Cited by 31Animal Behavior and ReproductionAvian ecology and behaviorAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies

Does it always pay to defend one's nest? A case study in African penguin

Traisnel, Gwendoline, Pichegru, Lorien·2018·Ethology

Abstract

Throughout the animal kingdom, individual variation in reproductive success is commonly observed, even under similar environmental conditions. However, the mechanisms behind such differences remain unclear. The notion of behavioural consistency in animals has developed rapidly since the early 21st century partly as an approach to understand among‐individual differences. In this context, a number of studies have highlighted the influence of pair assortment in personality on breeding success. In this study, we related breeding success to individual behaviour, specifically a risk‐taking behaviour, and pair assortment per behaviour in African penguins (Spheniscus demersus) over two breeding seasons of contrasting food availability. On Bird Island, Algoa Bay, South Africa, we used indices of boldness and overall mobility in penguins’ nest defence behaviour as a response to a standard pedestrian approach during chick‐rearing. These behaviours were consistent over the trials and indicated these traits may be related to personality in African penguins. Individuals were categorized as risk‐prone (“bold,” “mobile”) or risk‐averse (“shy,” “non‐mobile”). We then assessed their breeding success through chick growth and survival over 4 weeks in 2015 and 2016. There was weak positive assortment of pairs in relation to nest defence behaviour. However, pair assortment did not significantly influence birds’ breeding success. Shy penguins were generally the most successful (had the highest chick growth rates), which was especially apparent during a food shortage in 2016, possibly reflecting a higher energy investment when foraging. In contrast, chicks from bold parents grew significantly slower, especially in 2016. Bold parents may defend their nest successfully against predation or intra‐specific aggression when food is abundant, but when predation risks are limited and food availability is low, this strategy may not be beneficial. In the context of climate change, where food shortage events may become more frequent, risk‐averse individuals may be favoured and genetic diversity may be reduced in African penguins.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/eth.12704

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Caro T. M, 2005, Antipredator defense in birds and mammals

Cited by

Still being checked.

Authors
Traisnel, G., & Pichegru, L.
Affiliations
FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology (ZA)
Corresponding author
Traisnel, Gwendoline
Venue
Ethology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-11-16
Volume
124
Issue
1
Pages
74-83
ISSN
  • 0179-1613 (ISSN-L)
  • 1439-0310
OpenAlex
W2768535732
Cited by
31
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3
FWCI
2.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Ethology (publishedVersion)
  • Nelson Mandela University Research Repository (submittedVersion)
Funders
DST-NRF Centre of Excellence at the Percy FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Avian ecology and behavior
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Keywords
African penguin, Spheniscus demersus, behavioral consistency, animal personality, boldness, breeding success, chick growth, chick survival, food availability, predation risk, climate change, genetic diversity, seabirds

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review