Resource partitioning and niche hyper‐volume overlap in free‐living Pygoscelid penguins

Summary 1. Species potentially competing for the same resource are considered to be able to co‐exist if they occupy different niches. In an apparent example of this, Adélie, Chinstrap and Gentoo penguins all feed predominantly on krill Euphausea superba at certain sites of sympatry in Antarctica and...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Functional Ecology
Main Author: Wilson, Rory P.
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2010
Subjects:
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2009.01654.x
https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1111%2Fj.1365-2435.2009.01654.x
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2009.01654.x
id crwiley:10.1111/j.1365-2435.2009.01654.x
record_format openpolar
spelling crwiley:10.1111/j.1365-2435.2009.01654.x 2024-06-02T07:56:23+00:00 Resource partitioning and niche hyper‐volume overlap in free‐living Pygoscelid penguins Wilson, Rory P. 2010 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2009.01654.x https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1111%2Fj.1365-2435.2009.01654.x https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2009.01654.x en eng Wiley http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor Functional Ecology volume 24, issue 3, page 646-657 ISSN 0269-8463 1365-2435 journal-article 2010 crwiley https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2009.01654.x 2024-05-06T07:00:14Z Summary 1. Species potentially competing for the same resource are considered to be able to co‐exist if they occupy different niches. In an apparent example of this, Adélie, Chinstrap and Gentoo penguins all feed predominantly on krill Euphausea superba at certain sites of sympatry in Antarctica and are proposed to exploit different niche hyper‐volumes via differential area and depth utilization. 2. Patterns of foraging for 49 of these penguins breeding in sympatry were assessed using dead‐reckoning loggers to examine foraging niche overlap. 3. Area use overlaps were 0·29 for Adélie ∩ Chinstrap, 0·44 for Adélie ∩ Gentoo, and 0·40 for Chinstrap ∩ Adélie and depth use overlaps were 0·69 for Adélie ∩ Chinstrap, 0·48 for Adélie ∩ Gentoo, and 0·52 for Chinstrap ∩ Gentoo Penguins. 4. Foraging efficiency was greatest for Adélie Penguins diving near surface waters (0–15 m) while Chinstraps were most efficient at medium depths (15–60 m) and Gentoo Penguins most efficient at deeper depths (> 60 m). There appear to be physiological reasons for this. Penguins primarily exploited those depths where they were most efficient. 5. The overlap for foraging periods was 0·47 for Adélie ∩ Chinstrap, 0·26 for Adélie ∩ Gentoo, and 0·40 for Chinstrap ∩ Gentoo Penguins. Chinstraps foraged primarily at night, Gentoos during the morning and Adélies in the afternoon. Temporal differences in foraging may result in the three species exploiting krill at those depths where it is best adapted to pursue it, this being mediated by the diel vertical migration of krill. 6. Integration of all measured parameters together gives minimal overlap between species with total overlaps of 0·09 for Adélie ∩ Chinstrap, 0·05 for Adélie ∩ Gentoo, and 0·08 for Chinstrap ∩ Gentoo Penguins so it appears that these penguins conform to conventional theory in avoiding competition in areas of sympatry. However, a model incorporating prey movement between hyper‐volumes indicates that penguins may still compete, even in the virtual absence of hyper‐volume overlap. 7. ... Article in Journal/Newspaper Antarc* Antarctica Wiley Online Library Functional Ecology 24 3 646 657
institution Open Polar
collection Wiley Online Library
op_collection_id crwiley
language English
description Summary 1. Species potentially competing for the same resource are considered to be able to co‐exist if they occupy different niches. In an apparent example of this, Adélie, Chinstrap and Gentoo penguins all feed predominantly on krill Euphausea superba at certain sites of sympatry in Antarctica and are proposed to exploit different niche hyper‐volumes via differential area and depth utilization. 2. Patterns of foraging for 49 of these penguins breeding in sympatry were assessed using dead‐reckoning loggers to examine foraging niche overlap. 3. Area use overlaps were 0·29 for Adélie ∩ Chinstrap, 0·44 for Adélie ∩ Gentoo, and 0·40 for Chinstrap ∩ Adélie and depth use overlaps were 0·69 for Adélie ∩ Chinstrap, 0·48 for Adélie ∩ Gentoo, and 0·52 for Chinstrap ∩ Gentoo Penguins. 4. Foraging efficiency was greatest for Adélie Penguins diving near surface waters (0–15 m) while Chinstraps were most efficient at medium depths (15–60 m) and Gentoo Penguins most efficient at deeper depths (> 60 m). There appear to be physiological reasons for this. Penguins primarily exploited those depths where they were most efficient. 5. The overlap for foraging periods was 0·47 for Adélie ∩ Chinstrap, 0·26 for Adélie ∩ Gentoo, and 0·40 for Chinstrap ∩ Gentoo Penguins. Chinstraps foraged primarily at night, Gentoos during the morning and Adélies in the afternoon. Temporal differences in foraging may result in the three species exploiting krill at those depths where it is best adapted to pursue it, this being mediated by the diel vertical migration of krill. 6. Integration of all measured parameters together gives minimal overlap between species with total overlaps of 0·09 for Adélie ∩ Chinstrap, 0·05 for Adélie ∩ Gentoo, and 0·08 for Chinstrap ∩ Gentoo Penguins so it appears that these penguins conform to conventional theory in avoiding competition in areas of sympatry. However, a model incorporating prey movement between hyper‐volumes indicates that penguins may still compete, even in the virtual absence of hyper‐volume overlap. 7. ...
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Wilson, Rory P.
spellingShingle Wilson, Rory P.
Resource partitioning and niche hyper‐volume overlap in free‐living Pygoscelid penguins
author_facet Wilson, Rory P.
author_sort Wilson, Rory P.
title Resource partitioning and niche hyper‐volume overlap in free‐living Pygoscelid penguins
title_short Resource partitioning and niche hyper‐volume overlap in free‐living Pygoscelid penguins
title_full Resource partitioning and niche hyper‐volume overlap in free‐living Pygoscelid penguins
title_fullStr Resource partitioning and niche hyper‐volume overlap in free‐living Pygoscelid penguins
title_full_unstemmed Resource partitioning and niche hyper‐volume overlap in free‐living Pygoscelid penguins
title_sort resource partitioning and niche hyper‐volume overlap in free‐living pygoscelid penguins
publisher Wiley
publishDate 2010
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2009.01654.x
https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1111%2Fj.1365-2435.2009.01654.x
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2009.01654.x
genre Antarc*
Antarctica
genre_facet Antarc*
Antarctica
op_source Functional Ecology
volume 24, issue 3, page 646-657
ISSN 0269-8463 1365-2435
op_rights http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor
op_doi https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2009.01654.x
container_title Functional Ecology
container_volume 24
container_issue 3
container_start_page 646
op_container_end_page 657
_version_ 1800755565003014144