4.2 Article

Adding the ocean to the study of seabirds: a brief history of at-sea seabird research

期刊

MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES
卷 451, 期 -, 页码 231-243

出版社

INTER-RESEARCH
DOI: 10.3354/meps09524

关键词

At-sea surveys; Food-web structure; Foraging ecology; Seabird; Seabird habitat

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [OPP 0440463]
  2. Office of Polar Programs (OPP)
  3. Directorate For Geosciences [0944411] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We review the history of how research directed towards marine ornithology has led to an appreciation of seabirds as highly specialized marine organisms. Beginning with R. C. Murphy (Pacific), V. C. Wynne-Edwards (Atlantic), and associates in the early 1900s, the research approach grew from an emphasis on seabird single-species ecology to an appreciation of interacting species assemblages and finally to seabirds being considered as important components of marine food webs. After a slow, drawn-out beginning, the initial main impetus for developing the field was a need to map seabird abundance and distribution tied to understanding impacts of continental shelf resource exploitation. Coalescing during the 1970s to 1980s to facilitate this line of research were 6 factors: (1) ability to identify birds at sea; (2) standardization of techniques to quantify abundance; (3) resources and techniques for mapping; (4) appreciation of how scale affects seabird relationships to hydrographic features and patchy prey; (5) development of computing power and appropriate statistics; and (6) seabird biologists becoming embedded in, as well as organizing, multidisciplinary marine research projects. Future advances in understanding the role of seabirds in marine food webs will be made by seabird biologists participating in multidisciplinary projects using grid-like surveys relative to oceanographic features in combination with instrumentation that reveals the finer details of seabird foraging behaviors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据