Sexual dimorphism and sexual segregation in foraging strategies of northern giant petrels, Macronectes halli, during incubation

By J. González‐Solís, J. Croxall, A. G. Wood. 2000

295 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/515da34b36c77c56a2ed69a380a00661d7017b48

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

Food resource utilisation by the Magellanic penguin evaluated through stable-isotope analysis: segregation by sex and age and influence on offspring quality (2002, background): “Segregation in food habits (prey size or type) or foraging areas between sexes have been reported for other marine birds including penguins (Volkman et al. 1980, Hobson 1993, Koffijberg & van Eerden 1995, Kato et al. 1996, 2000, Clarke et al. 1998, González-Solís et al. 2000).”
High trophic overlap within the seabird community of Argentinean Patagonia: a multiscale approach (2004, background): “The giant petrel is the largest avian predator–scavenger in the Patagonian seabird community but it showed lower δ15N values than would occur on a diet based primarily on penguin carrion as suggested elsewhere (Hunter & de Brooke 1992; González-Solís et al. 2000).”
Quantifying habitat use and preferences of pelagic seabirds using individual movement data: a review (2009, background): “Similarly, as habitat use may vary inter-annually (Xavier et al. 2003, Pinaud et al. 2005), and between populations (González-Solis et al. 2000a, Grémillet et al. 2004, Rayner et al. 2008), potential plasticity in habitat preferences should be considered, and if possible incorporated into analyses…”
Foraging partitioning between giant petrels Macronectes spp. and its relationship with breeding population changes at Bird Island, South Georgia (2000, background): “…ecology, such as the precise locations of feeding grounds (e.g. Weimerskirch et al. 1994, Rodhouse et al. 1996, Prince et al. 1998) and sexual differences in foraging ecology (Prince et al. 1992, Weimerskirch 1995, Weimerskirch et al. 1997a, González-Solís et al. 2000), can now be addressed.”
Causes and consequences of individual variability and specialization in foraging and migration strategies of seabirds (2017, background): “A classic example of social dominance is where larger, male giant petrels Macro - nectes spp. dominate scavenging opportunities at seal and penguin carcasses on land, where interference competition clearly occurs, forcing females to primarily forage at sea (González-Solís et al. 2000).”
The conservation status and priorities for albatrosses and large petrels (2016, background): “Several species exhibit pronounced sexual segregation, with females tending to feed at lower latitudes or further from colonies than males, attributed to competition between sexes or habitat specialisation, and related in some, but not all species, to sexual size dimorphism (Bartle, 1990; González-S”
Sex-specific foraging behaviour in northern gannets Morus bassanus: incidence and implications (2012, background): “Many marine and terrestrial animals exhibit clear sex-related differences in foraging behaviour and distribution (e.g. Main et al. 1996, Conradt 1998, González-Solís et al. 2000, Bowyer 2004, Bearhop et al. 2006, Paredes & Insley 2010).”
Sex-specific foraging behaviour in tropical boobies: does size matter? (2005, background): “This requirement might increase the selection pressure for greater size in females, if they require specific nutrients post-laying (Nisbet 1997) that are only present close to the colony, and large size is advantageous in intrasexual competition (Gonzalez-Solis et al. 2000).”
Sexually distinct foraging strategies in an omnivorous seabird (2015, background): “Sexual differences in foraging behaviour of parents have been observed in a number of sexually size-dimorphic animals, with the usual inference that sex-specific differences are mediated primarily by differences in body size (González-Solís et al. 2000; Phillips et al. 2004).”