Sharing food in the stomachs of seabirds between adults and chicks—A case for delayed gastric emptying

Undisturbed breeding penguins as indicators of changes in marine resources

“…Those coming in and out within 9 h or less delivered no more than 0.71 k 0.13 kg (n = 7). Considering that this figure may still overestimate food regurgitated, due to some decrease in body fuel reserves of the parent and some digestion of stomach content (Wilson et al 1989), it fits very well with the 0.6 kg provisioning determined at that winter time by stomach flushing (Cherel et al 1993). This is only one-third of the 1.8 kg provisioning after 6 d of foraging in February (Cherel & Ridoux 1992).…”

Undisturbed breeding penguins as indicators of changes in marine resources

“…Those coming in and out within 9 h or less delivered no more than 0.71 k 0.13 kg (n = 7). Considering that this figure may still overestimate food regurgitated, due to some decrease in body fuel reserves of the parent and some digestion of stomach content (Wilson et al 1989), it fits very well with the 0.6 kg provisioning determined at that winter time by stomach flushing (Cherel et al 1993). This is only one-third of the 1.8 kg provisioning after 6 d of foraging in February (Cherel & Ridoux 1992).…”

Feeding, fasting and foraging success during chick rearing in macaroni penguins

“…This could be particularly important during intervals spent at the surface between dives or diving bouts (Peters 2004). Studies of transit times through the gut, gastric motility and stomach pH in 5 species studied so far suggest that penguins are able to control the timing of digestion while at sea, such that prey items caught later in the foraging trip are fed to the chick essentially undigested (Wilson et al 1989, Peters 1997, Thouzeau et al 2004. Put together, these finding suggest that macaroni penguins feed continuously during a foraging trip, digesting the food caught during the early to mid-part of the trip.…”

Revealing the foraging movements and diet of the White-faced Storm Petrel Pelagodroma marina in the NE Atlantic

“…Another hypothesis is that crustaceans were not detected, owing to a high degradation of their DNA which prevented PCR amplification. Due to longer gut retention, high assimilation, and digestion efficiency, samples derived from chick faeces contain more degraded DNA sequences, and hence, less identifiable DNA sequences than those obtained from adult regurgitates (e.g., Wilson et al 1989;Hilton et al 2000). The same PCR protocol applied to the regurgitate sample returned several crustacean species, which is consistent with the macroscopic observation of regurgitated tissues, containing about a dozen of small sized Euphausiidae (< 1 cm) partially digested.…”

Undisturbed breeding penguins as indicators of changes in marine resources

“…Those coming in and out within 9 h or less delivered no more than 0.71 k 0.13 kg (n = 7). Considering that this figure may still overestimate food regurgitated, due to some decrease in body fuel reserves of the parent and some digestion of stomach content (Wilson et al 1989), it fits very well with the 0.6 kg provisioning determined at that winter time by stomach flushing (Cherel et al 1993). This is only one-third of the 1.8 kg provisioning after 6 d of foraging in February (Cherel & Ridoux 1992).…”

Feeding, fasting and foraging success during chick rearing in macaroni penguins

“…This could be particularly important during intervals spent at the surface between dives or diving bouts (Peters 2004). Studies of transit times through the gut, gastric motility and stomach pH in 5 species studied so far suggest that penguins are able to control the timing of digestion while at sea, such that prey items caught later in the foraging trip are fed to the chick essentially undigested (Wilson et al 1989, Peters 1997, Thouzeau et al 2004. Put together, these finding suggest that macaroni penguins feed continuously during a foraging trip, digesting the food caught during the early to mid-part of the trip.…”

Revealing the foraging movements and diet of the White-faced Storm Petrel Pelagodroma marina in the NE Atlantic

“…Another hypothesis is that crustaceans were not detected, owing to a high degradation of their DNA which prevented PCR amplification. Due to longer gut retention, high assimilation, and digestion efficiency, samples derived from chick faeces contain more degraded DNA sequences, and hence, less identifiable DNA sequences than those obtained from adult regurgitates (e.g., Wilson et al 1989;Hilton et al 2000). The same PCR protocol applied to the regurgitate sample returned several crustacean species, which is consistent with the macroscopic observation of regurgitated tissues, containing about a dozen of small sized Euphausiidae (< 1 cm) partially digested.…”

Undisturbed breeding penguins as indicators of changes in marine resources

“…Those coming in and out within 9 h or less delivered no more than 0.71 k 0.13 kg (n = 7). Considering that this figure may still overestimate food regurgitated, due to some decrease in body fuel reserves of the parent and some digestion of stomach content (Wilson et al 1989), it fits very well with the 0.6 kg provisioning determined at that winter time by stomach flushing (Cherel et al 1993). This is only one-third of the 1.8 kg provisioning after 6 d of foraging in February (Cherel & Ridoux 1992).…”

Feeding, fasting and foraging success during chick rearing in macaroni penguins

“…This could be particularly important during intervals spent at the surface between dives or diving bouts (Peters 2004). Studies of transit times through the gut, gastric motility and stomach pH in 5 species studied so far suggest that penguins are able to control the timing of digestion while at sea, such that prey items caught later in the foraging trip are fed to the chick essentially undigested (Wilson et al 1989, Peters 1997, Thouzeau et al 2004. Put together, these finding suggest that macaroni penguins feed continuously during a foraging trip, digesting the food caught during the early to mid-part of the trip.…”

Revealing the foraging movements and diet of the White-faced Storm Petrel Pelagodroma marina in the NE Atlantic

“…Another hypothesis is that crustaceans were not detected, owing to a high degradation of their DNA which prevented PCR amplification. Due to longer gut retention, high assimilation, and digestion efficiency, samples derived from chick faeces contain more degraded DNA sequences, and hence, less identifiable DNA sequences than those obtained from adult regurgitates (e.g., Wilson et al 1989;Hilton et al 2000). The same PCR protocol applied to the regurgitate sample returned several crustacean species, which is consistent with the macroscopic observation of regurgitated tissues, containing about a dozen of small sized Euphausiidae (< 1 cm) partially digested.…”