Abstract

AimCompetition for food among populations of closely related species and conspecifics that occur in both sympatry and parapatry can be reduced by interspecific and intraspecific spatial segregation. According to predictions of niche partitioning, segregation is expected to occur at habitat boundaries among congeners and within habitats among conspecifics, while negative relationships in the density of species or populations will occur in areas of overlap. We tested these predictions by modelling the winter distributions of two crested penguin species from three colonies in the south-western Atlantic.LocationPenguins were tracked from two large colonies on the Falkland Islands and one in South Georgia, from where they dispersed through the South Atlantic, Southern Ocean and south-eastern Pacific.MethodsForty macaroni penguins (Eudyptes chrysolophus) from South Georgia and 82 southern rockhopper penguins (Eudyptes chrysocome chrysocome) from two colonies in the Falkland Islands were equipped with global location sensors which log time and light, allowing positions to be estimated twice-daily, from April to August in 2011. Positions were gridded and converted into maps of penguin density. Metrics of overlap were calculated and density was related to remote-sensed oceanographic variables and competitor density using generalized additive models.ResultsMacaroni penguins from western South Georgia and southern rockhopper penguins from Steeple Jason Island, Falkland Islands, were spatially segregated by differences in their habitat preferences thus supporting our first prediction regarding interspecific segregation. However, southern rockhopper penguins from Beauchêne Island showed a marked spatial overlap with macaroni penguins as the two had similar habitat preferences and strong mutual associations when controlling for habitat. Contrary to our predictions relating to intraspecific segregation, southern rockhopper penguins from Beauchêne Island and Steeple Jason Island were segregated by differences in habitat selection.Main conclusionsMorphological differentiation probably allows macaroni penguins from South Georgia and southern rockhopper penguins from Beauchêne Island to coexist in areas of spatial overlap, whereas segregation of the two Falkland rockhopper penguin populations may have arisen from two distinct lineages retaining cultural fidelity to ancestral wintering areas.

Highlights

  • Competition for food has important influences upon animal foraging ecology, population regulation, community structure and speciation (Hutchinson, 1957; MacArthur & Levins, 1967; MacArthur, 1968)

  • Macaroni penguins from western South Georgia and southern rockhopper penguins from Steeple Jason Island, Falkland Islands, were spatially segregated by differences in their habitat preferences supporting our first prediction regarding interspecific segregation

  • Contrary to our predictions relating to intraspecific segregation, southern rockhopper penguins from Beauch^ene Island and Steeple Jason Island were segregated by differences in habitat selection

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Competition for food has important influences upon animal foraging ecology, population regulation, community structure and speciation (Hutchinson, 1957; MacArthur & Levins, 1967; MacArthur, 1968). Interspecific competition occurs where two species compete for the same limited resource, with the result that the inferior competitor either becomes extinct or undergoes a behavioural or evolutionary shift to a different niche (Gause, 1934; Hardin, 1960). Such shifts can occur along multiple axes of the niche hypervolume (sensu Hutchinson, 1957), including that of spatial segregation, in which niche partitioning occurs via vertical or horizontal displacement (MacArthur, 1958; Amarasekare, 2003). The interplay of interspecific and intraspecific competition is likely to be complex where conspecifics and congeners occur in sympatric and parapatric colonies: few studies have convincingly quantified spatial segregation in these circumstances or the role that habitat preference plays in this (Wakefield et al, 2011)

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call