Variation in foraging strategies of New Zealand albatross species within a dominance hierarchy

ABSTRACT

Co-occurring species sharing a limited resource are thought to adopt alternative strategies to coexist. Here, we investigate four species of co-occurring albatrosses in southern New Zealand that share food resources but differ in dominance status to test for variation in strategies to acquire supplemental food provided by ecotourism boats. We found evidence for distinct foraging strategies consistent with each species’ dominance rank. Buller’s albatross (Thalassarche bulleri) was the most subordinate species and frequently pursued scraps of fish on the periphery of the feeding flocks and avoided interacting with other species. Salvin’s albatross (Thalassarche salvini) and White-capped albatross (Thalassarche cauta) were intermediate in dominance status; both had fast responses to fish and typically pursued the largest fish scraps, though T. cauta successfully stole fish while T. salvini did not. In contrast, Southern Royal albatross (Diomedea epomophora) was the dominant species and did not avoid interactions with other species and pursued the largest fish scraps but was slower to respond compared with some subordinates. Natural food sources approximate the scenarios seen behind ecotourism boats, suggesting that differences in foraging strategies are likely present without human intervention. Overall, our results suggest that foraging strategies associated with dominance hierarchies could help structure seabird communities.

KEYWORDS:

• Behavioural dominance
• dominance hierarchy
• alternative strategies
• foraging
• albatross
• Rakiura
• New Zealand

View correction statement:

Correction

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Matt Jones, Ty Jenkinson (Aurora Australis), Sav Saville, Brent Stephenson, Neil Robertson, and David Thomas of Wrybill Tours who made the trips possible. Thanks to Yohanna Vangenne, James Potechnykh and Madison Monnington for proof reading, input, and endless albatross discussions.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Author contributions

EEB and PRM designed the study and wrote the manuscript. EEB collected the data, while PRM conducted the statistical analyses. JVB reviewed and provided feedback on the study design and manuscript.

Data availability statement

All data and R code is deposited in Figshare at the following link: 10.6084/m9.figshare.19993520.

Correction Statement

This article was originally published with errors, which have now been corrected in the online version. Please see Correction (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03014223.2022.2147471).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Erskine Visiting Fellowship (University of Canterbury); Allen Keast International Exchange Fund.