4.3 Article

Intra- and interannual variation in the diet of the Magellanic penguin (Spheniscus magellanicus) at Martillo Island, Beagle Channel

期刊

POLAR BIOLOGY
卷 37, 期 10, 页码 1421-1433

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00300-014-1532-8

关键词

Diet composition; Seabirds; Sub-Antarctic; Temporal fluctuation; Tierra del Fuego

资金

  1. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas (CONICET)
  2. Wildlife Conservation Society

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Knowledge of seabirds' diet at each breeding site and its temporal variation is key to understanding and evaluating how changes in marine resources affect each seabird population. In this study, we determined the diet of Magellanic penguins (MP, Spheniscus magellanicus) at Martillo Island, accounting for sex, breeding stage and year. We analyzed a total of 144 stomach contents during three consecutive breeding seasons (2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009) and stages (incubation, early and late chick-rearing). MP fed mainly on fuegian sprat (Sprattus fuegensis), which represented 75 % of the biomass consumed by birds during the entire study. The next important prey was squat lobster (Munida gregaria), followed by Patagonian squid (Loligo gahi). Both sexes consumed similar prey items. We observed variation in diet relative composition among breeding years and stages. Fuegian sprat consumption decreased throughout the years whereas squat lobster increased. Penguins consumed a higher proportion of squat lobster and Patagonian squid during the incubation stage than in the chick-rearing stages, whereas fuegian sprat was almost the only prey item consumed during the late chick-rearing stage. MPs show certain flexibility in the use of resources probably as a response to changes in prey populations. Variability in the diet among different reproductive stages could be related to changes in the distribution and abundance of their main prey near the colony during the breeding season together with changes in the energy requirements of seabirds.

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

4.3
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