2009
DOI: 10.1525/auk.2009.08245
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Central-place Foraging in an Arctic Seabird Provides Evidence for Storer-Ashmole's Halo

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

10
118
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 133 publications
(128 citation statements)
references
References 125 publications
10
118
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, for Scots pine and, to a lesser extent, downy birch, both important winter forage species, there was a resource depletion zone observed within 200 m of feeding stations (van Beest et al, 2010a) and no evidence of the expected landscape-scale decline in browsing pressure with increasing distance from feeding stations. This confirms concerns about range degradation close to feeding sites and corresponds with reports of resource depletion common around central places (Fryxell, 1992;Thrash and Derry, 1999;Elliott et al, 2009;Shrader et al, 2012). Furthermore, it suggests that diversionary feeding has been ineffective in reducing landscape-level browsing on pine.…”
Section: Browsing Impact and Distance To The Central Placesupporting
confidence: 85%
“…However, for Scots pine and, to a lesser extent, downy birch, both important winter forage species, there was a resource depletion zone observed within 200 m of feeding stations (van Beest et al, 2010a) and no evidence of the expected landscape-scale decline in browsing pressure with increasing distance from feeding stations. This confirms concerns about range degradation close to feeding sites and corresponds with reports of resource depletion common around central places (Fryxell, 1992;Thrash and Derry, 1999;Elliott et al, 2009;Shrader et al, 2012). Furthermore, it suggests that diversionary feeding has been ineffective in reducing landscape-level browsing on pine.…”
Section: Browsing Impact and Distance To The Central Placesupporting
confidence: 85%
“…Different prey fields require seabirds to alter search patterns and feeding techniques (Harding et al 2007). Different diving behavior by the gannets was associated with different prey types, as has been shown in other species such as rockhopper penguins (Eudyptes chrysocome; Tremblay and Cherel 2000) and thick-billed murres (Uria lomvia; Elliott et al 2008). …”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 52%
“…At colony level comparisons, intraspecific variability in seabird foraging behavior can reflect differences in colony size and location (Ashmole 1963;Furness and Birkhead 1984;Grémillet et al 2004). As colony size increases, so too can competition for resources, prey depletion, and intraspecific interference (Hunt et al 1986;Birt et al 1987;Elliott et al 2009). For example, Lewis et al (2001) showed that the foraging trip duration of northern gannets (Morus bassanus) increases with increasing colony size.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This strategy was reflected in the concentrated foraging behaviour displayed by individuals at distances > 5 km from the colony, and by the significant effect of distance from colony identified in the GLMM. Commuting strategies are common among seabirds while breeding and may result from behaviour that bypasses a zone of prey depletion that exists around large seabird colonies ('Ashmole's halo') to access denser and more energetically profitable prey aggregations at greater distances (Ashmole 1963, Birt et al 1987, Weimerskirch et al 2005, Gaston et al 2007, Elliott et al 2009). …”
Section: Foraging Behaviour and Distancementioning
confidence: 99%