Penguins, Spheniscus demersus, Pichegru et al 2013 andGentoo Penguins, Xavier et al 2017), we highlight that no difference in diet was observed between the sexes in the crèche stage in a study of the same population of Northern Rockhopper Penguins during the same breeding season (Booth and McQuaid 2013). Furthermore, Dehnhard et al (2016) observed similar foraging behaviour, in terms of dive depth, between crèche stage male and female Southern Rockhopper Penguins.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 55%
“…Dive data were analysed using MULTITRACE (Jensen software systems, Kiel, Germany). Prior to analysis, all data were corrected for a drifting surface level (recorded depth is adjusted so that the surface level is maintained at 0 m, Hagihara et al 2011) and the dive threshold at which a foraging dive was deemed to occur was set to ≥3 m (in accordance with other studies of Rockhopper Penguins: Cherel et al 1999;Cherel 2000, 2003;Dehnhard et al 2016;Whitehead et al 2016). Some birds were not recaptured after one foraging trip, and so consecutive trips were recorded over several days.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…N values compared to other known prey consumed by rockhopper penguins (such as fish) (Polito et al, 2011;Dehnhard et al, 2016). Even though the underlying mechanisms remain unclear, this shows that female diet affects eggs differentially at least for isotopic compositions (Prediction 4), and that females with a low contribution of krill in their diet differentiate resources more strongly between A-and B-yolks.…”
mentioning
confidence: 92%
“…Stable isotope analysis therefore represents an indirect method to assess foraging strategies, which can be used to determine the relative importance of feeding sources (Gauthier et al, 2003). For instance, penguins predominantly feeding on krill (with low δ 13 C and δ 15 N values) show low isotope values compared to penguins predominantly feeding on fish (with high δ 13 C and δ 15 N values) (Polito et al, 2011;Dehnhard et al, 2016). Krill also contains higher levels of lipophilic antioxidants (mostly astaxanthin) than fish (Tou et al, 2007).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%