Spatial Ecology, Phenological Variability and Moulting Patterns of the Endangered Atlantic Petrel Pterodroma Incerta
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Vol. 40: 189–206, 2019 ENDANGERED SPECIES RESEARCH Published November 14 https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00991 Endang Species Res Contribution to the Special ‘Biologging in conservation’ OPENPEN ACCESSCCESS Spatial ecology, phenological variability and moulting patterns of the Endangered Atlantic petrel Pterodroma incerta Marina Pastor-Prieto1,*, Raül Ramos1, Zuzana Zajková1,2, José Manuel Reyes-González1, Manuel L. Rivas1, Peter G. Ryan3, Jacob González-Solís1 1Institut de Recerca de la Biodiversitat (IRBio) and Departament de Biologia Evolutiva, Ecologia i Ciències Ambientals (BEECA), Universitat de Barcelona, 08028 Barcelona, Spain 2Center for Advanced Studies of Blanes (CEAB-CSIC), 17300 Girona, Spain 3FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, DST-NRF Centre of Excellence, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa ABSTRACT: Insights into the year-round movements and behaviour of seabirds are essential to better understand their ecology and to evaluate possible threats at sea. The Atlantic petrel Ptero- droma incerta is an Endangered gadfly petrel endemic to the South Atlantic Ocean, with virtually the entire population breeding on Gough Island (Tristan da Cunha archipelago). We describe adult phenology, habitat preferences and at-sea activity patterns for each phenological phase of the annual cycle and refine current knowledge about its distribution, by using light-level geoloca- tors on 13 adults over 1−3 consecutive years. We also ascertained moulting pattern through stable isotope analysis (SIA) of nitrogen and carbon in feathers from 8 carcasses. On average, adults started their post-breeding migration on 25 December, taking 10 d to reach their non-breeding areas on the South American shelf slope. The pre-breeding migration started around 11 April and took 5 d. From phenological data, we found evidence of carry-over effects between successive breeding periods. The year-round distribution generally coincided with the potential distribution obtained from habitat modelling, except during the non-breeding and pre-laying exodus periods, when birds only used the western areas of the South Atlantic. Moulting occurred during the non- breeding period, when birds spent more time on the water, and results from SIA helped us to distinguish feathers grown around Gough Island from those grown in the non-breeding area. Overall, our results bring important new insights into the spatial ecology of this Endangered sea- bird, which should help improve conservation strategies in the South Atlantic Ocean. KEY WORDS: Atlantic petrel · Year-round movements · At-sea behaviour · Carry-over effects · Patagonian Shelf 1. INTRODUCTION duction of alien invasive predators to their breeding locations, pollution and habitat degradation, inter - Seabirds are becoming increasingly threatened actions with commercial fisheries, climate change worldwide, and their populations are subject to a and disease (Lucas & MacGregor 2006, Olmos et al. variety of threats both on land, where they breed, 2006, Grémillet & Boulinier 2009, Hilton & Cuthbert and at sea, where they rest and forage throughout 2010, Uhart et al. 2018, Philpot et al. 2019). Especially the year (Croxall et al. 2012, Lewison et al. 2012). Key in the case of oceanic seabirds, their sensitive life his- threats affecting seabird populations include intro- tory traits such as long life, delayed first breeding, © The authors 2019. Open Access under Creative Commons by *Corresponding author: [email protected] Attribution Licence. Use, distribution and reproduction are un - restricted. Authors and original publication must be credited. Publisher: Inter-Research · www.int-res.com 190 Endang Species Res 40: 189–206, 2019 single egg per breeding attempt and strong mate eastern plateau of Inaccessible Island (Flood & fidelity (Warham 1996, Bried et al. 2003, Rodríguez et Fisher 2013, P. G. Ryan unpubl. data). The Atlantic al. 2019) make them particularly prone to environ- petrel is listed as Endangered by the IUCN due to mental and human perturbations, which have con- its extremely small breeding range and the high tributed to their current population declines and poor rate of chick predation by introduced house mice conservation status (González-Solís & Shaffer 2009, Mus musculus, which has caused the population Croxall et al. 2012). decline and may even lead to its extinction, if mice In addition to long-lasting detrimental effects on are not eradicated from Gough Island (Cuthbert et population dynamics, individual life histories are also al. 2013, Dilley et al. 2015, BirdLife International shaped by events occurring in geographically dis- 2017a, Caravaggi et al. 2019). parate places during the breeding, migration and The poor conservation status of the Atlantic petrel non-breeding periods (Norris & Marra 2007). There calls for new insights to better understand the spe- is mounting evidence of carry-over effects (i.e. pro- cies’ ecology and guide conservation actions. Most cesses that influence individual performance in a knowledge of its distribution at sea comes from ship- subsequent season) from the breeding to the non- based sightings (Enticott 1991, Orgeira 2001). More breeding period, suggesting that migratory, non- recently, its general phenology and distribution were breeding and moulting decisions made by individu- summarized together with other gadfly petrels spe- als are influenced by their success in previous cies using tracking data (Ramos et al. 2017). How- breeding attempts (Catry et al. 2013). Thus, taking ever, Ramos et al. (2017) did not include detailed into account the variability of breeding efforts within descriptions on its phenology and spatial ecology, the a population seems advisable when trying to define factors influencing migration schedules within the phenology and year-round distributions of long-lived population or other important aspects of its at-sea species. ecology, such as habitat preferences, at-sea activity Gadfly petrels Pterodroma spp. are the largest ge - patterns and moulting strategies. nus of oceanic seabirds, with most species endemic This study extends our knowledge about the spa- to isolated oceanic archipelagos (Hilton & Cuthbert tial ecology of adult Atlantic petrels. Our first aim 2010, Croxall et al. 2012). Due to the remote location was using geolocation-immersion data to assess in of their breeding colonies, many aspects of gadfly detail phenological phases, at-sea distribution, mar- petrels’ ecology remain poorly known (Rodríguez et ine habitat preferences and activity patterns year- al. 2019). Few novel studies have generally described round. Second, we explored whether breeding suc- their at-sea distribution, showing long-range move- cess might lead to carry-over effects regarding ments across ocean basins (Rayner et al. 2008, Jodice phenology, behaviour or distribution, as previously et al. 2015, Krüger et al. 2016, Ramos et al. 2016, found in a number of species (Catry et al. 2013, 2017, Clay et al. 2017, Leal et al. 2017). Phillips et al. 2017, Ramos et al. 2018). Since Atlantic The Atlantic petrel Pterodroma incerta is a petrels suffer high rates of breeding failure (up to medium-sized procellariiform seabird (420−720 g), 87% rate of chick predation by introduced house with a year-round distribution largely confined to mice; Wanless et al. 2007, Cuthbert et al. 2013, Dilley the South Atlantic Ocean (Enticott 1991, Orgeira et al. 2015), we expected to detect, from geolocator 2001, Cuthbert 2004). The species breeds during the data, a relatively high number of birds not returning austral winter; observations at the breeding islands to the colony during the breeding season to feed their indicate that they arrive at the colony from mid- chick due to breeding failure. We would then expect March onwards, laying a single egg in June−July, these failed-at-breeding birds, leaving the colony with chicks fledging in December (Richardson 1984, earlier than the remaining breeders, to adjust their Cuth bert 2004). Virtually the entire population, esti- annual phenological calendar. Finally, we investi- mated at approximately 1 million pairs, breeds at gated moulting patterns by performing stable isotope Gough Island (40°20’ S, 9° 53’W) (Cuthbert 2004, analysis (SIA) on feathers from dead specimens. We Flood & Fisher 2013, Rexer-Huber et al. 2014). In would expect feathers moulted close to the breeding the 1970s, a small remnant population bred on Tris- grounds to show smaller variability in the isotopic tan da Cunha, but the introduction of alien preda- values among individuals than feathers moulted in tors, inland habitat modification and hunting by the wintering areas, since in the latter case a larger islanders contributed to its presumed extinction as spatial segregation of the individual wintering areas breeder (Rich ardson 1984, Cuthbert 2004, BirdLife would also lead to the integration of disparate base- International 2017a). A few pairs also breed on the line isotopic levels in their feathers. Pastor-Prieto et al.: Phenology, habitat and activity patterns of Atlantic petrels 191 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 2.2. Phenology and spatial distribution 2.1. Tag deployment and data filtering Phenology was determined for each year-round trip by visually inspecting filtered locations in BirdTracker We deployed light-level geolocators (models software (BAS) and confirmed using conductivity Mk13, Mk14 and Mk19; Biotrack) attached to a PVC data, inferred from saltwater immersion data (see ring with cable ties to the tarsus of breeding