Cited by 38Marine animal studies overviewAvian ecology and behaviorMarine and fisheries research

Foraging performance and reproductive success of Humboldt penguins in relation to prey availability

Open access
Hennicke, JC, Culik, BM·2005·Marine Ecology Progress Series

Abstract

During the austral summer 1998/1999, we compared foraging ecology and reproduction between chick-rearing Humboldt penguins Spheniscus humboldti at 2 colonies in Chile.At Pan de Azúcar in northern Chile prey availability was assumed to be lower than at Puñihuil, 1500 km further south, according to oceanographic data.Fifteen adult penguins were equipped with temperaturedepth recorders and stomach-temperature-loggers in order to investigate foraging effort and foraging success in relation to differences in prey availability.There were no differences between colonies in diving behaviour.At Pan de Azúcar, foraging trips were longer than at Puñihuil (mean duration 36.5 ± 7.8 h vs. 19.0 ± 8.7 h), resulting in higher energy expenditure per foraging trip (on average 8092.7 ± 2216.7 kJ vs. 3934.5kJ, range: 3071 to 7930 kJ).Catch per unit effort at Pan de Azúcar equalled 2.2 ± 1.4 g min -1 under water, which was significantly less than 10.0 ± 7.3 g min -1 at Puñihuil.As a result of higher energetic costs and lower foraging success, the gross foraging efficiency per foraging trip (GFE) was lower at Pan de Azúcar than at Puñihuil (on average 0.94 ± 0.52 vs. 4.61 ± 3.4 [kJ gained/kJ invested]).The chick growth rates at Pan de Azúcar (mass: 40.0 ± 18.4 g d -1 vs. 63.0 ± 23.0 g d -1 ; bill length: 0.32 ± 0.07 mm d -1 vs. 0.47 ± 0.12 mm d -1 ), as well as chick survival (40% vs. 100%) and reproductive success (0.33 vs. 0.81 fledglings nest -1 ), were lower compared to Puñihuil.A GFE threshold of 1.08 was calculated for chick survival at Pan de Azúcar.We conclude that due to physiological and morphological constraints the penguins at Pan de Azúcar could not increase diving effort to compensate for lower prey availability, but took extended foraging trips instead.Therefore, foraging efficiency and meal delivery rate decreased, resulting in less chick growth and lower reproductive success.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3354/meps296173

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Colony size for wild S. humboldti is highly variable (Chile: 150-800 individuals), but they are only very rarely found in sub-colonies <20 adult birds when nesting.

    “Colony size for wild S. humboldti is highly variable (Chile: 150–800 individuals; Hennicke and Culik, 2005), but they are only very rarely found in sub-colonies <20 adult birds when nesting (Boersma, 1991).”

    From Husbandry and enclosure influences on penguin behavior and conservation breeding (2016) · cites this paper as Hennicke and Culik, 2005

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Beuteorganismen chilenischer Pinguine. MSc thesis, Uni- versity of Kiel
  2. Luna-Jorquera G (1996) Balancing the energy budget for a warm-blooded bird in a hot desert and cold seas: the case of the Humboldt penguin. PhD thesis, University of Kiel
  3. Peters G (1997) Die Regulation der Verdauungsprozesse bei Pinguinen (Spheniscidae). PhD thesis, University of Kiel
  4. Williams TD (1995) The penguins Spheniscidae. Bird families of the world. Oxford University Press, Oxford
  5. Wilson RP (1984) An improved stomach pump for penguins and other seabirds. J Field Ornith 55(1):109-112
  6. Wilson RP (1995) Foraging ecology. In: Williams TD (ed) The penguins Spheniscidae. Bird families of the world. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 81-106
  7. Zavalaga C, Paredes R (1997) Humboldt penguins at Punta San Juan, Peru. Penguin Conserv 10(1):6-8

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hennicke, J., & Culik, B.
Venue
Marine Ecology Progress Series
Published
2005
Volume
296
Pages
173-181
ISSN
  • 0171-8630 (ISSN-L)
  • 1616-1599
OpenAlex
W2018095017
Cited by
38
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Marine Ecology Progress Series (publishedVersion)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Marine animal studies overview
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Avian ecology and behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Marine and fisheries research
Keywords
Humboldt penguin, feeding ecology, prey availability, foraging effort, energy expenditure, catch per unit effort, diving behavior, chick growth rate, chick survival, reproductive success, Pan de Azúcar, oceanographic conditions

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