Scale‐dependent habitat use in a long‐ranging central place predator

By David Pinaud, Henri Weimerskirch. 2005

209 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/198d43f3ba5c02463d7c7f843ea13004f8a84cd5

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

Citations in the corpus

Microhabitat use and prey capture of a bottom-feeding top predator, the European shag, shown by camera loggers (2008, background): “…or habitat usage (determined by land-based or satellite-linked radio tracking and geolocating archival tags) and habitat structure (determined by ship-based surveys and satellite imagery) has only been possible at a relatively coarse scale (>1 km) (Pinaud & Weimerskirch 2005, Shaffer et al. 2006).”
Individual responses of seabirds to commercial fisheries revealed using GPS tracking, stable isotopes and vessel monitoring systems (2010, methodology): “Similar to studies of other marine predators (Pinaud & Weimerskirch 2005), we have shown that gannets exhibit scaledependent movement in relation to environmental cues.”
Quantifying habitat use and preferences of pelagic seabirds using individual movement data: a review (2009, methodology): “This approach is often seen in biological oceanography (Haury et al. 1977, Levin 1993), and has been applied more recently in studies of pelagic seabirds (Fauchald 1999, Fauchald et al. 2000, Pinaud & Weimerskirch 2005).”
Perspectives in Ornithology: Application of tracking and data-logging technology in research and conservation of seabirds (2009, unknown): “…oceanographic or environmental properties associated with each zone to establish habitat preferences or to identify features that define suitable habitat (Hyrenbach et al. 2002, Pinaud and Weimerskirch 2005, Weimerskirch et al. 2005a, Phillips et al. 2006, Shaffer et al. 2006, Suryan et al. 2006).”
A comparison of indirect measures of feeding behaviour based on ARGOS tracking data (2007, background): “It is clear that individuals, even within the same species, can operate at unique spatial scales (Pinaud and Weimerskirch, 2005).”
How key habitat features influence large terrestrial carnivore movements: waterholes and African lions in a semi-arid savanna of north-western Zimbabwe (2010, background): “The relationship between search patterns and the distribution of prey has been documented for large free-ranging predators in marine ecosystems (e.g. Pinaud and Weimerskirch 2005; Bailey and Thompson 2006) but extremely little is known for large free-ranging predators in terrestrial ecosystems (but…”
Spatial interaction between seabirds and prey: review and synthesis (2009, background): “Recently, several telemetry studies have found that the foraging pattern of seabirds conforms with a nested ARS (Fritz et al. 2003, Pinaud & Weimerskirch 2005, 2007, Fauchald & Tveraa 2006).”
Migration of an upper trophic level predator, the salmon shark Lamna ditropis, between distant ecoregions (2008, background): “By combining measurements of both behavior and the environment we may gain clues to the ecology of organisms that cannot be directly observed (Pinaud & Weimerskirch 2005).”
Habitat preference, accessibility, and competition limit the global distribution of breeding Black-browed Albatrosses (2011, background): “Hence, poor-quality habitat patches may have been used while birds were searching for more suitable foraging areas (Fauchald 1999, Pinaud and Weimerskirch 2005).”
Wind field and sex constrain the flight speeds of central‐place foraging albatrosses (2009, unknown): “2005, Pinaud and Weimerskirch 2005).”
Animal movements in heterogeneous landscapes: identifying profitable places and homogeneous movement bouts. (2008, methodology): “Most animals have to move through heterogeneous landscapes, a mosaic of areas that are more or less convenient with respect to their specific needs.”
Temporal resolutions in species distribution models of highly mobile marine animals: Recommendations for ecologists and managers (2017, unknown): “…drives the distribution and movement patterns of marine animals at multiple spatiotemporal scales (Benoit-Bird, Battaile, Nordstrom, & Trites, 2013; Fauchald, Erikstad, & Skarsfjord, 2000; Fauchald & Tveraa, 2006; Fritz, Said, & Weimerskirch, 2003; Pinaud & Weimerskirch, 2005) (Figure 1).”
Individual differences in searching behaviour and spatial foraging consistency in a central place marine predator (2014, background): “Th ere is evidence that these animals alter searching intensity in response to biotic and abiotic cues (Hamer et al. 2009), indicating that they use such environmental proxies to locate prey (Pinaud and Weimerskirch 2005, Votier et al. 2010).”
Spatial scales of marine conservation management for breeding seabirds (2018, methodology): “To identify the core area, the scale of the area-restricted search derived from first-passage time analysis was used as the smoothing factor in the kernel density estimator [1,59,60].”
Novel GPS tracking of sea turtles as a tool for conservation management (2007, background): “Pinaud and Weimerskirch, 2005; Bailey and Thompson, 2006).”
Foraging destinations and marine habitat use of short-tailed albatrosses: A multi-scale approach using first-passage time analysis (2006, methodology): “FPT analysis should therefore be a precursor to modeling habitat use (Pinaud and Weimerskirch, 2005).”