| Literature DB >> 27173005 |
Hanno Sandvik1, Robert T Barrett2, Kjell Einar Erikstad1,3, Mari S Myksvoll4, Frode Vikebø4, Nigel G Yoccoz3,5, Tycho Anker-Nilssen6, Svein-Håkon Lorentsen6, Tone K Reiertsen3, Jofrid Skarðhamar4, Mette Skern-Mauritzen4, Geir Helge Systad3.
Abstract
Colonial breeding is an evolutionary puzzle, as the benefits of breeding in high densities are still not fully explained. Although the dynamics of existing colonies are increasingly understood, few studies have addressed the initial formation of colonies, and empirical tests are rare. Using a high-resolution larval drift model, we here document that the distribution of seabird colonies along the Norwegian coast can be explained by variations in the availability and predictability of fish larvae. The modelled variability in concentration of fish larvae is, in turn, predicted by the topography of the continental shelf and coastline. The advection of fish larvae along the coast translates small-scale topographic characteristics into a macroecological pattern, viz. the spatial distribution of top-predator breeding sites. Our findings provide empirical corroboration of the hypothesis that seabird colonies are founded in locations that minimize travel distances between breeding and foraging locations, thereby enabling optimal foraging by central-place foragers.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27173005 PMCID: PMC4869253 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms11599
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nat Commun ISSN: 2041-1723 Impact factor: 14.919
Figure 1Map of Norway displaying the largest seabird colonies and sea bottom topography.
All colonies with more than 5,000 breeding pairs of cliff-nesting species are shown. The entire continental shelf (turquoise) north of 61°N was used as initiation area of the generic larval drift model.
Figure 2Association between abundance of fish larvae and the location of seabird colonies along the coast of Northern Norway.
Circles indicate foraging ranges with radii of 10 km around the 20 largest seabird colonies (at least 10,000 breeding pairs). (a) Map of seabird colonies and sites of high modelled larval abundance. There are more high-abundance grid cells within the circles than expected by chance (P=0.014). (b) Map of seabird colonies and sites of high predictability (low variability) of modelled larval density. Variability is measured as quartile coefficients of dispersion. There are more low-variability grid cells within the circles than expected by chance (P=0.0003).
Figure 3Results of simulations and relaxation of the assumptions on which the initial model is based.
(a) Histogram of the 280 grid cells along the coast, sorted by increasing variability of larval abundance (as measured by the quartile coefficient of dispersion). Grid cells containing the 20 largest seabird colonies, highlighted as red bars, are concentrated in the left part of the histogram, that is, they have significantly lower variability in larval abundance than randomly chosen grid cells. (If uniformly distributed, the 20 red bars would lie exactly between the 21 ticks of the x-axis.) (b–d) The panels report the probability that a sample of 20 randomized colony positions obtains a better availability of fish larvae than the actual positions of the 20 largest seabird colonies in Northern Norway. (Each point in the parameter space is based upon simulations with 100,000 replicates. The portion of the parameter space below the red line is statistically significant at the 5% level). (b) Probabilities given different radii of feeding ranges around seabird colonies (relaxation of assumption (vii)) and given different 30-quantiles of particle abundance for each grid cell (relaxation of assumption (iv)). The 0th 30-quantile corresponds to the minimum particle density within the 30-year period, the 15th 30-quantile to the median. The initial model uses a radius of 10 km and the 3rd 30-quantile. (c) Probabilities given different feeding radii (r) and different weighting schemes of particles within the feeding radius specified (relaxation of assumption (viii)): none-or-all threshold (black), convex weighting function (purple), linear weighting function (blue), concave weighting function (green). Small panels visualize the weighting functions. The initial model uses a linear weighting scheme. (d) Probabilities for single years. There is no significant trend in the probabilities (dotted line; slope 0.00038±0.00047, R2=0.02, P=0.42).