Variation in the feeding of four species of seabird on

Variation in the feeding of four species of seabird on
Variation in the feeding of four species of seabird on
Machias Seal Island, New Brunswick
by
Laura Minich MSc. Candidate
B.A. Bowdoin College, 2001
Thesis submitted for partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
Master of Science
In the Department of Biology
Supervisor-
Dr. Antony Diamond
Supervisory Committee-
Dr. Richard Elliot
Dr. Steve Heard
Abstract
Food is theorized to be a primary limiting factor in defining life-history
characteristics of breeding birds. Seabirds are useful study species when exploring
questions regarding relationships with prey during the breeding season as they tend to
breed in dense colonies with restricted foraging ranges and many species carry prey to
chicks in their bill, allowing for unobtrusive prey identification and quantification. We
used ten years of data from four species of seabird, Arctic Tern (Sterna paradisaea),
Common Tern (S. hirundo), Atlantic Puffin (Fratercula arctica), and Razorbill (Alca
torda) on Machias Seal Island, NB, to examine the relationships seabirds have with prey
while providing for chicks.
We investigated the boundaries between dietary niches of the four focal species
between and within breeding seasons, and explored the relationships of dietary overlap
and diversity with reproductive success. A decline in the proportion of herring fed to
seabird chicks was observed from 1995-2004 for all four species, but we saw no
consistent trend in the amounts of niche overlap over years nor did we observe any
within-season patterns in the proportion herring delivered to chicks or niche overlap
between species.
Seabirds rely largely on eyesight when foraging to locate both foraging flocks and
individual prey items, but fog is common during the summer breeding season in
temperate and polar seas and can limit visibility. We predicted fog would reduce feeding
rates of seabirds and result in adults feeding fewer schooling fish while feeding a greater
variety of other prey types, but our data did not support our hypotheses.
ii
Our results are restricted by the limiting field conditions in which our data were
collected and likely complicated by external and uncontrollable variables. To more
rigorously test our questions, we recommend controlled lab experiments to test the
dietary niches of seabirds and observations of fog condition on the grounds where
seabirds forage.
iii
Acknowledgements
I thank Dr. Antony Diamond for suggestions, understanding, financial support,
and for mind-boggling stories of ornithological adventure. I thank Drs. Steve Heard and
Richard Elliot for making time to give useful advice during very busy and chaotic times.
Thanks to the Canadian Coast Guard and Canadian Wildlife service for logistical support
and allowing us to stay and study on Machias Seal Island (MSI).
I want to thank all the people who contributed in collecting data on Machias Seal
Island. I particularly want to thank the people involved in MSI work during my tenure
that also lent ears and suggestions, Amie Black, Andre Breton, Kate Devlin, and Mathieu
Charette. Thank you lighthouse keepers (Paul, Rick, Ralph, Russell, Barry, and Gordon)
for keeping us entertained, well-fed, and grounded. I thank Captains Andy Patterson,
Peter Wilcox, and John Norton, who provided us with logistical support, food, mail,
stories, and treats in endless fog spells.
Enough thanks cannot go out to Dr. George Minich and David Drolet for lending
statistical advice when they least expected it; both gave needed advice when I’m sure
they had better things to do. Thanks to both my parents, Amie, and Brad for editing and
refining this thesis at various times. A million thanks to the ACWERN and UNB biology
graduate community for showing me worlds of different kinds of taxonomic bias for not
making too much fun of me for being citizenship-handicapped.
Thanks again to my parents and sisters, who for some reason have always
approved of my far-off field biology adventures, giving relentless support. Thank you,
Brad, for becoming an editor, listener, housekeeper, cheerleader, and everything else
possible.
iv
Table of Contents
Abstract.............................................................................................................................. ii
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... iv
Table of Contents .............................................................................................................. v
List of Tables ................................................................................................................... vii
List of Figures................................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER 1 ...................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1
Thesis Objectives........................................................................................................... 8
Study Site ....................................................................................................................... 8
Thesis Overview ............................................................................................................ 9
References .................................................................................................................... 11
CHAPTER 2 ......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Temporal perspectives on dietary diversity and overlap: four seabird species on
Machias Seal Island ............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Abstract......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Introduction .................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Methods ......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Study Site ..................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Feeding Data .............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Reproductive Data ...................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Data Analysis ............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Inter-annual Variation ................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Intra-annual Variation ................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Results ........................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Inter-annual Variation ................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Intra-annual Variation ................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Discussion ..................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Inter-annual Variation ................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Intra-annual Variation ................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Conclusions ................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER 3 .................................................................................................................... 53
A hazy relationship? ....................................................................................................... 53
The effect of fog on the feeding of four species of Atlantic seabirds .......................... 53
Abstract........................................................................................................................ 53
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 53
Methods ........................................................................................................................ 57
Study Site ................................................................................................................. 57
Feeding Data ............................................................................................................ 57
Prey Collections ....................................................................................................... 57
Weather Data .......................................................................................................... 58
Feeding Rates .......................................................................................................... 58
Results .......................................................................................................................... 60
v
Feeding Rates .......................................................................................................... 60
Prey Types ............................................................................................................... 61
Discussion .................................................................................................................... 61
Feeding Rates .......................................................................................................... 62
Prey Types ............................................................................................................... 64
Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 65
References .................................................................................................................... 68
CHAPTER 4 .................................................................................................................... 83
Synthesis of results and conclusions .............................................................................. 83
Inter-annual Variation of Overlap................................................................................. 84
Intra-annual Variation of Overlap................................................................................. 86
Fog and Feeding Rates .................................................................................................. 87
Fog and Prey Types delivered ...................................................................................... 89
Conclusions and Future Research ................................................................................. 90
References .................................................................................................................... 92
Appendix I. ...................................................................................................................... 95
Appendix II. ..................................................................................................................... 96
Appendix III. ................................................................................................................... 97
Appendix IV .................................................................................................................... 97
Appendix V. ..................................................................................................................... 98
vi
List of Tables
Table 2.01………………………………………………………………………………34
Total number of prey items observed delivered to seabird chicks from 1995-2004.
Table 2.02………………………………………………………………………………34
Linear regression of the proportion of herring fed to seabird chicks against year, from
1995-2004.
Table 2.03………………………………………………………………………………35
Linear regressions of Morisita’s overlap and year between each pair of species from
1995-1998.
Table 2.04………………………………………………………………………………35
Linear regressions of Morisita’s overlap and year between each pair of species from
1995-2004.
Table 2.05………………………………………………………………………………36
Linear regressions between diet diversity using Simpson’s Diversity Index and
community niche overlap using Morisita’s Index from 1995-2004.
Table 2.06………………………………………………………………………………36
Linear regressions of productivity (fledglings per nest) against diet diversity using
Simpson’s Diversity Index from 1995-2004.
Table 2.07………………………………………………………………………………36
Linear regressions of productivity (fledglings per egg) against diet diversity using
Simpson’s Diversity Index from 1995-2004.
Table 2.08………………………………………………………………………………36
Linear regressions of productivity (fledglings per nest) against community niche overlap
using Morisita’s Index from 1995-2004.
Table 2.09………………………………………………………………………………37
Linear regressions of productivity (fledglings per egg) against community niche overlap
using Morisita’s Index from 1995-2004.
Table 2.10………………………………………………………………………………37
Results for linear regressions comparing the amount of dietary overlap using Morisita’s
Index between each species to species pair by Julian Date.
Table 2.11………………………………………………………………………………38
Results of linear regressions of the proportion of herring delivered to seabird chicks
against Julian date.
vii
Table 3.01 (A-D)…………………………………………………………………………62
Block ANOVA results for feeding frequencies of prey delivered to seabird chicks on
clear and foggy days with year as the blocking variable.
Table 3.02 (A-D)…………………………………………………………………………63
Block ANOVA results for feeding rates of mass of prey delivered per hour to seabird
chicks on clear and foggy days with year as the blocking variable.
Table 3.03 (A-D)…………………………………………………………………………64
Block MANOVA results of proportion of euphausiids, hake herring, and sandlance
delivered to seabird chicks on foggy and clear days with year as the blocking variable.
Table 3.04 (A-D)…………………………………………………………………………65
Results from univariate ANOVAs for proportion of main prey types delivered to seabird
chicks on foggy and clear days.
Table 3.05 (A-D)…………………………………………………………………………66
Results for the block ANOVAs examining species richness on clear and foggy days with
year as the blocking variable.
viii
List of Figures
Figure 2.01 (A-D) ………………………………………………………………………33
The percentages of main prey types delivered to seabird chicks on MSI over all years.
Figure 2.02……………………………………………………………………………... 34
The percent of herring (by number) delivered to Common and Arctic Tern, Atlantic
Puffin, and Razorbill chicks on MSI from 1995-2004.
Figure 2.03 (A-D) ………………………………………………………………………36
Dietary overlap for each seabird species compared with the other three seabird species on
MSI during the breeding seasons 1995Figure 2.04 …….. ………………………………………………………………………36
Dietary overlap between Arctic Terns and Razorbills from 1995-2004 on MSI.
Figure 2.05………………………………………………………………………………37
Dietary overlap between Razorbills and Common Terns from 1995-2004 on MSI.
Figure 2.06……………………………………………………………………….…….. 38
Dietary overlap between Common Terns and Arctic Terns from 1995-2004 on MSI.
Figure 2.07……………………………………………………………………………...39
Dietary overlap between Razorbills and Atlantic Puffins from 1995-2004 on MSI.
Figure 2.08……………………………………………………………………………...40
Dietary overlap between Atlantic Puffins and Arctic Terns from 1995-2004 on MSI.
Figure 2.09……………………………………………………………………………...41
Dietary overlap between Atlantic Puffins and Common Terns from 1995-2004 on MSI.
Figure 2.10……………………………………………………………………………...42
Relationship between dietary overlap and diversity for all years (1995-2004) for all four
seabird species monitored on MSI.
Figure 2.11……………………………………………………………………………...43
Relationship between diet diversity and productivity (fledged per nest) for all four seabird
species on MSI from 1995-2004.
Figure 2.12……………………………………………………………………………...44
Relationship between dietary overlap and productivity (fledged per nest) for all four
seabird species on MSI from 1995-2004.
Figure 3.01(A-B) ………………………………………………………………………67
Frequency of prey deliveries to seabird chicks on MSI on foggy and clear days from
1995-2004.
ix
Figure 3.02 (A-B) ………………………………………………………………………68
Mass of prey deliveries to seabird chicks on MSI on foggy and clear days from 19952004.
Figure 3.03……………………………………………………………………………...69
Proportion of main prey types delivered to Arctic Tern chicks on foggy and clear days on
MSI from 1995-2004.
Figure 3.04……………………………………………………………………………...70
Proportion of main prey types delivered to Common Tern chicks on foggy and clear days
on MSI from 1995-2004.
Figure 3.05……………………………………………………………………………...71
Proportion of main prey types delivered to Atlantic Puffin chicks on foggy and clear days
on MSI from 1995-2004.
Figure 3.06……………………………………………………………………………...72
Proportion of main prey types delivered to Razorbill chicks on foggy and clear days on
MSI from 1995-2004.
Figure 3.07……………………………………………………………………………...73
Species richness of prey delivered to seabird chicks on MSI on foggy and clear days from
1995-2004.
x
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Seabirds spend almost their entire lives in the marine environment and have lifehistory characteristics that make them unique in the avian world. Overall, they tend to be
long-lived (up to 60 years), have small clutch sizes, and mature slowly (Schreiber &
Burger 2002). Nearly all seabirds are colonial (Coulson 2002); they frequently breed in
dense colonies and are limited to nesting on islands and other areas free of mammalian
predators (Coulson 2002). Seabirds on accessible colonies are useful subjects in
biological studies because they are commonly there in large numbers and it is relatively
easy to monitor aspects of feeding ecology and reproductive biology.
One of the fundamental concepts in ecology is that of “niche” (Gause 1934;
Hutchinson 1959; Schoener 1974; J.M. Diamond 1978; Leibold 1995). Despite being a
cornerstone in understanding the living world and having been studied extensively, there
are various definitions and perceptions on what a niche is. I follow J.M. Diamond’s
(1978) interpretation of the concept that it should “not be defined too rigidly, but, roughly,
a niche consists of the resources a species uses, where it finds them, and the strategy by
which it harvests them.”
Early in the development of niche theory, the concept of niche was relatively
simple as described by Gause’s principle, or the competitive exclusion principle (Gause
1934). Lack’s expansion on Gause’s observations was that two species cannot occupy
the same niche in the same place without one species ultimately out-competing the other,
driving it to change or go extinct (Gause 1934; Lack 1947a). Not long after the concept
1
was proposed, it was debated by many as it is all but impossible to “prove”, and was
considered to be a tautology by others (Hardin 1960; Slobodkin 1961; Armstrong &
McGehee 1980).
There has been fierce debate among ecologists, both criticizing and defending the
research involved with the competitive exclusion principle (e.g. Diamond 1978; Connor
& Simberloff 1979; Strong et al. 1979; Schoener 1982; Roughgarden 1983). However,
subsequent research has largely confirmed that competition plays a large role in the
systems of community ecology. A review of 164 experimental studies examining
interspecific competition found 90% of all studies cited evidence of competition
(Schoener 1983). Exactly how competition plays a role in defining species is still in
debate, as are the many theories that expand on the competitive exclusion principle.
Many of the results found are conflicting, further clouding attempts to clarify the role of
competition in community ecology.
MacArthur and Levins’ (1964) theoretical work refined the competitive exclusion
principle by showing that the number of species coexisting is limited by the number of
resources, allowing the survival of multiple competing species when using multiple
resources. Simon Levin’s mathematical model (1970) took this concept a step further
and found that other limiting factors (such as, but not limited to predators) can increase
the number of species coexisting on the same resources. The concept of predation being
a limiting factor and thus increasing the number of coexisting competing species has been
supported empirically by a number of works (e.g. Paine 1966; Lubechenco 1978; Lawton
& Strong 1981) and some ecologists have suggested that predation is a key process
defining communities that should not be overshadowed by competition (Connell 1975;
2
Lawton & Strong 1981; Holt 1984). Many of the studies which found predation to have a
greater effect on community structure than competition have examined small organism
communities, such as arthropods and marine invertebrates (e.g. Paine 1966; Lawton &
Strong 1981; Steffan-Dewenter & Tscharntke 2000), where the risk of predation may be
much greater than for larger vertebrate communities that have been shown to support the
competitive exclusion principle (e.g. Abramsky et al. 1979; Munger & Brown 1981;
Pacala & Roughgarden 1982; Bosakowski et al. 1992). The discrepancies in predation
risk may greatly influence community structure, making it difficult to create generalized
theories of competition over all types of organismal communities.
A more complex hypothesis that takes account of the effect of both predation and
competition on communities was proposed by Hairston et al., (1960) who suggested
competition would be distributed unequally among trophic levels. Specifically,
carnivores, producers, and decomposers should be defined by competition, but in
herbivores predation should be the factor that limits population size. Empirical studies
have supported this hypothesis in terrestrial and freshwater environments (see review:
Schoener 1983), suggesting the classic rules of competition do not hold true for
herbivores.
The variability in the resources themselves may also influence the number of
species relying on a resource. Levins (1979) proposed a theoretical model for this
concept, and the theory has seen some experimental support. Naeem (1988) showed that
in pitcher plants two species of arthropods were able to coexist as the density of one
species varied with the mean resource, while the other species’ density was a function of
variance of the resource.
3
Another potential explanation for why not all studies find competition to drive
interactions is temporal variation in resources. A hypothesis proposed by Wiens (1977)
based on his studies on grassland birds suggests that severe competition only occurs in
“crunch” years when resources are highly limited. This theory has been supported by
some work, but most studies are not sufficiently long –term to conclusively strengthen
the theory (Schoener 1983). Perhaps the most convincing example for Wiens’ hypothesis
was recently published based on long-term work in the Galapagos islands. Grant and
Grant (2006) found that after the colonization of the large ground finch to an island, the
medium and large ground-finch coexisted with little change until a severe drought. The
drought caused a food shortage, and the two species diverged in bill size as large-billed
medium ground finches were out-completed by the large ground finch. Medium ground
finches with smaller bills survived as they could consume seeds the large ground finch
could not. After the drought, medium ground finches had significantly smaller bills than
prior to the food shortage (Grant & Grant 2006). In addition to being direct evidence of
competition causing a morphological change (character displacement), this also helps
confirm the importance of “crunch” years in competitive exclusion.
Despite these many varying perspectives on competition and niche theory, the
basic concept that competition is a driving force in defining community systems and in
evolution is still held by most ecologists. As research continues, we still find more
conclusive evidence of the role of competition in evolution in the current literature (e.g.
Schulter 2000; Pfennig & Murphy 2002; Grant & Grant 2006).
An interesting aspect of interactions between organisms that is often examined is
the amount of niche overlap between species. Organisms that are resource limited should
4
not show complete overlap in resource use, and overlap has been used an as indicator of
competition for decades (e.g. MacArthur & Levins 1967; May 1975). However, overlap
has been criticized as a measure for competition (Colwell & Futuyma 1971; Lawlor 1980;
Abrams 1983), and one of the greatest concerns is that high overlap may be associated
with both food abundance and food shortage (Steenhof & Kochert 1985; Korpimaki 1987;
Abrams 1998; Bell & Ford 1990). Research shows that this may be explained by changes
in severity of stress: in periods of mild stress overlap decreases, but in times of extreme
stress species are forced to rely on the same few resources resulting in a high overlap
(Bell & Ford 1990). Thus, by examining changes in niche overlap over periods of time
we may better observe the effects of interspecific competition (Korpimaki 1987).
In times of food abundance many species can consume the same prey, and several
species can have a restricted dietary niche breadth and high dietary overlap (Wiens 1989;
Bell & Ford 1990; Gonzales-Solis et al. 1997). When food is limited during a mild to
moderate food shortage, preferred prey items are no longer accessible, and organisms will
be less selective in prey items consumed, resulting in broader dietary breadths (Lack
1947a; MacArthur & Pianka 1966; Wiens 1989; Gonzales-Solis et al. 1997; Rodel et al.
2004). Competition between species in times of mild-moderate food stress causes
individuals to change foraging behaviour, thus organisms feed on different prey and
dietary overlap between species decreases (J.M. Diamond 1978; Schoener 1982;
Gonzales-Solis et al. 1997). Consequently, we expect to see high overlap and narrow
niche breadth in periods of abundance, and low overlap and broad dietary niche breadth
in times of food limitation.
5
Seabirds have interested biologists since the beginnings of niche theory (Lack
1945) because many of their natural history traits result in apparently high niche overlap,
particularly over the breeding season (Diamond 1983). Seabirds tend to have similar
nesting requirements: they often are limited to nesting in colonies on islands to limit
predation (Coulson 2002). Seabirds are therefore also restricted in foraging range during
the breeding season as they must return to the colony to feed their young; this is
particularly true for birds that forage inshore (A.W. Diamond 1978). One would expect
high competition for food when large colonies of seabirds share a limited foraging range
as they feed themselves as well as their offspring. Yet seasonal cycles in marine
productivity also cause an abundance of marine organisms during the summer months
(Cushing 1975) that results in many seabirds consuming the same prey species (Diamond
1983). Thus, during the breeding season seabirds tend to breed in the same places and
feed on similar prey when competition should be high, making it difficult to tease apart
the ecological niche held by different species of seabirds. Given the dynamic nature of
the prey seabirds consume and limitations in foraging range during breeding seasons, I
am particularly interested in addressing the dietary niche of seabirds over time and
through periods of differing food availability.
Food limitation is believed to be critical in restricting bird reproduction and
populations (Lack 1947b; Martin 1987), and is thought to be a defining limiting
characteristic for seabird populations (Ashmole 1963; Ashmole & Ashmole 1967; A.W.
Diamond 1978; Safina et al. 1988; Oro et al. 2003). Thus, it is important we understand
not only the relationship birds have with each other in regards to food, but also what
factors may limit their ability to find food.
6
When foraging, seabirds rely on visual cues to locate prey (Shealer 2002). With
the exception of seabirds in the order Procellariformes that have been shown to forage at
least partially using olfactory senses (Verheyden & Jouventin 1994; Nevitt et al. 2004),
seabirds are believed to rely on eyesight to find foraging flocks and individual prey items
(Shealer 2002). Seabirds tend to forage in flocks, and finding flocks is believed to be
critical in finding where to forage, particularly when searching for schooling fish
(Hoffman et al. 1981; Duffy 1983; Shealer 2002). Individuals tend to leave the colony
singly and do not search for prey in groups, so it is thought that when seabirds look for
food, they look for foraging flocks as a cue for where to find prey (Haney et al. 1992).
Social facilitation is when an organism is prompted to behave a certain way after
observing that behaviour in another organism, and feeding by social facilitation is
common in birds species and other vertebrates (Giraldeau & Beauchamp 1999; Galef &
Giraldeau 2001). In the dynamic and vast marine environment, social facilitation may be
essential for locating food; information transfer via observation of other foraging
individuals is important in schooling fish (Ryer & Olla 1992). Social facilitation may be
critical in enabling seabirds to find prey, and if so they require visual contact with
foraging flocks. Visibility may be obscured by fog, which occurs where cool water is
vaporized by contact with relativity warm air, and thus is common in temperate and polar
areas during the summer breeding season. Fog would reduce a bird’s ability to locate
forage flocks from a distance. If seabirds indeed rely on visual contact with forage flocks
to find schooling fish and other prey, we would expect to see fog affecting the feeding of
seabird chicks.
7
Despite the prevalence of fog in many areas during the breeding season of many
seabird species and a large body of scientific literature on chick feeding by seabirds, the
effect of fog has been rarely addressed in seabird feeding studies. To the best of my
knowledge, only two studies examined fog in relation to foraging, both of which were
conducted on seabirds in the Bay of Fundy and over one or two summers. One study was
during a study of Herring Gulls (Larus argentatus) on Kent Island, New Brunswick, that
coincided with a severe two-week fog event. Researchers noted high chick mortality and
less herring and more euphausiid shrimp delivered on foggy days (Hebert 1987). The
other study was by a previous graduate student at University of New Brunswick, Amey
(1998), who found fog hindered the feeding rates of Arctic Terns (Sterna paradisaea) in
one year of a two- year study on Machias Seal Island, New Brunswick.
Thesis Objectives
The primary objective of this thesis is to test hypotheses regarding the
relationships that seabirds have with their prey within the ecological context of a
community of predators exploiting a limited range of prey. More specifically, I will
investigate trends in trophic overlap throughout ten years of seabird feeding data by
examining relationships between years and within seasons, and relationships of the
dietary characteristics and the breeding successes of the birds. I also investigate the
relationship between fog condition and prey deliveries to seabird chicks in terms of
feeding rates and prey types.
Study Site
All data for this study were collected on Machias Seal Island, New Brunswick
(MSI), a 9.5 hectare island located at the mouth of the Bay of Fundy (44 o05’N, 67o01’W).
8
The island is 19 kilometres southwest of Grand Manan and 15 km east of the Maine coast
near Cutler, in productive waters where the cold Bay of Fundy merges with the warmer
Gulf of Maine. The island is a granite outcropping, with bedrock and boulder shorelines
giving way to a small vegetated interior dominated by herbaceous plants. Approximately
2,800 pairs of Atlantic Puffins (Fratercula arctica), 600 pairs of Razorbills (Alca torda),
and 3,000 pairs of terns (roughly 2,000 Arctic Terns (Sterna paradisaea) and 1,000
Common Terns, (S. hirundo)) breed from May until August on the island (Diamond &
Devlin 2003). These four seabird species, which have been the focus of a long-term
study initiated in 1995, differ in their pry-capture tactics. The two tern species are
considered surface-feeders: they search for prey on the wing and dip into the water,
plucking prey items out of the first few centimetres of the water column. The terns feed a
variety of prey items to chicks, but feed mostly schooling fish and euphausiid shrimp
(Black et al. 2005). The puffins and razorbills are pursuit-divers when foraging. Pursuit
divers swim in the water column, actively chasing their prey under water.
Thesis Overview
Chapters one and four are a general introduction and discussion, respectively, and
are not independent from this thesis. Chapters two and three are data-based chapters and
stand alone outside this thesis.
Chapter 2 of my thesis examines the amount of overlap between all four of the
focal species over ten years and within the breeding seasons. Although previous studies
have investigated the amount of niche overlap between organisms, most are short-term
(e.g., Lack 1945; Bell & Ford 1990; Baltz & Morejohn 1994; Gonzales-Solis et al. 1997;
Kitchen et al. 1999; Day et al. 2003). I will investigate amount of overlap over ten years
9
as declining amounts of the “preferred” herring prey (Amey 1998) were delivered to
seabird chicks (Black et al. 2005). I also investigate changes in overlap throughout the
season to test whether as the season progresses birds feed larger, lipid-rich fish to chicks
as energy demands increase.
In Chapter 3, I investigate the relationship between fog condition and chick
feeding rates and prey types delivered to seabird chicks. I hypothesize that if birds are
visual predators as we believe, fog should inhibit their ability to forage and therefore feed
seabird chicks. This is the first study I know of that uses long-term data to investigate
whether fog reduces the feeding rates of any predatory bird. I examine the relationship
between fog and feeding rates, as well as compare fog condition with species richness
and types of prey delivered to chicks.
Chapter 4 is a thorough discussion of key results. I synthesize Chapters 2 and 3
as well as make recommendations for future research.
10
References
Abrams PA (1998) High competition with low similarity and low competition with high
similarity: Exploitative and apparent competition in consumer-resource systems.
American Naturalist 152:114-128.
Abrams P (1983) The theory of limiting similarity. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 14:359-376.
Abramsky Z, Dyer MI, Harrison PD (1979) Competition among small mammals in
experimentally perturbed areas of the shortgrass prairie. Ecology 60:530-536.
Amey KD . (1998) Seabirds as indicators of changes in availability and commercial weir
landings of herring. Biology Department, University of New Brunswick.
Armstrong RA, McGehee R (1980) Competitive Exclusion. American Naturalist
115:151-170.
Ashmole NP (1963) The regulation of numbers of tropical oceanic birds. Ibis 103b:458473.
Ashmole NP, Ashmole MJ (1967) Comparitive feeding ecology of seabirds of a tropical
oceanic island. Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University Bulletin 24, 1-131.
Baltz DM, Morejohn GV (1994) Food habits and niche overlap of seabirds wintering on
Monterey Bay, California. The Auk 94:526-543.
Bell HL, Ford HA (1990) The influence of food shortage on interspecific niche overlap
and foraging behavior of three species of Australian warblers (Acanthizidae). Studies in
Avian Biology 13:381-388.
Black AL, Minich LI, Diamond AW (2005) Machias Seal Island 1995-2004: progress
report. Fredericton, N.B. Atlantic Co-operative Wildlife Ecology Research Network.
Bosakowski T, Smith DG, Speiser R (1992) Niche Overlap of 2 Sympatric-Nesting
Hawks Accipiter Spp in the New-Jersey New-York Highlands. Ecography 15:358-372.
Colwell RK, Futuyma DJ (1971) On the measurement of niche breadth and overlap.
Ecology 52:567-576.
Connell JH (1975) Some mechanisms producing structure in natural communities. In:
Cody ML, Diamond JM (eds) Ecology and evolution of communties Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, Mass, pp 460-490.
Connor E, Simberloff DS (1979) The assembly of species communities: chance or
competition? Ecology 60:1132-1140.
11
Coulson JC (2002) Colonial breeding in seabirds. In: Schreiber EA, Burger J (eds)
Biology of Marine Birds CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 87-113.
Cushing DH (1975) Marine Ecology and Fisheries. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Day RH, Prichard AK, Nugro DA (2003) Ecological specialization and overlap of
Brachyrampus Murrelets in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Auk 120:680-699.
Diamond AW (1978) Feeding strategies and population size in tropical seabirds.
American Naturalist 112:215-223.
Diamond AW (1983) Feeding overlap in some tropical and temperate seabird
communities. Studies in Avian Biology 8:24-46.
Diamond AW, Devlin CM (2003) Seabirds as indicators of changes in marine ecosystems.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 88:153-175.
Diamond JM (1978) Niche shifts and rediscovery of interspecific competition. American
Scientist 66:322-331.
Duffy DC (1983) The foraging ecology of Peruvian seabirds. Auk 100:800-810.
Galef BG, Giraldeau L-A (2001) Social influences on foraging in vertebrates: causal
mechanisms and adaptive functions. Animal Behaviour 61:15.
Gause GF (1934) The Struggle for Existence. Williams and Williams, Baltimore.
Giraldeau L-A, Beauchamp G (1999) Food exploitation: searching for the optimal joining
policy. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14:102-10.
Gonzales-Solis J, Oro D, Jover L, Ruiz X, Pedrocchi V (1997) Trophic niche width and
overlap of two sympatric gulls in the southwestern Mediterranean. Oecologia 112:75-80.
Grant PR, Grant BR (2006) Evolution of character displacement in Darwin's finches.
Science 313:224-226.
Hairston NG, Smith FE, Slobodkin LB (1960) Community structures, population control,
and competition. American Naturalist 94:425.
Haney JC, Fristup KM, Lee DS (1992) Geometry of visual recruitment by seabirds to
ephemeral foraging flocks. Ornis Scandinavica 23:49-62.
Hardin G (1960) The Competitive Exclusion Principle. Science 131:1292-1297.
Hebert PN (1987) The effect of fog on Herring Gull (Larus argentatus) chick
survivorship and parental foraging patterns. Colonial Waterbirds 10:103-105.
12
Hoffman W, Wiens JA, Heineman D (1981) The ecology of seabird feeding flocks in
Alaska. Auk 98:437-456.
Holt RD (1984) Spatial heterogeneity, indirect interactions, and the coexistence of prey
species. American Naturalist 124:377-406.
Hutchinson GE (1959) Homage to Santa Rosalia or why are there so many kinds of
animals. American Naturalist 93:145-159.
Kitchen AM, Gese EM, Schauster ER (1999) Resource partitioning between coyotes and
swift foxes: space, time, and diet. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:1645-1656.
Korpimaki E (1987) Dietary shifts, niche relationships, and reproductive output of
coexisting Kestrels and Long-eared Owls. Oecologia 74:277-285.
Lack D (1945) The ecology of closely related species with special reference to cormorant
(Phalacrocorax carbo) and shag (P. aristotelis). J Anim Ecology 14:12-16.
Lack D (1947a) Darwin's Finches. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Lack D (1947b) The significance of clutch size. I. Intraspecific variation. Ibis 89:302-352.
Lawlor LR (1980) Overlap, similarity, and competition coefficients. Ecology 61:245-25.
Lawton JH, Strong DR (1981) Community patterns and competition in folivorous insects.
American Naturalist 118:317-338.
Leibold MA (1995) Niche concept revisited: Mechanistic models and community context.
Ecology 76:1371-1382.
Levin S (1970) Community equilibria and stability, and an extension of the competitive
exclusion principle. American Naturalist 104:413-423.
Levins R (1979) Coexistence in a variable environment. American Naturalist 114:765783.
Lubechenco J (1978) Plant species diversity in a marine intertidal community:
importance of herbivore food preference and algal competitive abilities. Ecology 112:2329.
MacArthur RH, Levins R (1964) Competition, habitat selection, and character
displacement in a patchy environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
USA 51:1207-1210.
MacArthur RH, Levins R (1967) The limiting similarity, convergence, and divergence of
coexisting species. American Naturalist 101:377-385.
MacArthur RH, Pianka ER (1966) On optimal use of a patchy environment. American
Naturalist 100:603-609.
13
Martin TE (1987) Food as a limit on breeding birds: a life-history perspective. Ann. Rev.
Ecol. Syst. 18:453-487.
May RM (1975) Some notes on estimating the competition matrix. Ecology 56:737-741.
Munger JC, Brown JH (1981) Competition in desert rodents: An experiment with
semipermeable exclosures. Science 211:510-512.
Naeem S (1988) Resource heterogeneity fosters coexistence of a mite and midge in
pitcher plants. Ecological Monographs 58:215-227.
Nevitt GA, Reid K, Trathan P (2004) Testing olfactory foraging strategies in an Antarctic
seabird assemblage. The Journal of Experimental Biology 207:3537-3544.
Oro D, Cam E, Pradel R, Martinez-Abrain A (2003) Influence of food availability on
demography and local population dynamics in a long-lived seabird. Proceedings of the
Royal Society of London (B) 271:387-396.
Pacala S, Roughgarden J (1982) Resource partitioning and interspecific competition in
two two-species insular Anolis lizard communities. Science 217:444-446.
Paine RT (1966) Food web complexity and species diversity. American Naturalist
100:65-75.
Pfennig DW, Murphy PJ (2002) How fluctuating competition and phenotypic plasticity
mediate species divergence. Evolution 56:1217-1228.
Rodel HG, Volkl W, Kilias H (2004) Winter browsing of brown hares: evidence for diet
breadth expansion. Mammalian Biology 69:410-419.
Roughgarden J (1983) Competition and theory in community ecology. American
Naturalist 122:583-601.
Ryer CH, Olla B (1992) Social mechanisms facilitating exploitation of spatially variable
ephemeral food patches in a pelagic marine fish. Animal Behaviour 44:67-74.
Safina C, Burger J, Gochfeld M, Wagner RH (1988) Evidence for prey limitation of
Common and Roseate Tern production. Condor 90:852-859.
Schoener TW (1974) Resource Partitioning in Ecological Communities. Science 185:2739.
Schoener TW (1982) The controversy over interspecific competition. American Scientist
70:586-595.
Schoener TW (1983) Field experiments on interspecific competition. American Naturalist
122:240-285.
14
Schreiber EA, Burger J (2002) Seabirds in the Maine Environment. In: Schreiber EA,
Burger J (eds) Biology of Marine Birds CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 1-15.
Schulter D (2000) Ecological character displacement in adaptive radiation. American
Naturalist 156:S4-S16.
Shealer DA (2002) Foraging behavior and food of seabirds. In: Schreiber EA, Burger J
(eds) Biology of Marine Birds CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 137-177.
Slobodkin LB (1961) Growth and regulation of animal populations. Holt, Rinehard, and
Winston, New York.
Steenhof K, Kochert MN (1985) Dietary shifts of sympatric buteos during a prey decline.
Oecologia 66:6-16.
Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2000) Resource overlap and possible competition
between honey bees and wild bees in central Europe. Oecologia 122:288-296.
Strong DR, Szyska LA, Simberloff DS (1979) Test of community-wide character
displacement against null hypothesis. Evolution 33:897-913.
Verheyden C, Jouventin P (1994) Olfactory behavior of foraging Procellariiforms. The
Auk 111:285-291.
Wiens JA (1977) On competition and variable environments. American Scientist 65:590597.
Wiens JA (1989) The ecology of bird communities Vol. 1: Foundation and patterns.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
15
Table 2.01 Total number of prey items observed delivered to seabird chicks from 19952004.
Year
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Total
ARTE
167
273
268
221
295
272
725
979
535
829
4564
COTE
265
305
156
182
424
183
788
467
390
176
3336
ATPU
596
739
644
995
1700
1851
2607
1580
1331
1777
13820
RAZO
165
158
286
372
1172
660
837
317
471
1511
5949
Table 2.02 Linear regression of the proportion of herring fed to seabird chicks against
year, from 1995-2004. Significant relationships in bold.
Species
ARTE
COTE
ATPU
RAZO
R2
0.90
0.72
0.50
0.47
Slope
-9.23
-8.31
-6.21
-5.59
16
p
<0.001
0.002
0.023
0.028
CHAPTER 2
Temporal perspectives on dietary diversity and overlap: four seabird species on
Machias Seal Island
Abstract
A fundamental principle in niche theory is that no two organisms can occupy the
same niche and use the same resources when resources are limited. The boundaries
between ecological niches of different species of seabirds can be difficult to define during
the breeding season of many seabirds, as they tend to breed in the same colonies and rely
on similar prey resources within foraging range of the colony. We examined feeding data
from 1995-2004 from four species of sympatric breeding seabirds to test predictions
concerning the dietary niches and the dietary overlap between the species during the
breeding season. We looked for trends between years and within years in order to test for
a relationship between dietary shifts and reproductive performance. We did not see any
consistent trends in dietary niche or overlap over the ten years spanned in this study or
within each breeding season. We did not find any relationships between dietary overlap
and dietary diversity nor dietary diversity and breeding success. However, for both tern
species the amount of dietary overlap and reproductive success were directly related,
suggesting that in times of abundance terns feed the same prey and have high
reproductive success.
Introduction
In the beginnings of niche theory our concept of niche relations were simple, as
Gause’s principle states that no two organisms can coexist in the same niche and make
use of identical resources (e.g., Gause 1934; Lack 1947). As subsequent research has
17
revealed, the interactions species have with each other are complicated, and the role of
competitive exclusion in structuring communities has been debated. Species may coexist
on the same resources if relying on multiple resources (MacArthur & Levins 1964) or
when other factors such as predation limit populations (Paine 1966; Levin 1970; Holt
1984). Wiens (1977) hypothesized that competitive exclusion only occurs in rare times
of resource shortage, a concept which has seen some support on long-term studies
(Schoener 1983; Grant & Grant 2006). Variability of resources themselves can allow
multiple species to rely on the same resource (Levins 1979; Naeem 1988).
Some ecologists have doubted the role of competition in ecological communities,
and have criticized the studies which have supported competitive exclusion (Connell
1975; Connor & Simberloff 1979; Strong et al. 1979; Holt 1984). However, despite the
debate, the bulk of studies investigating interspecific competition have found evidence of
competition (e.g. Schoener 1983; Schulter 2000; Grant & Grant 2006) and it is widely
accepted among ecologists that competition plays a large role in defining the ecological
niche of an organism.
Competition is difficult to quantify, but a common way to infer competitive
effects is by measuring the amount of overlap between organisms (MacArthur & Levins
1967; May 1975; Gonzales-Solis et al. 1997; Day et al. 2003). Despite the prevalence of
overlap as a indicator of competition in literature, the appropriateness of using overlap as
a measure of competition has been questioned (Colwell & Futuyma 1971; Lawlor 1980;
Abrams 1983). A central criticism of using overlap as an indicator of competition is that
high competition can at times be associated with low overlap (Svardson 1949; GonzalesSolis et al. 1997; Wiens 1989b), and also with high overlap (Steenhof & Kochert 1985;
18
Bell & Ford 1990; Wiens 1989b). How overlap varies with competition depends on the
severity of competition, as Bell and Ford (1990) found on a long term study of Australian
birds. Over four years, dietary overlap between birds decreased initially through droughtinduced food shortages, but as the drought continued and food became extremely scarce,
overlap between birds increased as they fought for the few remaining food items. Thus,
examining overlap over years and in different food conditions may better reveal
interspecific competition between organisms (Korpimaki 1987).
Seabirds are long-lived species, top consumers in the marine ecosystem, that are
typically abundant and accessible on the colonies where they breed, making them useful
for investigating theoretical questions. Boundaries between the ecological niches of
coexisting seabirds can become nebulous and difficult to tease apart during the breeding
season (Diamond 1983). Seabirds require similar breeding sites and typically a seasonal
abundance of marine productivity can result in many predators consuming the same prey
species (Cushing 1975; Diamond 1983). Over 96% of all seabird species nest in colonies,
and in many cases they are limited to nesting on islands free of mammalian predators
(Coulson 2002). Seabirds are restricted in foraging range during the breeding seasons,
and as they are central-place foragers they must return to the colony to feed chicks
(Orians & Pearson 1979). They therefore must compete with other seabirds in the colony
to find sufficient prey for themselves as well as their offspring within a limited area
surrounding the colony, which may be depleted of prey by other foraging seabirds
(Ashmole 1963; Diamond 1978; Birt et al. 1987). These natural history characteristics
result in high overlap and the potential for high competition between seabirds, making
them interesting subjects with which to explore niche theory and competition.
19
Examining the annual composition and size of seabird prey over several years can
help us address our questions about changes in feeding niche among and within seasons
where we observe changes in the prey types delivered to young. When a food resource is
highly abundant and food is not a limiting factor, a variety of species can feed on the
same prey, resulting in several species having a narrow niche breadth and high dietary
overlap (Bell & Ford 1990; Gonzales-Solis et al. 1997). As food resources diminish
competition for limited resources increases and organisms are forced to feed on a greater
variety of prey, increasing the niche breadth/diet diversity of each species while reducing
overlap (Lack 1947; MacArthur & Pianka 1966; Wiens 1989a; Rodel et al. 2004).
However, as mentioned prior, in periods of extended and extreme food shortage dietary
overlap between species can increase, particularly if many types of available prey
diminish and organisms consume the remaining common resources (Bell & Ford 1990;
Wiens 1989b). Thus, in years when less preferred prey is available we expect to see
more diverse diets with less niche overlap. As food stress should decrease productivity,
we predict an indirect relationship between diet diversity and niche overlap with
reproductive success of the breeding birds.
Investigating at a finer scale within each season, we expect niche overlap to
change throughout the breeding season as the offspring grow and have greater energy
requirements. As offspring demands increase we expect that adults would select larger,
more lipid-rich prey to deliver to their young, resulting in different species feeding the
same prey types to their offspring and a greater niche overlap. This trend should be
particularly strong for organisms that are limited in the amount of prey they deliver to
20
their young by the amount they carry in the bill (e.g., puffins, razorbills, most terns)
rather than regurgitating food (e.g., petrels, gulls).
The four species of seabird we study include two different foraging guilds which
should respond differently to changes in the marine environment. The two species of
surface-feeding terns, Arctic Terns (Sterna paradisaea, ARTE) and Common Terns
(Sterna hirundo, COTE), can access only the top few centimetres of the water column
and therefore depend largely on prey at the surface. The two species of pursuit-divers,
Razorbills (Alca torda, RAZO) and Atlantic Puffin (Fratercula arctica, ATPU), can dive
up to 100 metres (Piatt & Nettleship 1985) and 70 metres (Lowther et al. 2002)
respectively, and thus have greater access to prey. This increased access to prey
generally translates to more schooling fish, such as herring, in the chick diets of alcids
than terns (Amey 1998).
We use ten years of data to address our questions regarding prey variation over
years and within seasons. Specifically, do we see any changes in the prey types delivered
to seabird chicks of Machias Seal Island from 1995 to 2004? If so, as the prey changes
do the seabirds respond by feeding the same types of prey to their chicks as each other or
do the birds diverge in prey types delivered? Within seasons do we see trends with
seabirds delivering more lipid-rich prey such as herring as the dietary requirements of the
chicks change?
The long- term study on Machias Seal Island has shown a steady decrease in
proportion of herring delivered to seabird chicks over the years (Black et al. 2005). We
predict that we will see a decrease in dietary overlap over years as the birds tend to feed
21
less and less of the preferred prey, herring. We expect to see an increase in diet diversity
as preferred prey decreases and dietary overlap decreases.
As the breeding season progresses we expect to chick diets to show increased
dietary overlap as they feed a greater proportion of large fatty fish (herring and
sandlance). As herring is (or was) the most frequently delivered prey, the increase in
fatty fish should be evident through increased herring delivered to seabird chicks later in
the season.
Methods
Study Site
The data were all collected on Machias Seal Island (MSI), New Brunswick. For
details on the study site refer to Chapter 1.
Feeding Data
All feeding data were collected by observation from semi-permanent blinds that
overlooked defined plot areas that are consistent from year to year. When terns were
observed, 3-8 nests were watched and all feedings were connected to specific flagged
nests. It was impossible to identify individual burrow locations for all feeding alcids,
therefore all feedings per plot area were recorded. Researchers observed the plots in
three- hour stints, and observation stints were staggered throughout times of the day and
over tidal cycles. During these stints observers recorded prey type (identified to the
lowest possible taxon), prey size in relation to the bird’s culmen, number of prey in each
delivery, and provider if identifiable (i.e. which of the two parents), and recipient chick
for the terns. Methods for collecting these data have been standard since project
22
initiation in 1995, and each observer was trained by veteran researchers from previous
years to maintain consistency.
Reproductive Data
Approximately 100 puffin burrows and 100 Razorbill nests found throughout the
colony were monitored for productivity. The nests were visited several times a season to
monitor egg laying, hatching, chick growth (mass, wing, culmen), and chick survival.
Razorbill chicks were measured at least three times during their brief (approximately 16
days) time on the island, while puffins were visited at least four times during the 40 days
chicks stay in burrows. Approximately 50 Common Tern and 100 Arctic Tern nests were
monitored for reproductive parameters. The nests were checked for the same factors as
the alcids; they were visited every other day when conditions allowed and chicks
measured every five days. In analysis, fledging rate of chicks was used as an indication
of reproductive success as it has been shown to be most likely to be correlated with
changes in food supply of all breeding parameters (e.g., Cairns 1987; 1992; Gill et al.
2002). We used fledglings per nest as fledgling rates, as well as fledglings per egg for
the terns, which often lay more than one egg per season.
Data Analysis
Herring was typically the most common prey item delivered to seabird chicks
over the past ten years, but it became less common over the period. To quantify this
potential decrease we conducted linear regressions on the proportion of herring fed to all
seabird chicks (dependent variable) against year (independent variable).
Morisita’s Index was used to measure the amount of dietary overlap between the
species (Morisita 1959). We chose this measure because it compares two species without
23
inflating the value when using a large number of categories (Colwell & Futuyma 1971;
Smith & Zaret 1982). Morisita’s measure gives a value between zero (no overlap
between the two species compared) and one (identical resources used by the two species).
Inter-annual Variation
We calculated Morisita’s Index for comparisons between each species for each
year, and also calculated the amount of overlap between each two species for every day
that the two species were observed feeding. The day-to-day breakdown is needed for
within-season comparisons and also to estimate standard error for yearly comparisons.
Morisita’s Index is the most appropriate measure of overlap for this study, but does not
give a standard error. Thus, we calculated overlap measures for each day, allowing us to
estimate the inherent variation in overlap. Our calculated standard errors are useful, but
are not complete in that not all species are watched each day, and on some days not
enough feedings were observed to allow us to calculate Morisita’s Index. Thus, for
yearly comparisons we focused on the compiled yearly measures and used the values
given from each day as an estimate of the variance in diet overlap for each species.
In addition to the six comparisons between each of the four species, we also
compared the diet of each species to each of the other three species of seabird. We refer
to this as “community overlap”. This comparison is useful for identifying how each
species differs from the group and to compare the amount of overlap with reproductive
success of a species.
We calculated diet diversity using Simpson’s Diversity Index to represent niche
breadth, as it shows little bias and low coefficient of variation (Mouillot & Lepretre
24
1999). For each species we then conducted linear regressions for several comparisons to
investigate trends with diet and breeding success. We compared diet diversity with the
community overlap value, and niche overlap and niche breadth with fledglings per nest.
Intra-annual Variation
To examine how overlap between species changes within seasons we plotted dayto-day overlap against the Julian date. We used linear regression to investigate for trends
during the season, and examined the residual plots for curving trends to investigate if
other (e.g. quadratic) relationships existed. We also plotted percentage herring delivered
to seabird chicks by Julian date and looked for trends using linear regression for each
species and for each year. We conducted a Bonferroni correction for each species among
yearly analyses. To investigate what temporal scale is appropriate to assess competition,
we conducted a linear regression comparing yearly niche overlap values with average
daily niche overlap values.
Results
28,869 prey items delivered to seabird chicks were observed over the ten years
(Table 2.01). At least half of all prey items delivered were juvenile fish except for 20022004 in both tern species and 2002 and 2004 in puffins. 2004 was an unusual year
among all ten seasons as fish larvae were often fed to all four species of seabird. These
small (typically <6cm) transparent prey were difficult to distinguish from euphausiids
during quick prey transfers, resulting in many unidentified prey items.
25
From 1995 until 2000 herring comprised at least 40% of all the prey delivered to
seabird chicks by all four species, except in 1998 when Atlantic Puffins fed mostly hake
(Fig. 2.01, Fig. 2.02). In general, over the past 10 years there was a trend of the seabird
species feeding less herring to their young. All four species showed a significant decline
(Table 2.02) with the weakest relationship in Razorbills (r 2= 0.47).
Inter-annual Variation
The dietary niche overlap between all species declined from 1995 to 1998 in four
out of the six interspecific comparisons: ARTE-COTE (Fig. 2.06), RAZO-ATPU (Fig.
2.07), ATPU-ARTE (Fig. 2.08), and ATPU-COTE (Fig. 2.09; Table 2.03). Contrastingly,
these four interspecific comparisons show no significant trend when all ten years of data
were included (Table 2.04).
The overlap between Razorbills and Common Terns, and Razorbills and Arctic
Terns, did not show a decrease in the first four years of the study (Fig. 2.04, Fig. 2.05;
Table 2.03). However in both cases there was a general decline over all ten years (Table
2.04).
All ten comparisons of yearly niche overlap showed the same pattern with high
overlap in 1995, 1999, 2000, and 2001 (Figs. 2.03 (A-D)- 2.09). The mean overlap
values between two species for these years were 0.91, 0.87, 0.84, and 0.93 respectively;
the average overlap value overall was 0.75. Examining the community niche overlap
values 1995, 1999, 2000, and 2001 had average overlap values of 0.94, 0.91, 0.87, and
0.96, respectively, while the average amount of overlap over all years was 0.79.
26
We saw no linear trend between the level of diet diversity and community niche
overlap for any of the four species (Fig. 2.10, Table 2.05). Diet diversity showed no
linear relation to reproductive success when considering fledglings per nest or per egg
laid (Fig. 2.11; Tables 2.06, 2.07). Both measures of productivity (fledglings per nest and
fledglings per egg) were related to dietary overlap in terns (p=0.03) but not in alcids (Fig.
2.12; Tables 2.08, 2.09).
Intra-annual Variation
There was no significant trend in niche overlap throughout the season in any of
the interspecific comparisons (Table 2.10). We did not see an overall decline in the
proportion of herring delivered to chicks throughout the season for any of the seabird
species (Table 2.11). For each species there were a few years with a significant declining
proportion of herring delivered to chicks as the season progressed, but there is no pattern
among years.
Four out of six of the regressions comparing yearly and average daily overlap had
large R2 values: RAZO-ARTE (0.80), ATPU-COTE (0.61), RAZO-COTE (0.87), and
RAZO-ATPU (0.70). The comparisons of yearly and daily Arctic Terns and puffin
overlap and Arctic and Common Tern overlap had small R2 values, 0.18 and 0.00
respectively.
Discussion
This shift away from feeding chicks herring is of interest from a variety of
perspectives. The Bay of Fundy supports an Atlantic Herring fishery that has landed an
average of 113,000 tonnes of herring a year since 1990, making it a commercially
27
valuable species (Department of Fisheries and Oceans 2005). Previous research
conducted during this long-term study has shown the amount of herring delivered to
Arctic Tern chicks on MSI to predict the size of herring weir catches on nearby Grand
Manan Island two years later (Amey 1998; Amey et al. 2003).
The prey switch is also biologically interesting. The data collected from the early
years of the long term study (1995-1999) show a great deal of overlap in the type of prey
the four seabirds feed their young as all species fed primarily herring (Black et al. 2005),
which is believed to be the preferred prey item on MSI (Amey 1998). The switch gives
us the opportunity to examine how the birds respond to changes in prey availability. Our
assumption that availability of herring declines after the year 2000 is based on its
dominance of the diet of all four species before then, and the fact that it was not replaced
by any other predominant taxon afterwards.
Inter-annual Variation
We did not see the predicted decreasing trend of niche overlap throughout the ten
years as the amount of herring delivered decreased. For the first four years of the study
we saw a decrease in overlap when a decrease in herring was observed for four
comparisons - but not when comparing the two tern species with the Razorbills. These
are the only two comparisons that showed a significant decline in overlap over the ten
years, although the significance can be explained by the low amount of overlap in the
final three years of study relative to the higher overlap values at the beginning of study.
The first seven years are high but not decreasing, and the final three years are low but
relatively constant; when all years are combined there is a declining trend. It is puzzling
28
that the four interspecific comparisons that show a decrease in overlap from 1995-1998
do not show a decrease in overlap from 1995-2004. After 2001 the amount of overlap
between the four species examined is too variable to show a trend over all ten years.
The consistent pattern in all comparisons of high overlap in 1995, 1999, 2000, and
2001 is explained by the same overall prey delivered with minor variations in proportions.
In 1995 all birds fed mostly herring with small proportion of hake. The summers of 1999
and 2000 all birds fed mostly herring with some hake, euphausiids, and sandlance, while
in 2001 all birds fed mostly sandlance with some herring, hake, and euphausiids.
Although the changes in overlap between the species can be explained upon closer
examination, there are no overall trends in dietary niche overlap over the ten years.
The data do not support our prediction that the amount of dietary overlap and the
diet diversity are related. We expected that as the overlap decreased due to pressures of
food limitation, birds would be forced to respond to changes in prey availability by
feeding on what was available and that differences in foraging strategies among the birds
would become more apparent through a greater diversity in prey. However, decreasing
availability of preferred prey may also lead to a greater niche breadth and more intense
competition for fewer prey items, resulting in the birds feeding on the same prey and a
greater overlap. In sympatric hawks (Buteo spp.) a food shortage resulted in greater
overlap between species (Steenhof & Kochert 1985) and in extended studies of food
shortage overlap increased in times of extreme stress (Bell & Ford 1990). Our data did
not correspond with these studies nor with our prediction based on theoretical
frameworks, suggesting the relationship between diversity and overlap is more
complicated than expected and a different theory is needed to explain the relationship.
29
We found no trend in relationship between diet diversity and reproductive success,
but for both of the surface-feeding tern species we did see an increase in reproductive
success as diet overlap increased. We did not observe the same trend in the two species
of alcids, a trend that reflects the different life-history characteristics of the two guilds.
Both Razorbills and Atlantic Puffins lay only one egg per breeding season (Lowther et al.
2002; Hipfner & Chapdelaine 2003), and showed consistent reproductive success per egg
laid over all ten years of study. Common Terns typically lay 2-3 eggs and Arctic Terns
1-2 on MSI (Black et al. 2005), and the number of chicks fledged per nest is variable,
with both species failing in 2004. With a more variable and reactive reproductive success,
the terns show a response to changes in prey before the alcids. The fact that the terns had
a lower reproductive success in years of low overlap suggests that the birds have high
overlap in times of prey abundance, and the ample food supply results in greater
reproductive success.
Intra-annual Variation
The amount of overlap between seabirds throughout the season is extremely
variable and shows no consistent trend (Table 2.10). Although it seems logical that as
chicks increase in size and dietary demands increase the adults would select larger, more
fatty fish to feed their chicks, we found no evidence of this from our data nor from
previous literature. Our data do not support the prediction that the birds would feed
proportionally more herring as the season progressed and dietary demands increased.
With the exception of a few years, there was no relationship between Julian date and
percent herring delivered to chicks. When the data were analyzed separately by years
30
there was an increase in herring delivered as the seasons progressed for a few years for
each seabird species, but we did not see any consistent trends. We saw no pattern in
proportion of herring delivered after averaging all years. Therefore, it appears the birds
usually do not select large, more fatty fish such as herring as the season progresses.
Our comparisons of yearly overlap values with average daily values showed that
in most cases the daily overlap is very similar to our yearly values. Although this is an
intuitive relationship, it is not necessarily always true. If the birds were competing on a
daily temporal scale, the birds could feed on the same prey on different days, resulting in
high yearly overlap but no daily overlap. Interestingly, the two congeners have no
apparent relationship between daily and yearly overlap, suggesting that the two terns tend
to not feed on the same prey on the same day but feed on the same prey over the entire
summer. It would be interesting to pursue this in a more thorough investigation into the
effect of temporal scale on dietary overlap in related seabirds.
Conclusions
The amount of herring delivered to seabird chicks has decreased throughout the
ten years of this long-term study. This study did not detect trends in changing dietary
niche overlap over years and throughout this transition away from herring, so our data do
not fit theoretical models which predict changes in overlap when the availability of
preferred prey changes. Our data did not show a relationship between diet diversity and
dietary niche overlap nor did they show trends when comparing diet diversity and
productivity over years, but showed changes in reproductive success as amount of
overlap varied between the two tern species. There appears to be no trend in the amount
31
of niche overlap throughout the season and rarely a trend showing increase in herring
delivered throughout the season, also suggesting daily variations in availability may
obscure potential trends. While the decline in the common, favoured resource (herring)
might be expected to lead to decreased diet overlap between seabird species, we did not
find such a relationship suggesting complex relationships between overlap and preferred
prey in seabirds.
32
References
Abrams P (1983) The theory of limiting similarity. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 14:359-376.
Amey KD (1998) Seabirds as indicators of changes in availability and commercial weir
landings of herring. 1998. Biology Department, University of New Brunswick.
Amey KD, Diamond AW, Devlin CM (2003) The diet of Arctic Tern chicks as a
predictor of herring landings in the weir fishery, Grand Manan, New Brunswick. 2003.
Ashmole NP (1963) The regulation of numbers of tropical oceanic birds. Ibis 103b:458473.
Bell HL, Ford HA (1990) The influence of food shortage on interspecific niche overlap
and foraging behavior of three species of Australian warblers (Acanthizidae). Studies in
Avian Biology 13:381-388
Black AL, Minich LI, Diamond AW (2005) Machias Seal Island 1995-2004: progress
report. Fredericton, N.B., Atlantic Co-operative Wildlife Ecology Research Network.
Birt VL, Birt TP, Goulet D, Cairns DK (1987) Ashmole's halo: direct evidence for prey
depletion by a seabird. Marine Ecology Progress Series 20:305-256.
Cairns DK (1987) Seabirds as Indicators of Marine Food Supplies. Biological
Oceanography 5:261-271.
Cairns DK (1992) Bridging the Gap Between Ornithology and Fisheries Science - Use of
Seabird Data in Stock Assessment Models. Condor 94:811-824.
Colwell RK, Futuyma DJ (1971) On the measurement of niche breadth and overlap.
Ecology 52:567-576.
Connell JH (1975) Some mechanisms producing structure in natural communities. In:
Cody ML, Diamond JM (eds) Ecology and evolution of communities Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, Mass, pp 460-490.
Connor E, Simberloff DS (1979) The assembly of species communities: chance or
competition? Ecology 60:1132-1140.
Coulson JC (2002) Colonial breeding in seabirds. In: Schreiber EA, Burger J (eds)
Biology of Marine Birds CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 87-113.
Cushing DH (1975) Marine Ecology and Fisheries. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
33
Day RH, Prichard AK, Nugro DA (2003) Ecological specialization and overlap of
Brachyrampus Murrelets in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Auk 120:680-699.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans (2005) 4VWX Herring: Canada Science Advisory
Sector Stock Status Report 2004. 1-10.
Diamond AW (1978) Feeding strategies and population size in tropical seabirds.
American Naturalist 112:215-223.
Diamond AW (1983) Feeding overlap in some tropical and temperate seabird
communities. Studies in Avian Biology 8:24-46.
Gause GF (1934) The Struggle for Existence. Williams and Williams, Baltimore.
Gill VF, Hatch SA, Lanctot RB (2002) Sensitivity of breeding parameters to food supply
in Black-legged Kittiwakes Rissa tridactyla. Ibis 144:268-283.
Gonzales-Solis J, Oro D, Jover L, Ruiz X, Pedrocchi V (1997) Trophic niche width and
overlap of two sympatric gulls in the southwestern Mediterranean. Oecologia 112:75-80.
Grant PR, Grant BR (2006) Evolution of character displacement in Darwin's finches.
Science 313:224-226.
Hipfner JM, Chapdelaine G (2003) Razorbill (Alca torda). Poole, A. and Gill, F. (eds).
Philadelphia, PA, The Birds of North America, Inc. The Birds of North America. Poole,
A. and Gill, F.
Holt RD (1984) Spatial heterogeneity, indirect interactions, and the coexistence of prey
species. American Naturalist 124:377-406.
Korpimaki E (1987) Dietary shifts, niche relationships, and reproductive output of
coexisting Kestrels and Long-eared Owls. Oecologia 74:277-285.
Lack D (1947) Darwin's Finches. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Lawlor LR (1980) Overlap, similarity, and competition coefficients. Ecology 61:245-251.
Levin S (1970) Community equilibria and stability, and an extension of the competitive
exclusion principle. American Naturalist 104:413-423.
Levins R (1979) Coexistence in a variable environment. American Naturalist 114:765783.
Lowther PE, Diamond AW, Kress SW, Robertson GJ, Russell K (2002) Atlantic Puffin
Fratercula arctica. Poole, A. and Gill (eds), F. 709, 1-24. Philadelphia, PA, The Birds of
North America, Inc. The Birds of North America. Poole, A. and Gill, F.
34
MacArthur RH, Levins R (1964) Competition, habitat selection,and character
displacement in a patchy environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
USA 51:1207-1210.
MacArthur RH, Levins R (1967) The limiting similarity, convergence, and divergence of
coexisting species. American Naturalist 101:377-385.
MacArthur RH, Pianka ER (1966) On optimal use of a patchy environment. American
Naturalist 100:603-609.
May RM (1975) Some notes on estimating the competition matrix. Ecology 56:737-741.
Morisita M (1959) Measuring of interspecific association and similarity between
communities. Memoirs of the Faculty of Science of Kyushu University Series E Biology
3:65-80.
Mouillot D, Lepretre A (1999) A comparison of species diversity estimators. Reseachers
on Population Ecology 41:203-215.
Naeem S (1988) Resource heterogeneity fosters coexistence of a mite and midge in
pitcher plants. Ecological Monographs 58:215-227.
Orians GH, Pearson NE (1979) On the theory of central place foraging. In: Horn DJ,
Mitchell RD, Stairs GR (eds) Analysis of ecological systems Ohio State University Press,
Columbus, OH, pp 154-177.
Paine RT (1966) Food web complexity and species diversity. American Naturalist
100:65-75.
Piatt JF, Nettleship DN (1985) Diving depths of four alcids. Auk 102:293-297.
Rodel HG, Volkl W, Kilias H (2004) Winter browsing of brown hares: evidence for diet
breadth expansion. Mammalian Biology 69:410-419.
Schoener TW (1983) Field experiments on interspecific competition. American Naturalist
122:240-285.
Schulter D (2000) Ecological character displacement in adaptive radiation. American
Naturalist 156:S4-S16.
Smith EP, Zaret TM (1982) Bias in estimating niche overlap. Ecology 63:1248-1253.
Steenhof K, Kochert MN (1985) Dietary shifts of sympatric buteos during a prey decline.
Oecologia 66:6-16.
Strong DR, Szyska LA, Simberloff DS (1979) Test of community-wide character
displacement against null hypothesis. Evolution 33:897-913.
Svardson G (1949) Competition and habitat selection in birds. Oikos 1:157-174.
35
Wiens JA (1977) On competition and variable environments. American Scientist 65:590597.
Wiens JA (1989a) The ecology of bird communities Vol. 1: Foundation and patterns.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Wiens JA (1989b) The ecology of bird communities Vol. 2: Processes and variations.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
36
Table 2.03 Linear regressions of Morisita’s overlap and year between each pair of species
from 1995-1998. Significant relationships and relationships with high R 2 values in bold.
Comparisons
ATPU-RAZO
RAZO- ARTE
ARTE-COTE
ATPU-ARTE
COTE-RAZO
ATPU-COTE
R2
0.83
0.05
0.82
0.85
0.00
0.91
Slope
-0.19
0.01
-0.03
-0.14
0.00
-0.10
p
0.089
0.78
0.095
0.078
1.00
0.048
Table 2.04 Linear regressions of Morisita’s overlap and year between each pair of
species from 1995-2004. Significant relationships in bold.
Comparisons
ATPU-RAZO
RAZO- ARTE
ARTE-COTE
ATPU-ARTE
COTE-RAZO
ATPU-COTE
R2
0.003
0.54
0.21
0.04
0.54
0.001
Slope
-0.004
-0.08
-0.01
-0.01
-0.07
0.001
37
p
0.88
0.016
0.18
0.59
0.016
0.94
Table 2.05 Linear regressions between diet diversity using Simpson’s Diversity Index
and community niche overlap using Morisita’s Index from 1995-2004.
Species
ARTE
COTE
ATPU
RAZO
R2
0.02
0.19
0.12
0.27
Slope
-0.11
-0.78
0.33
-0.30
p
0.67
0.21
0.32
0.12
Table 2.06 Linear regressions of productivity (fledglings per nest) against diet diversity
using Simpson’s Diversity Index from 1995-2004.
Species
ARTE
COTE
ATPU
RAZO
R2
0.032
0.052
0.029
0.004
Slope
-0.236
-0.397
0.30
0.09
p
0.620
0.526
0.64
0.87
Table 2.07 Linear regressions of productivity (fledglings per egg) against diet diversity
using Simpson’s Diversity Index from 1995-2004.
Species
ARTE
COTE
R2
0.081
0.092
Slope
-0.359
-0.394
p
0.426
0.395
Table 2.08 Linear regressions of productivity (fledglings per nest) against community
niche overlap using Morisita’s Index from 1995-2004. Significant relationships in bold.
Species
ARTE
COTE
ATPU
RAZO
R2
0.47
0.47
0.00
0.026
Slope
0.65
2.17
-0.004
0.06
38
p
0.03
0.03
0.99
0.66
Table 2.09 Linear regressions of productivity (fledglings per egg) against community
niche overlap using Morisita’s Index from 1995-2004. Puffins and Razorbills lay one
egg, so fledglings per egg is fledglings per nest. Significant relationships in bold.
Species
ARTE
COTE
R2
0.424
0.553
Slope
0.371
1.035
p
0.042
0.014
Table 2.10 Results for linear regressions comparing the amount of dietary overlap using
Morisita’s Index between each species to species pair by Julian Date
Comparisons
ATPU-RAZO
RAZO- ARTE
ARTE-COTE
ATPU-ARTE
COTE-RAZO
ATPU-COTE
R2
0.003
0.010
0.017
0.035
0.010
0.002
Slope
-0.003
-0.007
-0.005
-0.006
-0.006
-0.002
39
p
0.649
0.435
0.244
0.060
0.473
0.652
Table 2.11 Results of linear regressions of the proportion of herring delivered to seabird
chicks against Julian date. Significant relationships as determined after Bonferroni
corrections are in bold. Relationships noted with asterisks are discussed in text, they have
a R2 of at least 0.5, indicating at least half of the variability observed is explained by
Julian date.
Species
ARTE
ARTE
***ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ATPU
ATPU
***ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
***ATPU
ATPU
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
***COTE
COTE
COTE
***COTE
RAZO
***RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
***RAZO
***RAZO
RAZO
ARTE
ATPU
COTE
RAZO
Year
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Slope
-0.001 (0.006)
0.008 (0.009)
0.036 (0.007)
0.023 (0.009)
0.009 (0.008)
0.006 (0.008)
0.011 (0.004)
0.006 (0.005)
0.003 (0.002)
0.004 (0.002)
0.011 (0.003)
0.007 (0.007)
0.029 (0.005)
-0.004 (0.011)
0.002 (0.007)
0.02 (0.005)
0.009 (0.003)
0.016 (0.005)
0.019 (0.004)
0.004 (0.003)
-0.011 (0.008)
-0.011 (0.007)
0.006 (0.008)
-0.018 (0.011)
0.009 (0.008)
0.012 (0.005)
0.025 (0.006)
0.021 (0.007)
0.018 (0.009)
0.008 (0.002)
0.001 (0.015)
0.049 (0.015)
0.001 (0.003)
0.003 (0.014)
0.014 (0.006)
0.03 (0.01)
0.014 (0.007)
0.047 (0.01)
0.044 (0.01)
-0.003 (0.007)
0.006 (0.002)
0.011 (0.002)
0.008 (0.003)
0.017 (0.003)
40
R2
0.003
0.037
0.687
0.346
0.07
0.032
0.32
0.063
0.124
0.163
0.322
0.049
0.801
0.015
0.01
0.348
0.273
0.362
0.579
0.089
0.104
0.096
0.045
0.256
0.089
0.171
0.6
0.326
0.231
0.515
0.001
0.553
0.014
0.006
0.306
0.453
0.292
0.589
0.615
0.008
0.043
0.133
0.044
0.168
p
0.819
0.354
< 0.001
0.027
0.287
0.411
0.008
0.26
0.181
0.041
0.006
0.36
< 0.001
0.72
0.735
0.002
0.013
0.002
< 0.001
0.156
0.178
0.115
0.485
0.135
0.262
0.045
0.001
0.011
0.06
0.004
0.926
0.009
0.714
0.838
0.032
0.012
0.07
0.001
0.001
0.714
0.003
< 0.001
0.006
< 0.001
% Main prey delivered
A) Arctic Tern
100
75
50
25
0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Year
B) Atlantic Puffin
% Main prey delivered
100
75
50
25
0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Year
% Main prey delivered
C) Common Tern
100
75
50
25
0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Year
% Main prey delivered
D) Razorbill
100
75
50
25
0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Year
Herring
Hake
Euphausiid
Sandlance
Fish Larvae
Figures 2.01A-D. The percentages of main prey types delivered to seabird chicks on MSI
over all years. Totals less than 100% are due to unidentified prey and rarely delivered
prey (i.e. polycheates, insects, butterfish)
41
100
Common Tern
Arctic Tern
Atlantic Puffin
Razorbill
% Herring Delivered
80
60
40
20
0
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
Year
Figure 2.02. The percent herring (by number) delivered to Common and
Arctic Tern, Atlantic Puffin, and Razorbill chicks on MSI from 1995-2004.
42
B) COTE
1.1
1.00
1.0
0.95
Morisita's Index
Morisita's Index
A) ARTE
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.4
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
Year
D) RAZO
C) ATPU
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
Morisita's Index
Morisita's Index
0.90
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.4
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
Year
Figure 2.03 (A-D) Dietary overlap for each seabird species compared with the
other three seabird species on Machias Seal Island during the breeding season from
1995 to 2004.
43
ARTE-RAZO Overlap
11
4
1.0
4
5
9
4
4
7
Morisita's Index
0.8
0.6
8
10
0.4
0.2
Daily calculations
Yearly calculations
0.0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Year
Figure 2.04 Dietary overlap between Arctic Terns and Razorbills from 1995-2004
on MSI. Continuous line shows data pooled over years, box plot represents the
daily overlap values. Sample sizes for daily calculations above each box.
44
RAZO-COTE Overlap
1.0
5
4
5
3
8
2
10
5
Morisita's Index
0.8
0.6
5
5
0.4
0.2
Daily Calculations
Yearly Calculations
0.0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Year
Figure 2.05. Dietary overlap between Razorbills and Common Terns from 19952004. Continuous line shows data pooled over years, box plot represents daily
overlap values. Sample sizes for daily calculations above each box.
45
COTE-ARTE Overlap
12
1.0
5
3
12
10
2
9
10
8
7
Morisita's Index
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Daily Calculations
Yearly Calculations
0.0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Year
Figure 2.06 Dietary overlap between Common Terns and Arctic Terns from 19952004 on MSI. Continuous line shows data pooled over years, box plot represents daily
overlap values. Sample sizes for daily calculations above each box.
46
RAZO-ATPU Overlap
1.0
3
8
10
7
6
8
11
8
4
Morisita's Index
0.8
0
0.6
0.4
0.2
Daily Calculations
Yearly Calculations
0.0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Year
Figure 2.07 Dietary overlap between Razorbills and Atlantic Puffins from 19952004 on MSI. Continuous line shows data pooled over years, box plot represents
daily overlap values. Sample sizes for daily calculations above each box.
47
ATPU-ARTE Overlap
9
11
10
3
1.0
13
11
13
10
15
4
Morisita's Index
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Daily Calculations
Yearly Calculations
0.0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Year
Figure 2.08 Dietary overlap between Atlantic Puffins and Arctic Terns from 19952004 on MSI. Continuous line shows data pooled over years, box plot represents
daily overlap values. Sample sizes for the daily calculations above each box.
48
APTU-COTE Overlap
13
10
13
10
12
10
1.0
9
Morisita's Index
0.8
0
7
3
0.6
0.4
0.2
Daily Calculations
Yearly Calculations
0.0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Year
Figure 2.09 Dietary overlap between Atlantic Puffins and Common Terns from 19952004 on MSI. Continuous line shows data pooled over years, box plot represents daily
overlap values. Sample sizes for the daily calculations above each box.
49
1.1
1.0
Morisita's Index
0.9
0.8
0.7
ARTE
ARTE regression
ATPU
ATPU regression
COTE
COTE regression
RAZO
RAZO regression
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Diet Diversity
Figure 2.10. Relationship between dietary overlap and diversity for all years
(1995-2004) for four seabird species monitored on Machias Seal Island. None of
the regressions was significant.
50
ARTE
ARTE regression
ATPU
ATPU regression
COTE
COTE regression
RAZO
RAZO regression
1.2
Fledglings per Nest
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Diet Diversity
Figure 2.11. Relationship between diet diversity and productivity (fledged
chicks per nest) for all four seabird species on MSI from 1995 to 2004. None of
the regressions was significant.
51
1.2
ARTE
ARTE regression
ATPU
ATPU regression
COTE
COTE regression
RAZO
RAZO regression
Fledglings per Nest
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
Morisita's Index
Figure 2.12. Relationship between amount of dietary overlap and the productivity
of the species as defined by average number of chicks fledged per year on
Machias Seal Island. Regressions for Arctic and Common Tern comparisons
were significant (R2= 0.47 and p=0.03 for both), puffin and Razorbill
comparisons were not (R2= 0.00, p=0.99 and R2= 0.026, p=0.66 respectively).
52
CHAPTER 3
A hazy relationship?
The effect of fog on the feeding of four species of Atlantic seabirds
Abstract
Most seabirds rely on observing other birds in foraging flocks to identify locations
where to forage. Fog is a common occurrence in the marine environment where seabirds
feed, and would hinder a seabird’s ability to locate these foraging flocks. We used ten
years of weather data and chick feeding data from four species of seabirds on Machias
Seal Island, NB, to test whether fog affects the feeding rates of seabirds and the types of
prey adults deliver to chicks. We conducted block ANOVAs with year as the blocking
variable to test our prediction that fog would reduce feeding rates and increase the species
richness of prey delivered to chicks as adults feed whatever prey they encounter. Block
MANOVAs were performed to investigate whether birds feed fewer schooling fish on
foggy days. We did not find fog to have an effect on feeding rates or on types of prey
delivered for three out of four species. We did not have sufficient power to test our
hypotheses regarding feeding rates and suggest fog be monitored on foraging grounds to
concretely test these questions regarding the effect of fog on foraging.
Introduction
Seabirds are visual predators that depend largely on eyesight to locate both
individual prey items and foraging flocks where prey schools are concentrated (Shealer
2002). Although olfactory senses can play a role in prey location by some seabirds, this
has been established only for birds in the order Procellariiformes (Verheyden &
53
Jouventin 1994; Nevitt et al. 2004). Thus, seabirds in other orders (Charadriiformes and
Pelecaniiformes) must rely entirely on vision to locate forage grounds.
Seabirds forage mainly in flocks (Hoffman et al. 1981; Duffy 1983; Shealer 2002);
these flocks are thought to be imperative in foraging for many species as they feed on
mobile schooling fish such as herring, sandlance, and capelin, often referred to as forage
fish (Payne et al. 1999). The importance of social facilitation in finding food has been
documented across taxa (see reviews Giraldeau & Beauchamp 1999; Galef & Giraldeau
2001) and specifically in the pelagic environment (Ryer & Olla 1992). Since birds do not
search in groups for foraging flocks, it is believed that individual birds rely on seeing
other birds foraging as a cue on where to locate prey from a distance (Haney et al. 1992).
Foggy conditions can greatly limit visibility, therefore reducing the ability of
birds to locate other foraging birds from a distance. However, fog is a common
occurrence where cold ocean waters coincide with warm, moist air. Therefore, it is often
encountered by many seabird species when foraging during the breeding season in
temperate and polar areas. If seabirds indeed rely on visual cues to locate feeding flocks,
and therefore forage fish, the fog should inhibit foraging success of the birds.
Specifically, we would expect to see a decrease in chick feeding rates in terms of both
frequency and mass of prey in foggy conditions. As the seabirds could no longer depend
on sighting foraging flocks feeding on schooling fish in foggy conditions, we also expect
to see fewer forage fish such as herring and sandlance in chick diets on foggy days.
Despite the fact that fog would be encountered regularly by seabirds and likely
affects foraging, the issue is rarely addressed in scientific studies. Fog conditions are
often recorded in weather observations, but then not analyzed and compared to diet or
54
feeding rates. Studies of predatory birds note that fog likely inhibits the ability to locate
prey (Herzog 1996) but do not cite data or other studies. It remains unclear if the lack of
studies that directly focus on fog and the feeding of birds is due to the fact that fog was
found to be insignificant and not mentioned, if fog itself is too variable and ephemeral to
measure, or if fog is too difficult to tease apart from other variables such as temperature.
Fog is a weather phenomenon with multiple dimensions, thus we see no need to try to
separate fog from related variables like temperatures.
The only studies we found that address affects of fog on bird feeding were
conducted in the foggy Bay of Fundy region. One is a study of Herring Gull, Larus
argentatus, that coincidentally was conducted during a severe (two-week) fog event
(Hebert 1987). The study documented decreased chick survivorship during this fog event
and incidentally documented that fewer forage fish appeared in chick diets on foggy days
than on clear days, while more euphausiid shrimp were fed on foggy days (Hebert 1987).
In the other study, Amey (1998) found weather affected the feeding frequency of surfacefeeding terns more than pursuit-diving alcids. The study focused on four species of
seabird and found fog reduced the feeding rates of Arctic Terns, Sterna paradisaea. This
study considered only two summers, one of which was considerably foggier than the
other. We have continued collecting data at the same site as Amey since 1995, and now
have ten years of seabird feeding and fog data to address our questions about the effects
of fog on feeding seabirds.
The Bay of Fundy is frequently foggy in summer, especially when southerly
winds bring warm moist air from the Gulf of Maine over the cold waters of the Bay of
Fundy, dropping the air temperature below the dewpoint and creating fog. Machias Seal
55
Island (MSI) is located in the mouth of the Bay of Fundy and is home to thousands of
several species of breeding seabirds, including Atlantic Puffins (Fratercula arctica),
Razorbills (Alca torda), Common Terns (Sterna hirundo), and Arctic Terns. Over the
past ten years researchers on MSI have monitored the feeding of breeding seabirds on the
island and aspects of island weather, including fog. Machias Seal Island and surrounding
areas are characterized by frequent bouts of fog, with an average of 45 clear days from
mid-May to mid-August (Black et al. 2005). On other days, the island and surrounding
waters are shrouded in a dense fog at least half the day.
The four focal species of the study are in the order Charadriiformes. Arctic and
Common Terns forage while flying above the water’s surface and dip into the water,
plucking items out of the top few centimetres of the water column. Razorbill and
Atlantic Puffins forage by diving into the water and swimming in the water column,
actively pursuing their prey; thus, fog does not hinder them when chasing prey. However,
all four species would encounter fog while searching for foraging flocks when trying to
locate prey.
We are interested in testing the hypothesis that fog condition will affect prey
delivery rates to seabird chicks. We predict that the mass of prey delivered per hour and
the feeding frequency will decrease on foggy days. We expect that the difference will be
more pronounced in the surface-feeding terns than the pursuit-diving alcids.
We also will investigate if the prey types delivered on foggy and clear days differ.
We expect to see fewer schooling fish (herring, hake, and sandlance) and more
invertebrates (euphausiid shrimp) in chick diets on foggy days. The number of different
56
kinds of prey types delivered should also increase on foggy days as adults feed on any
prey they encounter.
Methods
Study Site
The data were all collected on Machias Seal Island (MSI), New Brunswick, a 9.5
hectare island located at the mouth of the Bay of Fundy (44 o05’N, 67o01’W). Refer to
Chapter 2 for site details.
Feeding Data
All feeding data were collected by observers in semi-permanent blinds that
overlook defined plot areas. To maintain consistency between years, plots are in the
same locations, veteran observers train new researchers, and the data collection protocol
has been the same since the project started in 1995. Every tern feeding observation is
tied to a specific nest, but many alcid burrows frequently have the same entrance, so each
alcid feeding is connected with the delineated plot area rather than a nest. As it is not
always feasible to differentiate between prey species through observation, the observer
identifies the prey to the lowest possible taxon and we refer to the “prey type” delivered
(e.g. polychaete). In addition to recording prey types, the observer estimates prey length
relative to the bird’s culmen and number of prey items in bill.
Prey Collections
Prey items are collected opportunistically on the island throughout the breeding
season for nutrient analysis and to estimate prey mass based on length. Prey samples are
collected only if not dried out, and are weighed, measured, and frozen for further analysis.
57
We conducted regressions of mass of prey on length of prey cubed in order to produce an
equation for each prey type that approximates mass of delivered prey based on estimated
length (Appendix IV).
Weather Data
All weather data are recorded daily at 0900 and 2100. Overall condition (e.g.,
foggy, clear) is recorded, as well as distance of visibility. “Fog” is quantified by
visibility of landmarks at a known distance; if the observer could not see 2.5 km or more,
the conditions were considered foggy. Fog conditions can vary within minutes, but
frequently the island is characterized by stretches of entire days with thick fog, followed
by days of clear visibility. A difficulty in quantifying fog is its ephemeral nature; within
one hour fog can come in, vanish, and reappear. To attempt to simplify this complexity,
for all fog analysis we grouped observations by day and included only days where both
morning and evening observations were the same (foggy or clear). We feel this is a
robust way to measure fog since although it is transient, if the morning and evening
conditions are both foggy or clear then that typically indicates the fog condition for the
entire day.
Feeding Rates
We examined feeding rates of seabirds to chicks in terms of both frequencies and
mass. Feeding frequency (number of feed deliveries per unit time) is an indicator of time
spent foraging; however, if birds are feeding on rafts of euphausiids near the island and
frequently delivering small amounts of prey to chicks it can appear that the birds are
finding sufficient prey, but the mass of prey delivered to chicks can be very small. Thus,
58
mass of prey delivered to chicks per hour offers another basic estimate of foraging
success.
Mass estimates were calculated from regressions based on the collected prey
items using prey length estimated by the feeding observer. We calculated for terns the
number of feeds and mass per nest per hour, while the alcid rates are based on the number
of feeds and mass per plot area per hour.
We know feeding varies by year on MSI (Amey 1998, Chapter 2) and here are
interested solely in effects of fog condition. Thus, to compare the means of feeding rates
and mass rates with fog condition (clear or foggy) we conducted a randomized block
design analysis of variance (ANOVA) with year as our blocking variable. We conducted
the following power analyses (Zar 1999) where  is the power of the test for the fog
condition factor, k is the number of levels of the fog condition factor (k = 2 because the
levels are foggy and clear), and  is minimum detectable difference, which we considered
a 20% difference:
__
 =  n 2
2k s2
Prey Types
We calculated the percent of the main prey types (herring, hake, euphausiids and
sandlance) delivered to seabird chicks on foggy and clear days for each species of seabird.
To test for a difference in prey types delivered on clear and foggy days, we conducted a
blocked multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) for each seabird species with the
proportion of four prey types as dependent variables, fog condition (clear or foggy) as the
independent variable, and year as the block. To find subsequently which prey types are
59
affected by fog condition we examine the univariate analysis of variances for each prey
type.
We used species richness as an indication on diet diversity as we were interested
in absolute number of species delivered, not the evenness of prey types delivered. To
investigate how the number of prey types varies in fog condition we compared the
species richness of items delivered on foggy and clear days using block ANOVAs with
year as the block and conducted post-test power analyses.
Results
Over the past ten years we conducted feeding watches on 150, 126,138, and 105
days that were either fully clear or fully foggy for Arctic Terns, Common Terns, Atlantic
Puffins, and Razorbills, respectively. For every seabird species observed we had at least
two feeding watches per year on both foggy and clear days, except for Arctic Terns in
1999 where no feeding watches were conducted in fog. Razorbills were observed feeding
euphausiids to their young only twice over all ten years; therefore euphausiids were not
included in the prey type analysis for Razorbills.
Feeding Rates
The ANOVAs examining feeding rate did not show a significant relationship
between fog and frequency of feedings (Tables 3.01A-D; Fig. 3.01 A-B). For all four
species there was a significant difference in feeding frequencies over our blocking
variable of year (Tables 3.01A-D), as had been expected.
The block ANOVAs did not reveal fog as a significant variable that affects the
rate of prey mass delivered to seabird chicks for any of the four species (Tables 3.02A-D;
60
Fig. 3.02 A-B). Again, the blocking variable, year, was significant in explaining mass
rate variability (Tables 3.02A-D).
For all ANOVAs comparing both rates of mass delivered and feeding frequency
we had a power under 0.65, but our feeding rate analyses had a collective power at 0.937
and our mass rate analyses had a collective power of 0.76. (Tables 3.01A-D).
Prey Types
The MANOVAS revealed a significant relationship between fog condition and the
types of prey delivered to chicks for Razorbills, (Tables 3.03; Figs 3.03, 3.06) but no
consistent relationship for Arctic Terns, Common Terns, or for Atlantic Puffins (Tables
3.03; Figs. 3.04, 3.05). Year was a significant factor in the MANOVAs for all four
species of seabird (p <0.001) (Tables 3.03). Herring is the only prey type for which there
is a significant relationship between fog and prey type for Razorbills, with birds feeding
significantly less herring on foggy than clear days (Tables 3.04, Figs 3.03, 3.06). We
found a significant interaction between year and fog for both tern species, indicating
prey varied with fog in some years but not others.
Common Terns delivered significantly more species of prey on foggy days than
clear days (Table 3.05; Fig.3.07). We did not detect a difference in species richness of
prey delivered to seabird chicks on foggy and clear days for Arctic Terns, Atlantic
Puffins, or Razorbills (Table 3.05; Fig.3.07). For all species taken together, our results
show no significant difference in species richness among years and we had sufficient
power to test for a relationship between fog and species richness.
Discussion
61
Feeding Rates
Seabirds are visual predators and fog should inhibit their ability to detect prey
patches from a distance. However, our data do not offer empirical support for our
predictions on fog affecting the rates at which seabirds feed their chicks. Fog was
unrelated to feeding frequencies or rates of mass delivered to seabird chicks for any of
the four species, implying that the birds might spend the same amount of time foraging
for prey on foggy and clear days and may have similar success rates in foraging on foggy
and clear days. This suggests that the seabirds are able to find prey effectively despite
the presence of fog, or more likely that we could not detect an effect of fog on feeding.
Contrary to our prediction and previous work, we saw no difference in feeding
rates between the two foraging guilds in relation to fog conditions. Amey (1998) found
fog hinders feeding frequencies of Arctic Terns. We did not find fog to have a significant
effect on the feeding rates of any of our seabird species.
Some seabirds can be site-faithful to foraging areas; individual kittiwakes (Rissa
tridactyla) were found to often visit the same foraging site on different foraging trips
(Irons 1998) and other studies have indicated that seabirds including Common Terns may
search for food partially based on memory (Becker et al. 1993; Davoren et al. 2003). If
seabirds rely on memory to locate the general area of reliable foraging sites, perhaps fog
would not hinder their ability to locate prey.
Variation in feeding frequencies and mass rates among years was significant for
all species, as we expected based on previous work (e.g., Burger & Piatt 1990; Bryant et
al. 1999; Weimerskirch et al. 2001). Feeding rates have been linked to a variety of
factors; notably Cairns (1987) theorized that in times of low food supply the percent of
62
time foraging by seabirds would increase. Previous work on Arctic Terns on MSI
(Paquet 2001) and other studies (Bryant et al. 1999) did not support this prediction.
Other work on seabirds have shown a relationship between time spent foraging and food
supply (Burger & Piatt 1990; Zador & Piatt 1999; Weimerskirch et al. 2001; Litzow &
Piatt 2003); however most of these studies have found that adults use loafing time as a
buffer and provisioning rates are constant (Burger & Piatt 1990; Zador & Piatt 1999;
Litzow & Piatt 2003). A similar time-budgeting mechanism may be at work while in
foggy conditions. Seabirds may be spending more time looking for food but resting less,
resulting in the same provisioning rates despite fog condition.
It is possible that we are unable to detect an effect of fog on feeding rates because
our measures of fog were inaccurate. Fog is ephemeral, and even within a 3- hour
feeding watch the fog conditions can change. Although if fog conditions in the morning
and evening are the same it usually represents the fog condition for the entire day; this is
not always the case. Our measures of fog may also not represent the fog condition at the
foraging grounds where the birds search for prey; fog conditions on MSI may differ from
conditions on the ocean. The fog data we collect on the island represent fog conditions
for the foraging birds to the best of our ability, and we believe that they are accurate on
the whole, however further studies addressing fog conditions at sea and on island would
strengthen our results.
We did not have a power of .80 or greater for any of our individual comparisons
of feeding frequency or mass rates, so we may have accepted the null hypothesis when
the alternative hypothesis is true. However, our F-ratios are very small and the
differences observed were so small that it would take an extraordinary amount of
63
additional data to observe a significant relationship. Rather than simply increasing the
sample size, we recommend altering the study design for greater power. This could be
accomplished by recording the fog condition during each feeding watch or ideally by
knowing the fog condition on the foraging grounds where the birds are foraging.
Prey Types
Previous work on a nearby island has shown a relationship between prey types
delivered to seabird chicks and fog conditions (Hebert 1987), while one out of our four
study species, the Razorbill, showed a significant difference in prey types delivered on
clear and foggy days.
During the early years of this long-term study, Amey (1998) found no difference
in proportion of herring delivered on foggy and clear days by any of the four species.
The proportion of herring delivered was significantly different for Razorbills, which fed
more herring to chicks on clear days. This supports our prediction that the birds have
difficulty locating foraging flocks on schooling fish in foggy weather. However, we saw
no significant trend in fog effect by foraging guild as the foraging guilds were not
consistent among themselves.
Razorbills can dive deeper than Atlantic Puffins (Lowther et al. 2002; Hipfner &
Chapdelaine 2003) and therefore have a greater access to prey in the water column than
the other pursuit-diving species and two surface-feeding species examined in this study.
Over the past ten years we have seen a decline in one of the preferred prey items on the
island, herring (Amey 1998), delivered to seabird chicks on MSI; but Razorbills are still
finding and delivering more herring to their chicks than the other focal species (Black et
al. 2005). Given the Razorbill’s relative success at finding herring while the seabirds on
64
MSI feed less herring, it is interesting that Razorbills appear to be most susceptible to fog
in terms of prey types delivered to chicks (Fig 3.06).
The blocking variable, year, was a significant factor in describing the variability
in proportion of main prey types delivered for all four species. Many previous studies
have shown variation in seabird diets over years (Safina et al. 1988; Hall et al. 2000;
Rindorf et al. 2000; Deguchi et al. 2004), and as the ocean environment is dynamic it is
not surprising that seabirds would deliver different prey items in different breeding
seasons.
The Common Tern was the only of four species that fed significantly different
number of prey types on clear and foggy days, and contrary to our predictions they fed a
greater variety of prey types on clear days. We expected fog to hinder seabird’s ability to
locate preferred forage fish on foggy days, and thus to be less selective when delivering
prey when foggy. It is puzzling that only one species fed different species richness of
prey on foggy and clear days; it is possible that our results was a type I error. Fig. 3.07
shows all years pooled and there appears to be no difference between richness on foggy
and clear days, as the trend is only observed when year is a factor. As with the feeding
rates, the other comparisons show so little difference in species richness on foggy and
clear days that additional data would be of minimal use.
Conclusions
Our results did not support our predictions that we would see a difference in the
feeding rates of seabirds on clear and foggy days. Thus, we saw no difference in feeding
response to fog in the two foraging guilds we studied.
65
It remains unclear if we did not find an effect of fog on seabird feeding rates
because we simply could not detect the difference or if there is no difference in feeding
rates on foggy and clear days. A variety of factors may influence the bird’s ability to
deliver prey consistently in all fog conditions, as seabirds may not rely as much as we
think on visual location of flocks to forage or may have flexible time-budgets. Seabirds
may also have a memory bank of reliable foraging sites and know locations despite fog.
It also is possible that our fog measurements may not represent fog conditions on
foraging grounds. Despite having ten years of data we were not able to have sufficient
power to answer our questions regarding feeding rates, which may have led us to fail to
reject the null hypothesis when in fact there is a difference in prey delivery rates on foggy
and clear days.
Razorbills showed a response to fog by feeding different proportions of the main
prey types on foggy and clear days, while our other seabirds demonstrated no response to
fog by delivering different prey. Razorbills fed less herring on foggy days, supporting
our prediction that birds would feed less schooling fish in the fog. Contrary to our
predictions, we saw no trends between foraging guilds in terms of feeding response to fog.
The Common Tern was the only species to feed significantly different species richness of
prey on clear and foggy days, and opposite to our predictions they fed a greater variety of
species to seabird chicks on clear days.
The results of this study leave us with many questions about the nature of seabird
foraging and the predator response to poor visibility. Current studies on Machias Seal
Island radio-tracking the two tern species and Razorbills should clarify some of our
questions. We did not have a high power in many of our analyses, suggesting we have
66
made a type II error. Given the very small F-ratios we believe that this study design
would be improved by different methods rather than increased sample sizes. More
intensive sampling of fog conditions during seabird feedings and knowledge of fog
conditions at the foraging grounds are needed to test the effect of fog on seabird foraging.
67
References
Amey KD (1998) Seabirds as indicators of changes in availability and commercial weir
landings of herring. Biology Department, University of New Brunswick.
Becker PH, Frank D, Sudmann SR (1993) Temporal and spatial pattern of common tern
Sterna hirundo foraging in the Wadden Sea. Oecologia 93:389-393.
Black AL, Minich LI, Diamond AW (2005) Machias Seal Island 1995-2004: progress
report. Fredericton, N.B., Atlantic Co-operative Wildlife Ecology Research Network.
Bryant R, Jones IL, Hipfner JM (1999) Responses to changes in prey availability by
Common Murres and Thick-billed Murres at the Gannet Islands, Labrador. Canadian
Journal of Zoology 77:1278-1287.
Burger AE, Piatt JF (1990) Flexible time budgets in breeding Common Murres: buffers
against variable prey abundance. Studies in Avian Biology 14:71-83.
Cairns DK (1987) Seabirds as Indicators of Marine Food Supplies. Biological
Oceanography 5:261-271.
Davoren GK, Montecchi WA, Anderson JT (2003) Search strategies of a pursuit-diving
marine bird and the persistence of prey patches. Ecological Monographs 73:463-481.
Deguchi T, Watanuki Y, Niizuma Y, Nakata A (2004) Interannual variations of the
occurrence of epipelagic fish in the diets of the seabirds breeding on Teuri Island,
northern Hokkaido, Japan. Progress In Oceanography 61:267-275.
Duffy DC (1983) The foraging ecology of Peruvian seabirds. Auk 100:800-810.
Galef BG, Giraldeau L-A (2001) Social influences on foraging in vertebrates: causal
mechanisms and adaptive functions. Animal Behaviour 61:15.
Giraldeau L-A, Beauchamp G (1999) Food exploitation: searching for the optimal joining
policy. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14:102-107.
Hall CS, Kress SW, Griffin CR (2000) Composition, Spatial, and Temporal Variation of
Common and Arctic Tern Chick Diets in the Gulf of Maine. Waterbirds 23:430-439.
Haney JC, Fristup KM, Lee DS (1992) Geometry of visual recruitment by seabirds to
ephemeral foraging flocks. Ornis Scandinavica 23:49-62.
68
Hebert PN (1987) The effect of fog on Herring Gull (Larus argentatus) chick
survivorship and parental foraging patterns. Colonial Waterbirds 10:103-105.
Herzog SK (1996) Wintering Swainson's Hawks in California's Sacramento-San Joaquin
River Delta. The Condor 98:876-879.
Hipfner JM, Chapdelaine G (2003) Razorbill (Alca torda). Poole, A. and Gill, F. (eds).
Birds of North America Series. The Birds of North America, Inc. Philadelphia, PA.
Hoffman W, Wiens JA, Heineman D (1981) The ecology of seabird feeding flocks in
Alaska. Auk 98:437-456.
Irons DB (1998) Foraging area fidelity of individual seabirds in relation to tidal cycles
and flock feeding. Ecology 79:647-655.
Litzow MA, Piatt JF (2003) Variance in prey abundance influences time budgets of
breeding seabirds: evidence from Pigeon Guillemots Cepphus columba. Journal of Avian
Biology 34:54-64.
Lowther PE, Diamond AW, Kress SW, Robertson GJ, Russell K (2002) Atlantic Puffin
Fratercula arctica. Poole, A. and Gill, F (eds) Birds of North America Series. The Birds
of North America, Inc. Philadelphia, PA.
Nevitt GA, Reid K, Trathan P (2004) Testing olfactory foraging strategies in an Antarctic
seabird assemblage. The Journal of Experimental Biology 207:3537-3544.
Paquet J (2001) Time-budget flexibility of breeding Arctic Terns (Sterna paradisaea): an
investigation of the behavioural buffer. Biology Department, University of New
Brunswick.
Payne SA, Johnson BA, Otto RS (1999) Proximate composition of some north-eastern
Pacific forage fish species. Fisheries Oceanography 8:159-177.
Rindorf A, Wanless S, Harris MP (2000) Effects of changes in sandeel availability on the
reproductive output of seabirds. Marine Ecology Progress Series 202:241-252.
Ryer CH, Olla B (1992) Social mechanisms facilitating exploitation of spatially variable
ephemeral food patches in a pelagic marine fish. Animal Behaviour 44:67-74.
Safina C, Burger J, Gochfeld M, Wagner RH (1988) Evidence for prey limitation of
Common and Roseate Tern production. Condor 90:852-859.
Shealer DA (2002) Foraging behavior and food of seabirds. In: Schreiber EA, Burger J
(eds) Biology of Marine Birds CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 137-177.
69
Verheyden C, Jouventin P (1994) Olfactory behavior of foraging Procellariiforms. The
Auk 111:285-291.
Weimerskirch H, Zimmermann L, Prince PA (2001) Influence of environmental
variability on breeding effort in a long-lived seabird, the yellow-nosed albatross.
Behavioral Ecology 12:22-30.
Zador SG, Piatt JF (1999) Time budgets of Common Murres at a declining and increasing
colony in Alaska. Condor 101:149-152.
Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical Analysis 4th Edition. Prentice Hall Inc. Upper Saddle River,
NJ.
70
Tables 3.01 A-D Block ANOVA results for feeding frequencies of prey delivered to
seabird chicks on clear and foggy days with year as the blocking variable. Significant
relationships in bold.
Feeding Rates
A) ARTE:
N: 141 R2: 0.232
Source
Fog
Year
Year*Fog interaction
Sum-of-Squares
0.394
104.161
25.390
df
1
8
8
Mean-Square
0.394
13.020
3.174
F-ratio
0.124
4.007
0.977
P
Power
0.734 0.30
0.000
0.457
B) COTE:
N: 136 R2: 0.214
Source
Fog
Year
Year*Fog interaction
Sum-of-Squares
1.295
18.328
5.194
df
1
9
9
Mean-Square
1.295
2.036
0.577
F-ratio
2.048
2.340
0.663
P
Power
0.168 0.63
0.018
0.741
C) ATPU:
N: 140 R2: 0.235
Source
Fog
Year
Year*Fog interaction
Sum-of-Squares
4.052
598.662
290.018
df
1
9
9
Mean-Square
4.052
66.518
32.224
F-ratio
0.126
2.011
0.974
P
Power
0.731 0.52
0.044
0.465
D) RAZO:
N: 106 R2: 0.261
Source
Fog
Year
Year*Fog interaction
Sum-of-Squares
0.626
115.449
54.619
df
1
9
9
Mean-Square
0.626
12.828
6.069
F-ratio
0.103
1.968
0.931
P
Power
0.755 0.50
0.053
0.503
71
Tables 3.02 A-D Block ANOVA results for feeding rates of mass of prey delivered per
hour to seabird chicks on clear and foggy days with year as the blocking variable.
Significant relationships in bold.
Mass Rates
A) ARTE:
N: 161 R2: 0.216
Source
Fog
Year
Year*Fog interaction
Sum-of-Squares df Mean-Square
0.305
0.305
30.699
8 3.837
1.601
8 0.200
F-ratio
1.525
4.098
0.214
P
Power
0.252 0.30
0.000
0.988
B) COTE:
N: 151 R2: 0.208
Source
Fog
Year
Year*Fog interaction
Sum-of-Squares
8.158
48.019
39.060
df
1
9
9
Mean-Square
8.158
5.335
4.340
F-ratio
1.88
1.310
1.066
P
Power
0.204 0.30
0.238
0.392
C) ATPU:
N: 141 R2: 0.465
Source
Fog
Year
Year*Fog interaction
Sum-of-Squares
5752.292
217257.040
60872.554
df
1
9
9
Mean-Square
5752.292
24139.671
6763.617
F-ratio
0.850
3.380
0.947
P
Power
0.380 0.31
0.001
0.488
D) RAZO:
N: 108 R2: 0.431
Source
Fog
Year
Year*Fog interaction
Sum-of-Squares
46.888
101217.224
25707.871
df
1
9
9
Mean-Square
46.888
11246.358
2856.430
F-ratio
0.016
3.598
0.914
P
Power
0.901 0.30
0.001
0.517
72
Tables 3.03 A-D Block MANOVA results of proportion of euphausiids, hake herring,
and sandlance delivered to seabird chicks on foggy and clear days with year as the
blocking variable. Razorbills rarely feed euphausiids, so only hake, herring and
sandlance are included in the analysis for Razorbills. Significant relationships in bold.
A) ARTE:
Effect
Fog
Year
Year*Fog interaction
Pillai Trace
0.073
1.735
0.380
F-Statistic
2.202
11.008
1.511
df
4, 112
32, 460
32, 460
B) COTE:
Effect
Fog
Year
Year*Fog interaction
Pillai Trace
0.025
1.851
0.510
F-Statistic
0.652
10.142
1.720
df
4, 103
36, 424
36, 424
P
0.627
0.000
0.007
C) ATPU:
Effect
Fog
Year
Fog*Year interaction
Pillai Trace
0.012
1.829
0.153
F-Statistic
0.351
11.049
0.522
df
4, 115
36, 472
36, 472
P
0.843
0.000
0.991
D) RAZO:
Effect
Fog
Year
Year*Fog interaction
Pillai Trace
0.109
1.063
0.285
F-Statistic
3.381
5.183
0.993
df
3, 83
27, 255
27, 255
P
0.022
0.000
0.479
73
P
0.073
0.000
0.039
Tables 3.04 A-D Results from univariate ANOVAs for proportion of main prey types
delivered to seabird chicks on foggy and clear days. Significant relationships in bold.
A) ARTE:
Effect
Euphausiids
Hake
Herring
Sandlance
SS
0.004
0.003
0.168
0.023
df
1, 115
1, 115
1, 115
1, 115
MS
0.004
0.003
0.168
0.023
F
0.108
0.090
3.077
2.006
P
0.743
0.765
0.082
0.159
B) COTE:
Effect
Euphausiids
Hake
Herring
Sandlance
SS
0.008
0.048
0.006
0.016
df
1, 106
1, 106
1, 106
1, 106
MS
0.008
0.048
0.006
0.016
F
0.285
0.731
0.323
1.853
P
0.594
0.394
0.571
0.176
P
0.908
0.333
0.858
0.539
C) ATPU:
Effect
Euphausiids
Hake
Herring
Sandlance
SS
0.000
0.029
0.002
0.006
df
1, 118
1, 118
1, 118
1, 118
MS
0.000
0.029
0.002
0.006
F
0.014
0.946
0.032
0.379
D) RAZO:
Effect
Hake
Herring
Sandlance
SS
0.058
0.614
0.046
df
1, 85
1, 85
1, 85
MS
0.058
0.614
0.046
F
1.597
8.931
2.676
74
P
0.210
0.004
0.106
Tables 3.05 A-D. Results for the block ANOVAs examining species richness on clear
and foggy days with year as the blocking variable. Significant relationships in bold.
A) ARTE:
N: 135 R2: 0.178
Source
Fog
Year
Year*Fog
interaction
B) COTE:
N: 126 R2: 0.480
Source
Fog
Year
Year*Fog
interaction
C) ATPU:
N: 134 R2: 0.378
Source
Fog
Year
Year*Fog
interaction
D) RAZO:
N: 88 R2: 0.409
Source
Fog
Year
Year*Fog
interaction
Sum-ofSquares
0.002
32.759
11.670
df
Sum-ofSquares
10.637
161.740
16.792
df
Sum-ofSquares
1.111
160.709
32.690
df
Sum-ofSquares
0.015
55.573
12.829
1
8
8
1
9
9
1
9
9
df
MeanSquare
0.002
4.095
1.459
F-ratio
P
Power
0.001
2.836
1.010
0.971
0.007
0.433
0.984
MeanSquare
10.637
17.971
1.866
F-ratio
P
Power
5.700
9.069
0.942
0.041
0.000
0.493
0.975
MeanSquare
1.111
17.857
3.632
F-ratio
P
Power
0.306
6.839
1.391
0.594
0.000
0.200
0.967
P
Power
0.921
0.000
0.521
0.86
MeanSquare
0.015
6.175
1.425
1
9
9
75
Fratio
0.011
3.948
0.911
A) Alcids
30
Feeds per plot per hour
ATPU
RAZO
63
25
77
20
40
15
66
10
5
0
Clear-ATPU
Foggy-ATPU
Clear-RAZO
Foggy-RAZO
B) Terns
12
87
72
ARTE
COTE
Feeds per Nest per hour
10
8
84
6
52
4
2
0
Clear-ARTE
Foggy-ARTE
Clear-COTE
Foggy-COTE
Figure 3. 01 A-B Frequency of prey deliveries to seabird chicks on MSI on foggy
and clear days from 1995-2004. Sample sizes are noted above each box plot.
76
A) Alcids
500
78
ATPU
RAZO
Mass Prey per Plot per Hour
400
63
68
300
40
200
100
0
Clear-ATPU
Foggy-ATPU
Clear-RAZO
Foggy-RAZO
B) Terns
14
92
59
Mass per nest per hour
12
ARTE
COTE
10
8
101
83
6
4
2
0
Clear-ARTE
Foggy-ARTE
Clear-COTE
Foggy-COTE
Figure 3. 02 A-B Mass of prey delivered to seabird chicks on MSI on foggy
and clear days from 1995-2004. Sample sizes are noted above each box plot.
77
1.2
Proportion of Prey Delivered
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
r
r
r
gy
gy
gy
gy
ea
lea
lea
og
og
og
og
C
Cl
C
F
F
F
F
e
egece
d
ng
sak
ak
rri
nc
sii
rin
iid
an
H
r
l
a
e
u
s
H
l
e
d
a
H
n
H
au
nd
ph
Sa
ph
Sa
u
Eu
E
r
lea
C
s
Figure 3.03 Proportion of main prey types delivered to Arctic Tern chicks on foggy and
clear days on MSI from 1995-2004.
78
1.8
Proportion of Prey Delivered
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
r
r
r
r
gy
gy
gy
gy
lea
lea
lea
lea
og
og
og
og
C
C
C
C
F
F
F
F
e
egeds
ce
ng
sak
ak
nc
rri
sii
rin
ii d
an
H
r
l
e
a
u
s
H
l
e
d
a
H
n
H
au
nd
ph
Sa
ph
Sa
u
Eu
E
Figure 3.04 Proportion of main prey types delivered to Common Tern chicks on foggy and
clear days on MSI from 1995-2004.
79
1.2
Proportion of Prey Delivered
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
r
lea
C
s-
iid
E
us
ha
p
u
E
ds
sii
u
ha
up
-
y
gg
Fo
k
Ha
r
lea
C
e-
Ha
y
gg
Fo
ke
r
r
y
y
gg
gg
lea
lea
o
C
C
F
Fo
g
e
n
ce
ng
nc
rri
rri
lan
dla
He
d
n
He
n
Sa
Sa
Figure 3.05 Proportion of main prey types delivered to Atlantic Puffin chicks on foggy and
clear days on MSI from 1995-2004.
80
1.2
Proportion of Prey Delivered
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
r
ea
Cl
e
k
Ha
gy
og
F
ke
Ha
r
r
gy
gy
ea
lea
og
og
Cl
C
F
F
e
geng
nc
rri
nc
rin
a
r
l
a
e
l
H
nd
He
nd
Sa
Sa
Figure 3.06 Proportion of main prey types delivered to Razorbill chicks on foggy and
clear days on MSI from 1995-2004.
81
12
10
59
ARTE
COTE
ATPU
RAZO
77
49
72
Richness
8
75
55
33
63
6
4
2
0
E
E
E
E
U
U
O
O
RT
TP
RT
TP
OT
AZ
OT
AZ
A
A
A
A
C
R
C
R
rrrryyyyea
ea
gg
gg
lea
gg
gg
lea
o
o
o
Cl
C
Cl
C
Fo
F
F
F
Figure 3. 07 Species richness of prey delivered to seabird chicks on MSI on foggy
and clear days from 1995-2004. Sample sizes are noted above each box plot.
82
CHAPTER 4
Synthesis of results and conclusions
Acquiring energy is essential for all life, and limitations on food are believed to
restrict the number of offspring birds can produce, thus limiting avian populations (Lack
1947; Martin 1987). Seabirds are theorized to be restricted in numbers by prey, and
empirical studies have supported this theory, particularly in the breeding season when
birds are constrained to foraging near the nest (Ashmole 1963; Ashmole & Ashmole
1967; A.W. Diamond 1978; Safina et al. 1988; Weimerskirch et al. 2001; Oro et al. 2003).
Given the importance of food to seabird populations, it is critical we have a
thorough understanding of the relationship seabirds have with their prey: what they feed
on and what affects feeding. We must understand how seabirds interact with other
seabirds in terms of prey and in times of food stress, and how environmental conditions
affect foraging. I used long-term data collected on MSI to address our questions
regarding seabird feeding to learn more about the complex relationships seabirds have
with each other and their environment.
There has been a significant decline in the proportion of herring delivered to
Arctic Tern, Common Tern, Atlantic Puffin, and Razorbill chicks on Machias Seal Island
from 1995 to 2004. From 1995-2001 over half of all prey delivered to chicks consisted
of juvenile fish for all four species of seabird. Previous work has shown the importance
of herring in the diets of seabirds on MSI (Amey 1998; Diamond & Devlin 2003) and a
strong correlation of herring delivered to Arctic Tern chicks with local fishery catches
83
(Amey 1998; Amey et al. 2003), leading me to interpret the decrease in herring in chick
diets as a decrease in herring availability.
Inter-annual Variation of Overlap
In most times of food limitation, as competition between species increases,
organisms must respond by varying prey consumed and foraging behaviour (J.M.
Diamond 1978; Schoener 1982), typically resulting in a decreased overlap between
species (Wiens 1989; Bell & Ford 1990; Gonzales-Solis et al. 1997). I did not see the
predicted trend of decreased dietary overlap over the ten years as herring decreased for all
the species of seabird studied on MSI. For two of the six interspecific comparisons there
was a significant decline in overlap for all ten years, when comparing the Razorbills to
the Arctic Terns and Common Terns. For the other four interspecific comparisons I did
not see a significant change in dietary overlap from 1995 to 2004. These four
comparisons, Atlantic Puffins with Razorbills, Atlantic Puffins with Common Terns,
Atlantic Puffins with Arctic Terns, and Common Terns with Arctic Terns, all showed a
significant decline in dietary overlap from 1995-1999. Surprisingly, the two overlap
comparisons that decreased over all ten years did not show a significant decrease from
1995-1999.
Although overall I did not see the decrease in overlap trends over all years for
every species examined, all comparisons showed a significant decreasing trend at some
scale. Also, every significant comparison from my regressions was negative; every time
my data showed a significant relationship, overlap decreased over years as herring
decreased. This does not conclusively confirm my hypothesis that dietary overlap should
84
decrease as the preferred herring prey decreases, but it does provide some evidence to
support my prediction.
I may not be able to detect a strong relationship because the decrease in herring
delivered to seabird chicks may represent a minor food limitation for seabirds on MSI.
Although previous work found a strong correlation of the herring delivered to Arctic Tern
chicks with herring catches on nearby Grand Manan (Amey 1998; Amey et al. 2003), it is
difficult to connect seabird prey deliveries to actual prey availability. Based on Amey’s
(1998) work I perceived herring to be a or the preferred prey item. As less herring has
been fed to seabird chicks, we have observed increasing amounts of small prey delivered
to chicks, such as euphausiid shrimp (Appendix I). Other work has shown Common Tern
chicks have reduced growth rates and survival rates when fed shrimp diets rather than
fish diets (Massias and Becker 1990), suggesting that seabird adults should prefer large,
fatty fish when feeding chicks. These data support my interpretation that prey
availability has been decreasing on Machias Seal Island since 1995, although I cannot
know the extent to which the birds are limited by prey availability.
Food limitation has been linked with decrease in dietary overlap between species
(Wiens 1989; Diamond 1983; Bell & Ford 1990; Gonzales-Solis et al. 1997), but in times
of extreme food stress and in some other situations competition may be intense for the
remaining prey items, resulting in a greater dietary overlap between species (Bell & Ford
1990; Steenhof & Kochert 1985). During a drought event in Australia, birds initially
demonstrated a decrease in dietary overlap, but as the severe drought continued and food
became more limited, overlap between species increased (Bell & Ford 1990). The
85
relationship between food stress and dietary overlap is clearly complex and would be
strengthened by more empirical studies.
Diet diversity showed no discernable relationship with dietary overlap or
productivity in the ten years of my study. Reproductive success was positively correlated
with dietary overlap in both tern species, but no relation between productivity and
overlap was observed in alcids from 1995-2004. Both alcid species consistently lay only
one egg and raise at most one chick per year, and both have very consistent reproductive
success on MSI year-to-year (Appendix II) . Terns on Machias Seal Island usually lay 13 eggs per clutch (Black et al. 2005), and have a much more variable breeding success
than alcids. Common Terns have an average fledging success of as many as one chick
per nest in some years, while in 2004 both species failed (Appendix II). It is this
variability of tern breeding success that allows the tern’s productivity to be related to
overlap. The positive relationship suggests that in years of prey abundance, terns have a
greater reproductive success, but feed on the same prey, thus having a high dietary
overlap. The fact that the relationship is observed for the tern species but not the alcids
illustrates the importance of using multiple study species when investigating biological
questions.
Intra-annual Variation of Overlap
None of the four species showed any trends in dietary overlap as the breeding
season progressed, providing no evidence for my prediction that seabirds would select
large, lipid-rich fish such as herring as the dietary requirements of chicks increase
throughout the season, resulting in a greater overlap. The prediction that as dietary
86
demands of chicks increase adults feed larger, more lipid-rich fish seems sensible;
however there is no evidence in the literature to support my prediction.
Overall, I did not see increasing proportions of herring delivered to seabird chicks
as the season progressed. Once data were broken down by year there were a few years
that were exceptions for each species, however we did not see any consistent patterns
among years, which does not support the hypothesis that the birds select large, fatty fish
as the chicks grow.
Daily prey fed to chicks and daily overlap values were highly variable (Appendix
IV), and although Morisita’s Index shows relatively little bias when using small sample
sizes (Smith & Zaret 1982) daily sample sizes may be too small to observe any trends
throughout the season. Given the variability of daily prey taken, day-to-day variability
may conceal any potential trends on a larger timescale. I found for most interspecific
comparisons the relationship between yearly overlap and average daily overlap values
were quite similar, but a notable exception was for the two tern species. This indicates
the congeners consume the same prey overall, but different prey types on the same days,
and may suggest that interspecific competition may work on a daily temporal scale.
Fog and Feeding Rates
Most seabirds, including those in the order Charadriiformes, are believed to rely
on eyesight to locate foraging flocks (Shealer 2002). Foraging flocks are thought to be
critical to the foraging success of seabirds (Hoffman et al. 1981; Duffy 1983; Shealer
2002), particularly for locating schooling fish such as herring and sandlance. Fog is a
common event where cold water meets warm air, and is very common in the Bay of
87
Fundy region where many seabirds forage. I predicted that fog should hinder the
foraging effort of Machias Seal Island seabirds, which would be evidenced by the feeding
rates and types of prey delivered to chicks.
The data from Machias Seal Island from 1995-2004 do not support my prediction
that fog should hinder the rate at which seabirds feed their chicks. Both feeding
frequencies and rates of prey mass delivered to seabird chicks were similar on foggy and
clear days.
Although I did not find an effect of fog on seabird feeding rates, that does not
necessarily indicate there is no relationship. Fog was measured in the morning and
evenings on the island, which may not represent fog conditions at the foraging grounds
throughout the day. These results would be stronger had fog conditions been taken
during the feeding watches as we would both have more usable data and the fog data
would be more credible. Ideally, fog conditions at sea would be known to assess affects
of fog on foraging.
Little is understood about how seabirds know where to find prey and how they
forage at sea. Based on what we know about seabirds as visual predators, I expected fog
to hinder feeding rates, but there are a variety of factors that might allow seabirds to
forage successfully in foggy conditions. Some evidence shows seabirds sometimes return
to the same foraging locations on subsequent foraging trips (Irons 1998), and other work
suggests they have a memory capable of recalling foraging sites and may know reliable
places to forage (Becker et al. 1993; Davoren et al. 2003), and may not be entirely
dependent on seeing other birds successfully foraging. My results suggest that MSI
88
seabirds know relatively consistent fishing grounds, and return to these same sites and
forage successfully independent of fog condition.
Seabirds also may have flexible time budgets that permit them to spend more time
searching for food in times of foraging stress. Cairns (1987) proposed that in times of
less prey availability, seabirds would spend less time loafing and more time foraging.
Some work has supported this theory (Burger & Piatt 1990; Zador & Piatt 1999;
Weimerskirch et al. 2001; Litzow & Piatt 2003), while other work has not (Bryant et al.
1999), including a study on MSI Arctic Terns (Paquet 2001). It is possible that seabirds
use loafing time as a behavioural buffer throughout changes in foraging conditions.
I did not have high power in my feeding rate ANOVAs, and thus may have
accepted the null hypothesis when the alternative is true and there is a different in feeding
rates on foggy and clear days. It is most probable that a combination of these factors
prevents me from detecting an effect of fog on seabird feeding rates.
Fog and Prey Types delivered
I did not see the predicted trend of seabirds delivering different prey types on
foggy and clear days for three out of the four study species. It is interesting that
Razorbills, the only species that fed significantly different prey on foggy days (fewer
herring,) is the species that shows the smallest decline in proportion of herring delivered
and also consistently feeds the greatest proportion of herring of all four species (Ch. 2).
Razorbills can also dive the deepest of the four species and thus have access to the
greatest area with potential prey (Hipfner & Chapdelaine 2003). It may be because of the
Razorbills’ strong preference for herring that we see the significant trend. The Razorbills
89
feed more herring than the other seabirds feed on any one prey type, and being a
specialist focussing on one species of prey may make them the most sensitive to changes
in foraging condition while other birds more easily switch between prey types.
I did not see the expected trend of a greater number of prey types delivered to
seabird chicks on foggy days, and I had sufficient power in all ANOVAs. Common
Terns actually delivered significantly fewer kinds of prey on foggy days, while the other
species showed no relationship. It is puzzling that only one species would show this
relationship, and that it was opposite to my prediction. It is possible that individuals
record a lesser prey diversity on foggy days because delivered prey items are unclear in
the fog and unidentified; however, I think this is unlikely as our plot areas are too small
for observers to be affected by fog, especially for the tern species. I believe that the
Common Terns delivering less diverse prey on foggy days may be a case where the
relationship is statistically significant, but not biologically significant.
Conclusions and Future Research
The aim of this thesis is to explore and clarify questions regarding seabirds and
their prey, but my results lead to additional questions and offer few answers. The dietary
relationship between similar species and how it changes within and between seasons
remains vague and how limiting visibility affects seabird foraging also remains unclear.
I found few clear trends regarding dietary overlap of four species of seabird over
ten years as less herring is delivered to seabird chicks, nor did I see trends in prey types
or overlap thorough out the breeding season. I found overlap and productivity are
90
directly related for the two tern species, suggesting that in times of abundance terns may
feed similar prey types and be able to successfully raise more young.
In order to clarify the dietary relationships between different species in times of
food stress, more studies must be conducted in controlled lab experiments through
varying degrees of food stress, with different numbers of competing species. Most
studies investigating niche and dietary overlap are field-based, with many unknown
factors affecting results. Controlled lab experiments are necessary to clarify interactions
between prey availability and dietary overlap. Diving seabirds are kept in aquariums for
display and could be used in such controlled experiments.
I discovered fog to affect prey types delivered to Razorbill chicks and to affect the
diversity of prey types fed to Common Tern chicks; however I found no effect of fog for
the other three species and found no effect of fog on feeding rates. It is still possible that
fog is an important factor in seabird foraging, but I was unable to detect it in most cases.
For a more accurate test of the effect of fog on seabird foraging we need more
intensive studies of the relationship between fog and foraging by recording fog condition
during every feed watch. Due to the challenges of following seabirds while foraging and
the complexity of factors that play in foraging and prey selection, it is difficult to pinpoint
an effect of fog on foraging. If possible, future studies would benefit by small fog
monitoring devices that could be attached directly on to breeding seabirds, telling fog
conditions at sea as the bird forages and allowing at-sea fog data to be connected with
feeding rates and prey types delivered.
91
References
Amey KD (1998) Seabirds as indicators of changes in availability and commercial weir
landings of herring. Biology Department, University of New Brunswick.
Amey KD, Diamond AW, Devlin CM (2003) The diet of Arctic Tern chicks as a
predictor of herring landings in the weir fishery, Grand Manan, New Brunswick.
Ashmole NP (1963) The regulation of numbers of tropical oceanic birds. Ibis 103b:458473.
Ashmole NP, Ashmole MJ (1967) Comparative feeding ecology of seabirds of a tropical
oceanic island. Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University Bulletin 24, 1-131.
Becker PH, Frank D, Sudmann SR (1993) Temporal and spatial pattern of common tern
Sterna hirundo foraging in the Wadden Sea. Oecologia 93:389-393.
Bell HL, Ford HA (1990) The influence of food shortage on interspecific niche overlap
and foraging behavior of three species of Australian warblers (Acanthizidae). Studies in
Avian Biology 13:381-388.
Black AL, Minich LI, Diamond AW (2005) Machias Seal Island 1995-2004: progress
report. Fredericton, N.B., Atlantic Co-operative Wildlife Ecology Research Network.
Bryant R, Jones IL, Hipfner JM (1999) Responses to changes in prey availability by
Common Murres and Thick-billed Murres at the Gannet Islands, Labrador. Canadian
Journal of Zoology 77:1278-1287.
Burger AE, Piatt JF (1990) Flexible time budgets in breeding Common Murres: buffers
against variable prey abundance. Studies in Avian Biology 14:71-83.
Cairns DK (1987) Seabirds as Indicators of Marine Food Supplies. Biological
Oceanography 5:261-271.
Davoren GK, Montecchi WA, Anderson JT (2003) Search strategies of a pursuit-diving
marine bird and the persistence of prey patches. Ecological Monographs 73:463-481.
Diamond AW (1978) Feeding strategies and population size in tropical seabirds.
American Naturalist 112:215-223.
Diamond AW (1983) Feeding overlap in some tropical and temperate seabird
communities. Studies in Avian Biology 8:24-46.
92
Diamond AW, Devlin CM (2003) Seabirds as indicators of changes in marine ecosystems.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 88:153-175.
Diamond JM (1978) Niche shifts and rediscovery of interspecific competition. American
Scientist 66:322-331.
Duffy DC (1983) The foraging ecology of Peruvian seabirds. Auk 100:800-810.
Gonzales-Solis J, Oro D, Jover L, Ruiz X, Pedrocchi V (1997) Trophic niche width and
overlap of two sympatric gulls in the southwestern Mediterranean. Oecologia 112:75-80.
Hipfner JM, Chapdelaine G (2003) Razorbill (Alca torda). Poole, A. and Gill, F. (eds).
Birds of North America Series. The Birds of North America, Inc. Philadelphia, PA.
Hoffman W, Wiens JA, Heineman D (1981) The ecology of seabird feeding flocks in
Alaska. Auk 98:437-456.
Irons DB (1998) Foraging area fidelity of individual seabirds in relation to tidal cycles
and flock feeding. Ecology 79:647-655.
Lack D (1947) The significance of clutch size. I. Intraspcific variation. Ibis 89:302-352.
Litzow MA, Piatt JF (2003) Variance in prey abundance influences time budgets of
breeding seabirds: evidence from Pigeon Guillemots Cepphus columba. Journal of Avian
Biology 34:54-64.
Martin TE (1987) Food as a limit on breeding birds: a life-history perspective. Ann. Rev.
Ecol. Syst. 18:453-487.
Massias, A, Becker, PH (1990) Nutritive value of food and growth in Common Tern
(Sterna hirundo) chicks. Ornis Scandinavica 21:187-184.
Oro D, Cam E, Pradel R, Martinez-Abrain A (2003) Influence of food availability on
demography and local population dynamics in a long-lived seabird. Proceedings of the
Royal Society of London (B) 271:387-396.
Paquet J (2001) Time-budget flexibility of breeding Arctic Terns (Sterna paradisaea): an
investigation of the behavioural buffer. Biology Department, University of New
Brunswick.
Safina C, Burger J, Gochfeld M, Wagner RH (1988) Evidence for prey limitation of
Common and Roseate Tern production. Condor 90:852-859.
Schoener TW (1982) The controversy over interspecific competition. American Scientist
70:586-595.
93
Shealer DA (2002) Foraging behavior and food of seabirds. In: Schreiber EA, Burger J
(eds) Biology of Marine Birds CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 137-177.
Smith EP, Zaret TM (1982) Bias in estimating niche overlap. Ecology 63:1248-1253.
Steenhof K, Kochert MN (1985) Dietary shifts of sympatric buteos during a prey decline.
Oecologia 66:6-16.
Weimerskirch H, Zimmermann L, Prince PA (2001) Influence of environmental
variability on breeding effort in a long-lived seabird, the yellow-nosed albatross.
Behavioral Ecology 12:22-30.
Wiens JA (1989) The ecology of bird communities Vol. 1: Foundation and patterns.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Zador SG, Piatt JF (1999) Time budgets of Common Murres at a declining and increasing
colony in Alaska. Condor 101:149-152.
94
Appendix I.
Mean percent (by number) of main prey types fed to seabird chicks per year on MSI from
1995-2004.
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
Common
Fish
Tern
Herring Hake Euphausiid Butterfish Sandlance Larvae
Other
1995
84.9
8.2
0
0
0
0
6.8
1996
77.8
0.5
11.8
7.5
0
0
2.4
1997
89.2
0.8
0
0
6.7
0
3.3
1998
53.6 36.4
0
3.6
1.8
0
4.5
1999
50 13.9
2.4
0.8
11.4
0 21.5
2000
82.7
8.9
1.1
0.6
0.6
0
6.2
2001
28.3 14.8
2.4
0.6
44
0
9.9
2002
20.7
3.8
74.1
0
0.7
0
0.7
2003
39.6
7.9
44.6
5
0
0
2.9
2004
5.1
5.7
18.8
14.2
1.1
11.9 55.1
1995
78.4 16.5
0
2.1
0
0
3.1
1996
64
4
22.3
6.9
0
0
2.8
1997
68.9
10
10
1
10
0
0
1998
58.6 27.2
4.7
0
6.5
0
3
1999
44.7 23.1
0.5
4.8
23.1
0
3.8
2000
47.7
12
35.7
1.7
1.7
0
1.2
2001
7.1 19.2
0.5
1
71.1
0
1.1
2002
6.5
2.7
90.2
0.1
0
0
0.4
2003
12.8 15.7
65.9
2.1
1.1
0
2.4
2004
0.5
2
34.2
3.4
0
14 59.9
1995
85 14.8
0.2
0
0
0
0
1996
77.4 12.3
7.3
2.3
0
0
0.8
1997
36.6 24.9
0
0.2
38.3
0
0
1998
12.2 87.3
0
0.4
0.2
0
0
1999
61.9 22.4
0
0.4
15.1
0
0.2
2000
46.4 27.3
15.4
0.2
9.9
0
0.7
2001
14 24.2
0.2
0.1
61.4
0
0.2
2002
27.7 13.4
57.8
0.6
0.3
0
0.1
2003
33.2 41.3
13.3
1.1
10.4
0
0.7
2004
11.6
2.9
11.9
4.6
0.3
24.8 68.7
1995
86.3 13.7
0
0
0
0
0
1996
98.5
1.5
0
0
0
0
0
1997
88.4 7.64
0
0
4
0
0
1998
80.4 16.8
0
0
1.4
0
1.4
1999
79
8
0
0.6
10.8
0
1.6
2000
81.3 10.8
0
0
7.7
0
0.2
2001
15.2 12.3
0
0.7
70.1
0
1.6
2002
61.4 17.6
3.8
0
16.7
0
0.5
2003
46.9 40.4
0
0.7
6.9
0
4.3
2004
60.5
2
0
2
3.2
23 32.3
95
Appendix II.
Breeding success of seabirds nesting on Machias Seal Island between 1995 and 2004.
Alcids lay one egg per nest, so fledglings per nest = fledglings per egg.
Species
Common Tern
Common Tern
Common Tern
Common Tern
Common Tern
Common Tern
Common Tern
Common Tern
Common Tern
Common Tern
Arctic Tern
Arctic Tern
Arctic Tern
Arctic Tern
Arctic Tern
Arctic Tern
Arctic Tern
Arctic Tern
Arctic Tern
Arctic Tern
Atlantic Puffin
Atlantic Puffin
Atlantic Puffin
Atlantic Puffin
Atlantic Puffin
Atlantic Puffin
Atlantic Puffin
Atlantic Puffin
Atlantic Puffin
Atlantic Puffin
Razorbill
Razorbill
Razorbill
Razorbill
Razorbill
Razorbill
Razorbill
Razorbill
Razorbill
Razorbill
Year
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
N
32
56
34
31
31
34
74
72
62
68
31
53
39
41
34
87
125
285
100
170
26
60
65
57
83
73
78
76
70
56
32
73
58
48
60
71
62
57
55
58
Fledglings per nest
0.66
0.29
0.77
0.36
1.03
0.53
0.50
0.54
0.53
0.05
0.65
0.33
0.59
0.41
0.56
0.38
0.58
0.50
0.50
0.06
0.65
0.54
0.61
0.65
0.60
0.48
0.71
0.59
0.77
0.78
0.65
0.41
0.70
0.50
0.60
0.62
0.65
0.63
0.60
0.68
96
Fledglings per egg
0.33
0.18
0.38
0.20
0.46
0.30
0.28
0.29
0.31
0.03
0.37
0.19
0.34
0.23
0.31
0.24
0.38
0.32
0.33
0.04
Appendix III.
Simpson’s Diversity Index of prey delivered to seabird chicks on MSI from 1995-2004.
Year
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
ARTE
0.7132
0.877
0.6526
0.7007
0.8271
0.6868
0.6239
0.3374
0.6961
0.7352
ATPU
0.4856
0.6119
0.7538
0.2672
0.669
0.7361
0.6099
0.6508
0.772
0.8744
COTE
0.7103
0.646
0.5016
0.7407
0.7408
0.3441
0.7565
0.5064
0.7703
0.8226
RAZO
0.2864
0.3402
0.2642
0.4773
0.4599
0.3778
0.4631
0.5903
0.6507
0.5957
Appendix IV
Linear regression equations calculating mass (y, grams) based on estimated length (x,
centimeters).
Prey Type
Herring
Euphausiid/
Marine Invertebrates
Hake
Hake or Herring
Larvae
Sandlance
Butterfish
Unidentified Fish
Sticklebacks
Lumpfish
Unidentified
Polycheate
Formula
y=0.203x3-.171
y=0.09x3+.192
y=0.19x3-0.083
y=0.2x3-.107
y=0.15x-0.056
y=0.14x3-0.166
y-0.24x3-.126
y=0.19x3-0.04
y=0.08x3+.647
y=.26x3+.284
y=0.16x3+0.148
y=.0771x3
97
Appendix V.
Proportion of Euphausiids, Hake, Herring, and Sandlance delivered to seabird chicks per
day on MSI from 1995-2004. Unknown and infrequently delivered prey items are not
included, so the sums of all daily proportions are often less than 1.
Species
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
Date
Euphausiids Hake Herring Sandlance
6/29/1995
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6/30/1995
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
7/2/1995
0.00
0.10
0.60
0.00
7/6/1995
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/10/1995
0.00
0.04
0.57
0.00
7/12/1995
0.00
0.00
0.40
0.00
7/13/1995
0.00
0.33
0.17
0.00
7/14/1995
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
7/16/1995
0.00
0.13
0.50
0.00
7/17/1995
0.00
0.00
0.67
0.00
7/20/1995
0.00
0.25
0.42
0.00
7/21/1995
0.00
0.10
0.40
0.00
7/22/1995
0.00
0.23
0.62
0.00
7/24/1995
0.00
0.00
0.33
0.00
7/26/1995
0.00
0.15
0.46
0.00
7/27/1995
0.00
0.14
0.43
0.00
7/28/1995
0.00
0.00
0.27
0.00
7/29/1995
0.00
0.20
0.20
0.00
7/7/1996
0.46
0.12
0.00
0.00
7/8/1996
0.50
0.13
0.13
0.00
7/9/1996
0.38
0.19
0.00
0.00
7/10/1996
0.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
7/11/1996
0.17
0.00
0.67
0.00
7/12/1996
0.00
0.00
0.60
0.00
7/13/1996
0.17
0.00
0.17
0.00
7/15/1996
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7/16/1996
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
7/17/1996
0.04
0.00
0.48
0.00
7/18/1996
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/19/1996
0.08
0.00
0.69
0.00
7/20/1996
0.00
0.00
0.71
0.00
7/21/1996
0.00
0.00
0.88
0.00
7/22/1996
0.00
0.00
0.56
0.00
7/23/1996
0.00
0.00
0.28
0.00
7/24/1996
0.00
0.00
0.44
0.00
7/25/1996
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7/26/1996
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
98
Species
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
Date
Euphausiids Hake Herring Sandlance
6/29/1995
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6/30/1995
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
7/27/1996
0.00
0.00
0.38
0.00
7/28/1996
0.00
0.00
0.89
0.00
7/29/1996
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7/30/1996
0.00
0.00
0.75
0.00
7/31/1996
0.00
0.00
0.27
0.00
8/2/1996
0.00
0.00
0.33
0.00
6/30/1997
0.33
0.22
0.11
0.22
7/1/1997
0.00
0.40
0.20
0.40
7/3/1997
0.00
0.41
0.18
0.36
7/7/1997
0.00
0.00
0.62
0.08
7/8/1997
0.21
0.00
0.71
0.04
7/9/1997
0.00
0.00
0.56
0.11
7/11/1997
0.21
0.15
0.44
0.03
7/12/1997
0.00
0.00
0.40
0.33
7/13/1997
0.13
0.11
0.47
0.00
7/14/1997
0.03
0.00
0.73
0.00
7/15/1997
0.00
0.02
0.74
0.00
7/16/1997
0.00
0.00
0.88
0.00
7/17/1997
0.00
0.09
0.73
0.00
6/26/1998
0.00
0.75
0.00
0.00
6/29/1998
0.17
0.06
0.17
0.28
6/30/1998
0.33
0.33
0.17
0.17
7/1/1998
0.00
0.64
0.07
0.07
7/2/1998
0.00
0.50
0.17
0.00
7/3/1998
0.00
0.29
0.29
0.00
7/5/1998
0.00
0.33
0.33
0.00
7/7/1998
0.00
0.13
0.69
0.00
7/9/1998
0.05
0.00
0.56
0.00
7/10/1998
0.00
0.08
0.75
0.04
7/11/1998
0.06
0.00
0.47
0.00
7/12/1998
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25
7/15/1998
0.00
0.23
0.42
0.04
7/16/1998
0.00
0.38
0.52
0.00
6/26/1999
0.00
0.14
0.36
0.00
6/27/1999
0.00
0.00
0.64
0.27
7/1/1999
0.00
0.08
0.21
0.33
7/3/1999
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.00
7/4/1999
0.00
0.00
0.63
0.16
7/5/1999
0.08
0.08
0.42
0.17
7/6/1999
0.00
0.25
0.34
0.03
7/8/1999
0.00
0.25
0.42
0.08
7/9/1999
0.00
0.39
0.26
0.13
7/11/1999
0.00
0.20
0.20
0.10
99
Species
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
Date
Euphausiids Hake Herring Sandlance
6/29/1995
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6/30/1995
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
7/12/1999
0.00
0.12
0.17
0.29
7/13/1999
0.00
0.29
0.00
0.43
7/15/1999
0.00
0.16
0.16
0.28
7/17/1999
0.00
0.10
0.50
0.00
7/18/1999
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/19/1999
0.00
0.13
0.63
0.00
7/20/1999
0.00
0.00
0.67
0.00
7/21/1999
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.17
7/2/2000
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/5/2000
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/6/2000
0.25
0.00
0.42
0.00
7/7/2000
0.08
0.31
0.54
0.00
7/8/2000
0.77
0.00
0.10
0.10
7/11/2000
0.44
0.13
0.25
0.00
7/12/2000
0.25
0.17
0.50
0.00
7/15/2000
0.38
0.00
0.32
0.00
7/16/2000
0.00
0.00
0.86
0.00
7/17/2000
0.26
0.06
0.65
0.00
7/19/2000
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/20/2000
0.20
0.60
0.00
0.00
7/21/2000
0.07
0.13
0.67
0.00
7/22/2000
0.25
0.25
0.33
0.00
7/23/2000
0.63
0.19
0.13
0.00
7/24/2000
0.00
0.45
0.55
0.00
7/25/2000
0.14
0.14
0.57
0.00
7/26/2000
0.00
0.13
0.50
0.00
7/27/2000
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/28/2000
0.00
0.25
0.75
0.00
7/30/2000
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/31/2000
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
8/1/2000
0.00
0.00
0.75
0.00
6/29/2001
0.00
0.20
0.20
0.40
6/30/2001
0.03
0.07
0.13
0.33
7/1/2001
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.76
7/3/2001
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.89
7/4/2001
0.00
0.22
0.06
0.72
7/5/2001
0.00
0.04
0.04
0.32
7/6/2001
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.87
7/7/2001
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.80
7/8/2001
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.55
7/9/2001
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.92
7/12/2001
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.29
7/13/2001
0.00
0.31
0.04
0.57
100
Species
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
Date
Euphausiids Hake Herring Sandlance
6/29/1995
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6/30/1995
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
7/14/2001
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.78
7/15/2001
0.00
0.74
0.16
0.11
7/16/2001
0.00
0.65
0.12
0.09
7/19/2001
0.00
0.19
0.00
0.75
7/20/2001
0.00
0.19
0.14
0.62
7/21/2001
0.00
0.14
0.07
0.34
7/22/2001
0.00
0.59
0.24
0.06
7/23/2001
0.00
0.16
0.44
0.32
7/27/2001
0.00
0.00
0.67
0.33
6/28/2002
0.53
0.33
0.00
0.00
6/30/2002
0.74
0.07
0.00
0.00
7/1/2002
0.91
0.04
0.00
0.00
7/2/2002
0.71
0.02
0.00
0.00
7/4/2002
0.94
0.03
0.01
0.00
7/7/2002
0.95
0.01
0.00
0.00
7/8/2002
0.81
0.00
0.00
0.00
7/10/2002
0.95
0.00
0.04
0.00
7/11/2002
0.56
0.00
0.03
0.00
7/13/2002
0.00
0.14
0.86
0.00
7/14/2002
0.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
7/17/2002
0.25
0.00
0.71
0.00
7/19/2002
0.83
0.00
0.11
0.00
7/20/2002
0.99
0.00
0.01
0.00
7/21/2002
0.82
0.00
0.15
0.00
7/22/2002
0.47
0.00
0.27
0.00
7/23/2002
0.60
0.00
0.35
0.00
7/26/2002
0.87
0.00
0.10
0.00
7/27/2002
0.23
0.00
0.31
0.00
7/28/2002
0.84
0.00
0.16
0.00
7/30/2002
0.64
0.00
0.09
0.00
8/2/2002
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6/30/2003
0.08
0.62
0.15
0.00
7/2/2003
0.06
0.65
0.06
0.12
7/4/2003
0.00
0.88
0.00
0.00
7/6/2003
0.00
0.59
0.00
0.00
7/7/2003
0.06
0.35
0.18
0.00
7/8/2003
0.17
0.25
0.17
0.00
7/12/2003
0.64
0.00
0.02
0.01
7/14/2003
0.10
0.20
0.10
0.10
7/16/2003
0.33
0.00
0.11
0.00
7/17/2003
0.00
0.10
0.10
0.00
7/19/2003
0.25
0.42
0.13
0.00
7/22/2003
0.74
0.00
0.00
0.00
101
Species
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ARTE
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
Date
Euphausiids Hake Herring Sandlance
6/29/1995
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6/30/1995
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
7/23/2003
0.59
0.03
0.14
0.00
7/24/2003
0.73
0.01
0.12
0.00
7/25/2003
0.54
0.05
0.19
0.00
7/26/2003
0.25
0.00
0.25
0.00
6/29/2004
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.00
7/1/2004
0.36
0.18
0.00
0.00
7/2/2004
0.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
7/3/2004
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7/4/2004
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
7/6/2004
0.11
0.11
0.00
0.00
7/8/2004
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
7/9/2004
0.47
0.00
0.00
0.00
7/10/2004
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
7/11/2004
0.48
0.00
0.00
0.00
7/12/2004
0.54
0.00
0.00
0.00
7/15/2004
0.43
0.05
0.01
0.00
7/16/2004
0.13
0.13
0.00
0.00
7/18/2004
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
7/19/2004
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
7/21/2004
0.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
7/22/2004
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
7/23/2004
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
7/24/2004
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7/25/2004
0.00
0.14
0.00
0.00
7/27/2004
0.81
0.00
0.02
0.00
7/28/2004
0.04
0.00
0.09
0.00
7/29/2004
0.44
0.00
0.00
0.00
7/30/2004
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
7/31/2004
0.48
0.00
0.02
0.00
8/1/2004
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.00
6/8/1995
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6/13/1995
0.00
0.24
0.48
0.16
6/29/1995
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/2/1995
0.00
0.00
0.31
0.13
7/5/1995
0.00
0.18
0.82
0.00
7/7/1995
0.00
0.19
0.62
0.00
7/9/1995
0.00
0.03
0.95
0.00
7/11/1995
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/13/1995
0.00
0.00
0.47
0.00
7/14/1995
0.00
0.25
0.61
0.00
7/17/1995
0.00
0.00
0.81
0.00
7/19/1995
0.00
0.55
0.39
0.00
7/20/1995
0.00
0.45
0.55
0.00
102
Species
ARTE
ARTE
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
Date
Euphausiids Hake Herring Sandlance
6/29/1995
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6/30/1995
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
7/21/1995
0.00
0.09
0.82
0.00
7/22/1995
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/23/1995
0.00
0.02
0.86
0.00
7/24/1995
0.00
0.00
0.80
0.00
7/26/1995
0.03
0.25
0.65
0.05
7/27/1995
0.00
0.00
0.98
0.00
7/28/1995
0.00
0.02
0.77
0.00
7/29/1995
0.00
0.00
0.83
0.00
7/31/1995
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/7/1996
0.39
0.11
0.20
0.02
7/8/1996
0.00
0.55
0.03
0.00
7/9/1996
0.20
0.00
0.40
0.00
7/10/1996
0.00
0.05
0.74
0.00
7/11/1996
0.13
0.00
0.66
0.00
7/12/1996
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7/14/1996
0.00
0.00
0.40
0.00
7/15/1996
0.00
0.70
0.10
0.00
7/16/1996
0.00
0.12
0.33
0.00
7/17/1996
0.00
0.00
0.64
0.00
7/18/1996
0.00
0.00
0.83
0.00
7/19/1996
0.00
0.00
0.62
0.00
7/22/1996
0.00
0.11
0.46
0.00
7/23/1996
0.00
0.00
0.57
0.00
7/25/1996
0.00
0.00
0.30
0.00
7/26/1996
0.02
0.00
0.30
0.00
7/28/1996
0.04
0.00
0.59
0.00
7/30/1996
0.00
0.00
0.70
0.00
8/2/1996
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
6/28/1997
0.00
0.37
0.24
0.32
7/3/1997
0.00
0.46
0.00
0.39
7/5/1997
0.00
0.18
0.00
0.78
7/10/1997
0.00
0.14
0.60
0.11
7/12/1997
0.00
0.22
0.26
0.24
7/15/1997
0.00
0.00
0.45
0.19
7/20/1997
0.00
0.07
0.88
0.00
7/27/1997
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
8/1/1997
0.00
0.08
0.92
0.00
8/2/1997
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
6/30/1998
0.00
0.63
0.27
0.00
7/1/1998
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
7/7/1998
0.00
0.86
0.11
0.02
7/10/1998
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
7/13/1998
0.00
0.68
0.30
0.00
103
Species
ARTE
ARTE
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
Date
Euphausiids Hake Herring Sandlance
6/29/1995
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6/30/1995
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
7/14/1998
0.00
0.21
0.62
0.00
7/15/1998
0.00
0.12
0.88
0.00
7/19/1998
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
7/21/1998
0.00
0.97
0.03
0.00
7/26/1998
0.00
0.97
0.03
0.00
7/27/1998
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
6/25/1999
0.00
0.00
0.40
0.19
6/27/1999
0.00
0.06
0.49
0.24
7/1/1999
0.00
0.29
0.61
0.10
7/5/1999
0.00
0.15
0.72
0.04
7/6/1999
0.00
0.05
0.82
0.05
7/8/1999
0.00
0.10
0.68
0.16
7/9/1999
0.00
0.13
0.40
0.16
7/12/1999
0.00
0.40
0.17
0.33
7/14/1999
0.00
0.28
0.24
0.30
7/17/1999
0.00
0.24
0.29
0.09
7/19/1999
0.00
0.44
0.43
0.08
7/20/1999
0.00
0.09
0.64
0.06
7/21/1999
0.00
0.12
0.82
0.02
7/22/1999
0.00
0.00
0.81
0.05
6/24/2000
0.00
0.48
0.00
0.52
6/25/2000
0.13
0.28
0.14
0.33
6/26/2000
0.36
0.54
0.03
0.07
6/27/2000
0.02
0.33
0.26
0.25
7/2/2000
0.00
0.07
0.49
0.00
7/5/2000
0.00
0.00
0.94
0.00
7/7/2000
0.04
0.28
0.26
0.02
7/8/2000
0.11
0.73
0.14
0.03
7/9/2000
0.08
0.20
0.68
0.00
7/10/2000
0.61
0.36
0.03
0.00
7/14/2000
0.94
0.00
0.05
0.00
7/15/2000
0.23
0.53
0.24
0.00
7/16/2000
0.04
0.27
0.60
0.08
7/17/2000
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/20/2000
0.06
0.00
0.94
0.00
7/21/2000
0.09
0.14
0.64
0.05
7/22/2000
0.00
0.71
0.06
0.00
7/23/2000
0.00
0.45
0.55
0.00
7/24/2000
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
7/25/2000
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/26/2000
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/27/2000
0.02
0.37
0.59
0.00
7/28/2000
0.00
0.00
0.92
0.00
104
Species
ARTE
ARTE
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
Date
Euphausiids Hake Herring Sandlance
6/29/1995
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6/30/1995
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
7/29/2000
0.00
0.00
0.96
0.00
7/30/2000
0.00
0.04
0.96
0.00
7/31/2000
0.00
0.00
0.97
0.00
6/29/2001
0.00
0.13
0.03
0.84
6/30/2001
0.00
0.39
0.00
0.58
7/1/2001
0.03
0.20
0.00
0.76
7/3/2001
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.88
7/4/2001
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.37
7/5/2001
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.98
7/7/2001
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.62
7/8/2001
0.00
0.13
0.00
0.87
7/9/2001
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.89
7/10/2001
0.00
0.03
0.02
0.73
7/13/2001
0.00
0.61
0.01
0.38
7/19/2001
0.00
0.07
0.35
0.53
7/20/2001
0.00
0.09
0.03
0.58
7/21/2001
0.00
0.35
0.23
0.39
7/22/2001
0.00
0.55
0.27
0.18
7/23/2001
0.00
0.11
0.34
0.26
7/25/2001
0.00
0.39
0.00
0.57
7/26/2001
0.00
0.50
0.48
0.01
7/27/2001
0.00
0.00
0.61
0.33
7/28/2001
0.00
0.19
0.22
0.58
7/29/2001
0.00
0.61
0.00
0.39
8/2/2001
0.00
0.47
0.00
0.53
6/3/2002
0.58
0.21
0.00
0.01
6/25/2002
0.72
0.19
0.08
0.00
6/28/2002
0.19
0.38
0.02
0.00
6/29/2002
0.45
0.37
0.15
0.00
7/1/2002
0.50
0.21
0.00
0.00
7/4/2002
0.85
0.11
0.00
0.00
7/6/2002
0.91
0.07
0.01
0.00
7/8/2002
0.89
0.04
0.01
0.01
7/9/2002
0.57
0.17
0.00
0.00
7/11/2002
0.00
0.03
0.95
0.00
7/12/2002
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/14/2002
0.26
0.00
0.74
0.00
7/17/2002
0.13
0.03
0.55
0.00
7/18/2002
0.20
0.00
0.59
0.00
7/19/2002
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/21/2002
0.19
0.00
0.73
0.00
7/22/2002
0.48
0.00
0.48
0.00
7/23/2002
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
105
Species
ARTE
ARTE
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
Date
Euphausiids Hake Herring Sandlance
6/29/1995
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6/30/1995
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
7/26/2002
0.10
0.03
0.60
0.00
7/27/2002
0.75
0.00
0.25
0.00
7/28/2002
0.60
0.00
0.40
0.00
7/30/2002
0.00
0.00
0.67
0.00
8/2/2002
0.00
0.00
0.67
0.33
6/27/2003
0.00
0.88
0.00
0.12
6/28/2003
0.17
0.76
0.00
0.06
6/30/2003
0.00
0.76
0.00
0.14
7/2/2003
0.00
0.68
0.00
0.25
7/4/2003
0.00
0.33
0.00
0.21
7/5/2003
0.00
0.60
0.00
0.01
7/7/2003
0.00
0.26
0.09
0.20
7/10/2003
0.14
0.29
0.19
0.16
7/12/2003
0.13
0.11
0.41
0.05
7/13/2003
0.00
0.02
0.44
0.07
7/14/2003
0.08
0.24
0.47
0.00
7/15/2003
0.45
0.24
0.16
0.06
7/16/2003
0.00
0.03
0.60
0.09
7/17/2003
0.00
0.20
0.36
0.00
7/18/2003
0.16
0.44
0.17
0.13
7/19/2003
0.03
0.00
0.25
0.00
7/20/2003
0.00
0.41
0.12
0.00
7/22/2003
0.40
0.05
0.35
0.07
7/31/2003
0.00
0.00
0.68
0.02
7/3/2004
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
7/4/2004
0.03
0.00
0.33
0.00
7/5/2004
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7/6/2004
0.00
0.04
0.04
0.00
7/7/2004
0.14
0.00
0.28
0.00
7/9/2004
0.26
0.00
0.00
0.00
7/10/2004
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
7/11/2004
0.00
0.00
0.42
0.00
7/12/2004
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
7/14/2004
0.00
0.01
0.20
0.00
7/17/2004
0.00
0.04
0.16
0.01
7/18/2004
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.03
7/20/2004
0.04
0.09
0.04
0.00
7/21/2004
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
7/24/2004
0.38
0.02
0.00
0.00
7/25/2004
0.43
0.17
0.03
0.00
7/26/2004
0.21
0.00
0.20
0.00
7/27/2004
0.27
0.13
0.15
0.00
7/28/2004
0.36
0.03
0.40
0.00
106
Species
ARTE
ARTE
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
ATPU
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
Date
Euphausiids Hake Herring Sandlance
6/29/1995
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6/30/1995
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
7/29/2004
0.35
0.00
0.18
0.00
7/30/2004
0.03
0.01
0.45
0.00
7/31/2004
0.00
0.00
0.33
0.00
8/1/2004
0.27
0.01
0.27
0.00
8/4/2004
0.22
0.30
0.15
0.00
7/3/1995
0.00
0.12
0.76
0.00
7/5/1995
0.00
0.00
0.33
0.11
7/7/1995
0.00
0.06
0.55
0.00
7/9/1995
0.00
0.00
0.67
0.00
7/11/1995
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.00
7/13/1995
0.00
0.00
0.69
0.00
7/14/1995
0.00
0.07
0.50
0.00
7/15/1995
0.00
0.00
0.80
0.00
7/17/1995
0.00
0.11
0.50
0.00
7/19/1995
0.00
0.17
0.22
0.00
7/20/1995
0.00
0.13
0.25
0.00
7/21/1995
0.00
0.05
0.26
0.00
7/22/1995
0.00
0.00
0.92
0.00
7/24/1995
0.00
0.00
0.88
0.00
7/25/1995
0.05
0.00
0.10
0.00
7/26/1995
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7/27/1995
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.00
7/28/1995
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.00
7/31/1995
0.00
0.11
0.56
0.00
7/7/1996
0.00
0.00
0.67
0.00
7/9/1996
0.17
0.17
0.67
0.00
7/10/1996
0.00
0.00
0.56
0.00
7/11/1996
0.00
0.00
0.67
0.00
7/12/1996
0.00
0.00
0.78
0.00
7/14/1996
0.00
0.00
0.47
0.00
7/15/1996
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/16/1996
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
7/17/1996
0.00
0.00
0.62
0.00
7/18/1996
0.00
0.00
0.60
0.00
7/19/1996
0.00
0.00
0.92
0.00
7/20/1996
0.00
0.00
0.71
0.00
7/21/1996
0.00
0.00
0.45
0.00
7/22/1996
0.00
0.00
0.63
0.00
7/23/1996
0.00
0.00
0.80
0.00
7/24/1996
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7/25/1996
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
7/26/1996
0.00
0.00
0.60
0.00
7/27/1996
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
107
Species
ARTE
ARTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
Date
Euphausiids Hake Herring Sandlance
6/29/1995
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6/30/1995
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
7/28/1996
0.00
0.00
0.62
0.00
7/29/1996
0.00
0.00
0.65
0.00
7/30/1996
0.00
0.00
0.90
0.00
7/31/1996
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8/2/1996
0.00
0.00
0.82
0.00
8/3/1996
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
8/4/1996
0.44
0.00
0.00
0.00
8/5/1996
0.54
0.00
0.09
0.00
7/7/1997
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.50
7/8/1997
0.00
0.00
0.83
0.00
7/9/1997
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
7/11/1997
0.00
0.04
0.48
0.13
7/14/1997
0.00
0.00
0.77
0.00
7/18/1997
0.00
0.00
0.72
0.00
7/19/1997
0.00
0.00
0.93
0.00
7/23/1997
0.00
0.00
0.55
0.09
7/25/1997
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/27/1997
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/29/1997
0.00
0.00
0.53
0.12
7/31/1997
0.00
0.00
0.33
0.11
8/3/1997
0.00
0.00
0.75
0.00
7/2/1998
0.00
0.38
0.38
0.15
7/3/1998
0.00
0.19
0.69
0.00
7/4/1998
0.00
0.58
0.33
0.00
7/9/1998
0.00
0.28
0.48
0.00
7/13/1998
0.00
0.11
0.78
0.00
7/14/1998
0.00
0.49
0.21
0.00
7/15/1998
0.00
0.75
0.00
0.00
7/16/1998
0.00
0.35
0.47
0.00
7/21/1998
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.00
7/23/1998
0.00
0.00
0.18
0.00
7/1/1999
0.00
0.25
0.25
0.50
7/4/1999
0.00
0.14
0.64
0.00
7/5/1999
0.00
0.00
0.67
0.00
7/6/1999
0.00
0.14
0.64
0.05
7/8/1999
0.00
0.36
0.50
0.00
7/9/1999
0.00
0.40
0.15
0.10
7/11/1999
0.02
0.21
0.17
0.21
7/12/1999
0.00
0.09
0.38
0.34
7/13/1999
0.00
0.00
0.38
0.25
7/15/1999
0.00
0.15
0.33
0.08
7/17/1999
0.13
0.17
0.27
0.10
7/18/1999
0.00
0.04
0.52
0.00
108
Species
ARTE
ARTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
Date
Euphausiids Hake Herring Sandlance
6/29/1995
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6/30/1995
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
7/19/1999
0.07
0.02
0.53
0.00
7/20/1999
0.02
0.00
0.57
0.09
7/21/1999
0.00
0.00
0.78
0.00
7/22/1999
0.00
0.00
0.83
0.00
7/1/2000
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/2/2000
0.00
0.13
0.88
0.00
7/6/2000
0.00
0.06
0.88
0.00
7/7/2000
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
7/8/2000
0.00
0.20
0.70
0.00
7/11/2000
0.00
0.00
0.33
0.17
7/12/2000
0.00
0.27
0.55
0.00
7/14/2000
0.00
0.33
0.67
0.00
7/15/2000
0.13
0.00
0.80
0.00
7/16/2000
0.00
0.10
0.60
0.00
7/17/2000
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/19/2000
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/20/2000
0.00
0.10
0.70
0.00
7/21/2000
0.00
0.00
0.67
0.00
7/22/2000
0.00
0.00
0.80
0.00
7/23/2000
0.00
0.29
0.57
0.00
7/24/2000
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/25/2000
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/26/2000
0.00
0.13
0.88
0.00
7/27/2000
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/28/2000
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/29/2000
0.00
0.00
0.90
0.00
7/30/2000
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/31/2000
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/7/2001
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.65
7/8/2001
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.89
7/10/2001
0.00
0.18
0.04
0.68
7/14/2001
0.00
0.10
0.05
0.69
7/16/2001
0.00
0.34
0.09
0.40
7/19/2001
0.00
0.17
0.17
0.27
7/20/2001
0.00
0.05
0.21
0.36
7/21/2001
0.00
0.42
0.17
0.42
7/22/2001
0.00
0.14
0.12
0.39
7/23/2001
0.00
0.09
0.35
0.23
7/25/2001
0.18
0.27
0.21
0.09
7/26/2001
0.00
0.04
0.63
0.13
7/27/2001
0.00
0.15
0.78
0.07
7/28/2001
0.00
0.13
0.38
0.19
7/29/2001
0.04
0.04
0.36
0.22
109
Species
ARTE
ARTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
Date
Euphausiids Hake Herring Sandlance
6/29/1995
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6/30/1995
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
6/24/2002
0.31
0.62
0.08
0.00
6/29/2002
0.19
0.38
0.00
0.10
7/1/2002
0.71
0.04
0.08
0.00
7/2/2002
0.96
0.00
0.03
0.01
7/3/2002
0.86
0.09
0.05
0.00
7/6/2002
0.78
0.03
0.00
0.00
7/7/2002
0.88
0.00
0.05
0.00
7/9/2002
0.92
0.04
0.03
0.00
7/10/2002
0.74
0.02
0.21
0.00
7/12/2002
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/13/2002
0.35
0.00
0.65
0.00
7/17/2002
0.11
0.00
0.89
0.00
7/18/2002
0.32
0.00
0.32
0.00
7/19/2002
0.33
0.00
0.67
0.00
7/21/2002
0.40
0.00
0.60
0.00
7/23/2002
0.44
0.00
0.25
0.00
7/26/2002
0.15
0.00
0.85
0.00
7/28/2002
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/30/2002
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7/5/2003
0.50
0.33
0.00
0.00
7/8/2003
0.43
0.05
0.00
0.00
7/10/2003
0.30
0.17
0.17
0.00
7/13/2003
0.76
0.00
0.02
0.00
7/15/2003
0.29
0.14
0.00
0.00
7/16/2003
0.04
0.14
0.18
0.04
7/18/2003
0.00
0.11
0.44
0.00
7/19/2003
0.00
0.00
0.55
0.00
7/20/2003
0.00
0.25
0.25
0.00
7/22/2003
0.79
0.00
0.00
0.00
7/23/2003
0.06
0.00
0.72
0.00
7/24/2003
0.40
0.10
0.23
0.00
7/25/2003
0.57
0.00
0.00
0.00
7/26/2003
0.45
0.00
0.18
0.00
7/27/2003
0.04
0.00
0.80
0.00
7/28/2003
0.13
0.10
0.31
0.00
7/5/2004
0.00
0.31
0.00
0.00
7/7/2004
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7/9/2004
0.38
0.04
0.04
0.04
7/11/2004
0.39
0.03
0.00
0.00
7/13/2004
0.13
0.13
0.00
0.00
7/14/2004
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
7/15/2004
0.14
0.14
0.00
0.00
7/16/2004
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.00
110
Species
ARTE
ARTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
COTE
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
Date
Euphausiids Hake Herring Sandlance
6/29/1995
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6/30/1995
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
7/19/2004
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.00
7/20/2004
0.27
0.00
0.09
0.00
7/21/2004
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.00
7/23/2004
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
7/26/2004
0.33
0.00
0.17
0.17
7/27/2004
0.06
0.00
0.22
0.00
7/3/1995
0.00
0.32
0.55
0.00
7/6/1995
0.00
0.14
0.72
0.00
7/8/1995
0.00
0.13
0.83
0.00
7/10/1995
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/12/1995
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/14/1995
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/15/1995
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/16/1995
0.00
0.05
0.95
0.00
7/17/1995
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/20/1995
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/21/1995
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
7/23/1995
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/7/1996
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
7/9/1996
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7/10/1996
0.00
0.10
0.35
0.00
7/11/1996
0.00
0.00
0.93
0.00
7/12/1996
0.00
0.00
0.65
0.00
7/15/1996
0.00
0.00
0.94
0.00
7/16/1996
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/17/1996
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/18/1996
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/20/1996
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/24/1996
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
6/27/1997
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/1/1997
0.00
0.00
0.81
0.14
7/8/1997
0.00
0.04
0.96
0.00
7/9/1997
0.00
0.02
0.87
0.06
7/13/1997
0.00
0.11
0.88
0.01
7/17/1997
0.00
0.28
0.62
0.03
7/21/1997
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/23/1997
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/25/1997
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/26/1997
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/29/1997
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/31/1997
0.00
0.00
0.80
0.00
7/1/1998
0.00
0.13
0.29
0.13
7/2/1998
0.00
0.08
0.86
0.00
111
Species
ARTE
ARTE
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
Date
Euphausiids Hake Herring Sandlance
6/29/1995
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6/30/1995
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
7/3/1998
0.00
0.04
0.76
0.00
7/4/1998
0.00
0.08
0.67
0.00
7/7/1998
0.00
0.36
0.56
0.02
7/8/1998
0.00
0.09
0.61
0.00
7/13/1998
0.00
0.04
0.85
0.00
7/14/1998
0.00
0.54
0.31
0.00
7/17/1998
0.00
0.04
0.79
0.00
6/24/1999
0.00
0.02
0.31
0.22
6/26/1999
0.00
0.09
0.68
0.21
6/27/1999
0.00
0.03
0.70
0.11
6/28/1999
0.00
0.00
0.83
0.17
7/1/1999
0.00
0.03
0.72
0.01
7/3/1999
0.00
0.17
0.57
0.16
7/4/1999
0.00
0.03
0.81
0.00
7/5/1999
0.00
0.18
0.67
0.03
7/6/1999
0.00
0.07
0.79
0.03
7/8/1999
0.02
0.00
0.91
0.08
7/9/1999
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/11/1999
0.00
0.06
0.84
0.05
7/12/1999
0.00
0.00
0.82
0.10
7/14/1999
0.00
0.36
0.56
0.08
7/18/1999
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
6/24/2000
0.00
0.07
0.62
0.32
6/26/2000
0.00
0.44
0.11
0.44
6/27/2000
0.00
0.31
0.69
0.00
6/28/2000
0.00
0.52
0.30
0.17
7/1/2000
0.00
0.03
0.92
0.05
7/3/2000
0.00
0.03
0.97
0.00
7/5/2000
0.00
0.00
0.98
0.00
7/6/2000
0.00
0.06
0.91
0.00
7/7/2000
0.00
0.04
0.96
0.00
7/8/2000
0.00
0.12
0.86
0.02
7/9/2000
0.00
0.16
0.84
0.00
7/11/2000
0.00
0.20
0.80
0.00
7/14/2000
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
6/26/2001
0.00
0.42
0.05
0.52
6/28/2001
0.00
0.09
0.19
0.71
7/1/2001
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.45
7/3/2001
0.00
0.15
0.32
0.53
7/4/2001
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.93
7/7/2001
0.00
0.04
0.01
0.91
7/8/2001
0.00
0.02
0.15
0.83
7/10/2001
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
112
Species
ARTE
ARTE
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
Date
Euphausiids Hake Herring Sandlance
6/29/1995
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6/30/1995
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
7/13/2001
0.00
0.32
0.27
0.39
7/14/2001
0.00
0.02
0.41
0.49
7/15/2001
0.00
0.17
0.17
0.65
7/16/2001
0.00
0.24
0.57
0.19
6/24/2002
0.00
0.63
0.19
0.19
6/25/2002
0.00
0.76
0.19
0.05
6/29/2002
0.00
0.73
0.09
0.18
6/30/2002
0.00
0.08
0.56
0.25
7/2/2002
0.42
0.05
0.00
0.53
7/3/2002
0.00
0.00
0.84
0.16
7/4/2002
0.00
0.65
0.00
0.29
7/6/2002
0.00
0.14
0.59
0.05
7/7/2002
0.00
0.17
0.58
0.03
7/8/2002
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/9/2002
0.00
0.00
0.63
0.00
7/10/2002
0.00
0.00
0.96
0.02
7/11/2002
0.00
0.00
0.67
0.00
7/12/2002
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/13/2002
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/14/2002
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
6/27/2003
0.00
0.97
0.00
0.03
6/28/2003
0.00
0.84
0.03
0.13
6/30/2003
0.00
0.88
0.03
0.03
7/2/2003
0.00
0.42
0.55
0.00
7/4/2003
0.00
0.45
0.26
0.18
7/5/2003
0.00
0.42
0.45
0.06
7/6/2003
0.00
0.16
0.74
0.09
7/8/2003
0.00
0.56
0.00
0.11
7/10/2003
0.00
0.00
0.77
0.10
7/12/2003
0.00
0.00
0.43
0.00
7/13/2003
0.00
0.07
0.83
0.00
7/14/2003
0.00
0.00
0.91
0.00
7/15/2003
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
7/17/2003
0.00
0.00
0.75
0.00
6/30/2004
0.00
0.06
0.76
0.08
7/1/2004
0.00
0.00
0.62
0.08
7/2/2004
0.00
0.06
0.82
0.00
7/3/2004
0.00
0.05
0.50
0.02
7/4/2004
0.00
0.01
0.60
0.00
7/5/2004
0.00
0.08
0.38
0.03
7/6/2004
0.00
0.00
0.55
0.03
7/7/2004
0.00
0.01
0.74
0.00
7/8/2004
0.00
0.00
0.71
0.00
113
Species
ARTE
ARTE
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
RAZO
Date
Euphausiids Hake Herring Sandlance
6/29/1995
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6/30/1995
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
7/9/2004
0.00
0.00
0.22
0.00
7/10/2004
0.00
0.00
0.71
0.00
7/12/2004
0.00
0.00
0.32
0.00
7/13/2004
0.00
0.05
0.80
0.00
7/17/2004
0.00
0.00
0.67
0.04
7/18/2004
0.00
0.00
0.65
0.00
7/19/2004
0.00
0.00
0.57
0.00
7/20/2004
0.00
0.00
0.66
0.09
7/24/2004
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7/25/2004
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
114
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertising