Effects of prey abundance on the foraging behaviour, diving efficiency and time allocation of breeding guillemots Uria aalge

By P. Monaghan, P. Walton, Sarah Wanless, J. Uttley, M. D. Bljrns. 2008

119 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Seabird foraging behaviour indicates prey type (2008, background): “Nonetheless, results suggest that these generalist predators may be useful indicators of the horizontal and vertical distribution of their prey, as well as total prey abundance (Monaghan et al. 1994).”
Seabirds as indicators of marine food supplies: Cairns revisited (2007, background): “Since Cairns’ paper was published, there have been a few coordinated studies of seabird biology in relation to prey abundance (e.g. Monaghan et al. 1989, 1994, Hamer et al. 1991, 1993, Uttley et al. 1994, Reid et al. 2005, Frederiksen et al. 2006), but none were designed to explicitly test Cairns’…”
Foraging plasticity in a pelagic seabird species along a marine productivity gradient (2010, background): “…behaviour is characterised by significant changes in terms of diving effort (Lewis et al. 2004), diving pattern (Kato et al. 1996), diel rhythms of feeding events (Garthe et al. 2003), proportion of the foraging trip spent travelling (Monaghan et al. 1994) and trip duration (Congdon et al. 2005).”
Sex‐specific food provisioning in a monomorphic seabird, the common guillemot Uria aalge: nest defence, foraging efficiency or parental effort? (2009, background): “Moreover, there was no difference between sexes in time spent underwater or depth attained during each dive, or in dive: pause ratio, which strongly suggests that sexes did not differ in their ability to capture prey (Monaghan et al. 1994).”