Volume 49, No. 2
Volumes > 38 (2010-->)
- Volume 52, No. 1, 2024
- Volume 51, No. 2, 2023
- Volume 51, No. 1, 2023
- Volume 50, No. 2, 2022
- Volume 50, No. 1, 2022
- Volume 49, No. 2, 2021
- Volume 49, No. 1, 2021
- Volume 48, No. 2, 2020
- Volume 48, No. 1, 2020
- Volume 47, No. 2, 2019
- Volume 47, No. 1, 2019
- Volume 46, No. 2, 2018
- Volume 46, No. 1, 2018
- Volume 45, No. 2, 2017
- Volume 45, No. 1, 2017
- Volume 44, No. 2, 2016
- Volume 44, No. 1, 2016
- Volume 43, No. 2, 2015
- Volume 43, No. 1, 2015
- Volume 42, No. 2, 2014
- Volume 42, No. 1, 2014
- Volume 41, No. 2, 2013
- Volume 41, No. 1, 2013
- Volume 41, Special Issue, 2013
- Volume 40, No. 2, 2012
- Volume 40, No. 1, 2012
- Volume 39, No. 2, 2011
- Volume 39, No. 1, 2011
- Volume 38, No. 2, 2010
- Volume 38, No. 1, 2010
Volumes 28-37 (2000-09)
- Volume 37, No. 3, 2009
- Volume 37, No. 2, 2009
- Volume 37, No. 1, 2009
- Volume 36, No. 2, 2008
- Volume 36, No. 1, 2008
- Volume 35, No. 2, 2007
- Volume 35, No. 1, 2007
- Volume 34, No. 2, 2006
- Volume 34, No. 1, 2006
- Volume 33, No. 2, 2005
- Volume 33, No. 1, 2005
- Volume 32, No. 2, 2004
- Volume 32, No. 1, 2004
- Volume 31, No. 2, 2003
- Volume 31, No. 1, 2003
- Volume 30, No. 2, 2002
- Volume 30, No. 1, 2002
- Volume 29, No. 2, 2001
- Volume 29, No. 1, 2001
- Volume 28, No. 2, 2000
- Volume 28, No. 1, 2000
Volumes 18-27 (1990-99)
- Volume 27, No. 1 & 2, 1999
- Volume 26, No. 1 & 2, 1998
- Volume 24, No. 1 & 2, 1996
- Volume 25, No. 1 & 2, 1997
- Volume 23, No. 2, 1995
- Volume 23, No. 1, 1995
- Volume 22, No. 2, 1994
- Volume 22, No. 1, 1994
- Volume 21, No. 1 & 2, 1993
- Volume 20, No. 1 & 2, 1992
- Volume 19, No. 1, 1991
- Volume 18, No. 1 & 2, 1990
Volumes 5-17 (1978-89) a.k.a 'Cormorant'
- Volume 17, No. 1 & 2, 1989
- Volume 16, No. 1, 1988
- Volume 16, No. 2, 1988
- Volume 15, No. 1 & 2, 1987
- Volume 14, No. 1 & 2, 1987
- Volume 13, No. 2, 1986
- Volume 13, No. 1, 1986
- Volume 12, No. 2, 1985
- Volume 12, No. 1, 1985
- Volume 11, No. 1 & 2, 1984
- Volume 10, No. 2, 1983
- Volume 10, No. 1, 1983
- Volume 9, No. 2, 1982
- Volume 9, No. 1, 1982
- Volume 8, No. 2, 1981
- Volume 8, No. 1, 1981
- Volume 7, 1980
- Volume 5, 1978
Search by author or title:
No evidence of habitat effect on clutch size, egg quality, and hatching success of the Yellow-legged Gull Larus michahellis at a micro-spatial scale
Citation
DELGADO, S., ZORROZUA, N. & ARIZAGA, J. 2021. No evidence of habitat effect on clutch size, egg quality, and hatching success of the Yellow-legged Gull Larus michahellis at a micro-spatial scale. Marine Ornithology 49: 241 - 246
Received 17 March 2021, accepted 19 May 2021
Date Published: 2021/10/15
Date Online: 2021/09/30
Key words: breeding season, habitat selection, nest, seabird, vegetation, Yellow-legged Gull
Abstract
In colonial seabirds, the nest substrate that is available and, in particular, the vegetation cover around the nest, are important environmental factors that drive an individual's nesting selection process and, ultimately, reproductive performance. Using data collected during three consecutive years in a Yellow-legged Gull Larus michahellis colony from the Bay of Biscay, Spain, we tested whether clutch size, egg volume, and hatching success covaried with the proportion of vegetation cover around nests. We found no effect of vegetation cover on breeding performance. Laying date showed a positive effect on egg volume and a negative effect on hatching success and the number of hatched eggs. Egg volume tended to be smaller in 2020 compared to 2018 and 2019, and hatching success decreased through the sampling period, with the lowest hatching success occurring in 2020. Our findings agree with a previous study in which vegetation had no or unclear effects on breeding performance in Yellow-legged Gulls; however, they contradict other seabird studies that found a positive correlation between the two variables. The role of vegetation on breeding performance could vary not only between gull species, but also geographically, with ecological drivers such as intra- and interspecific interactions and climate playing key roles in observed differences. Finally, the use of egg volume and hatching success as proxies for breeding output could be used for the long-term monitoring of the relationship between breeding performance and factors such as landfill management, fishing, or climate change in the Yellow-legged Gull and other gull species.
References
ARIZAGA, J., ALDALUR, A., CUADRADO, J. ET AL. 2012. Parámetros reproductores de la Gaviota Patiamarilla Larus michahellis lusitanius Naumann, 1840 en Gipuzkoa. Munibe 60: 167-174.
ARIZAGA, J., GALARZA, A., HERRERO, A., HIDALGO, J. & ALDALUR, A. 2009. Distribución y tamaño de la población de la Gaviota Patiamarilla Larus Michahellis Lusitanius en el País Vasco: Tres décadas de estudio. Revista Catalana de Ornitología 25: 32-42.
ARIZAGA, J., HERRERO, A., GALARZA, A., HIDALGO, J., ALDALUR, A. & CUADRADO, J. 2011. First-year movements of Yellow-Legged Gull (Larus Michahellis Lusitanius) from the Southeastern Bay of Biscay. Waterbirds 33: 444-450. doi:10.1675/063.033.0403
BAALOUDJ, A., SAMRAOUI, F., LAOUAR, A. ET AL. 2012. Dispersal of Yellow-legged gulls Larus michahellis ringed in Algeria: a preliminary analysis. Ardeola 59: 137-144
BELANT, J. L., ICKES, S.K. & SEAMANS, T.W. 1998. Importance of landfills to urban-nesting Herring and Ring-Billed Gulls. Landscape and Urban Planning 43: 11-19. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00100-5
BIRKHEAD, T.R. & NETTLESHIP, D.N. 1982. The adaptive significance of egg size and laying date in Thick‐Billed Murres Uria Lomvia. Ecology 63: 300-306. doi:10.2307/1938946
BLACKMER, A., ACKERMAN, J. & NEVITT, G. 2004. Effects of investigator disturbance on hatching success and nest-site fidelity in a long-lived seabird, Leach's Storm-Petrel. Biological Conservation 116: 141-148. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00185-X
BOLTON, M. 1991. Determinants of chick survival in the Lesser Black-Backed Gull: relative contributions of egg size and parental quality. Journal of Animal Ecology 60: 949-960. doi:10.2307/5424
BOLTON, M., HOUSTON, D. & MONAGHAN, P. 1992. Nutritional constraints on egg formation in the Lesser Black-Backed Gull: an experimental study. Journal of Animal Ecology 61: 521-532.
BONGIORNO, S.F. 1970. Nest-site selection by adult Laughing Gulls (Larus atricilla). Animal Behaviour 18: 434-444. doi:10.1016/0003-3472(70)90037-0
BOSCH, M. & SOL, D. 1998. Habitat selection and breeding success in Yellow-legged gulls Larus cachinnans. Ibis 140: 415-421
BOSCH, M., ORO, D., CANTOS, F. & ZABALA, M. 2000. Short‐term effects of culling on the ecology and population dynamics of the Yellow‐legged gull. Journal of Applied Ecology 37: 369-385. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2664.2000.00501.x
BOSMAN, D.S. 2014. Effects of intraclutch variation in egg size and hatching asynchrony on nestling development and survival in semi‐precocial Herring Gulls. Journal of Field Ornithology 85: 379-390. doi:10.1111/jofo.12077
BURGER, J. 1977. Role of visibility in nesting behavior of Larus gulls. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 91: 1347-1358.
BURGER, J. & SHISLER, J. 1978. Nest site selection and competitive interactions of Herring and Laughing Gulls in New Jersey. The Auk 95: 252-266. doi:10.1093/auk/95.2.252
CASWELL, H. 2001. Matrix population models: construction, analysis, and interpretation. Sunderland, USA: Sinauer Associates, Inc. Publishers.
COULSON, J.C. 2015. Re-evaluation of the role of landfills and culling in the historic changes in the Herring Gull (Larus argentatus) population in Great Britain. Waterbirds 38: 339-354. doi:10.1675/063.038.0411
CRAIK, J.C.A. 1999. Breeding success of Common Gulls Larus canus in West Scotland, I. Observation at a single colony. Atlantic Seabirds. 1: 169-181.
CRAIK, J.C.A. 2000. A simple and rapid method of estimating gull productivity. Bird Study 47: 113-116.
DAVIS, J.W.F. 1975. Age, egg size and breeding success in the Herring gull Larus argentatus. Ibis 117: 460-473. doi:10.1111/j.1474-919X.1975.tb04239.x
DELGADO, S. & ARIZAGA, J. 2017. Pre-fledging survival in a Yellow-legged Gull Larus michahellis population in Northern Iberia is mostly determined by hatching date. Bird Study 64: 132-137. doi:10.1080/00063657.2017.1306022
DUHEM, C., VIDAL, E., ROCHE, P. & LEGRAND, J. 2003. Island breeding and continental feeding: How are diet patterns in adult Yellow-legged Gulls influenced by landfill accessibility and breeding stages. Écoscience 10: 502-508. doi:10.1080/11956860.2003.11682798
EGUNEZ, A., ZORROZUA, N., ALDALUR, A., HERRERO, A. & ARIZAGA, J. 2018. Local use of landfills by a Yellow-legged Gull population suggests distance-dependent resource exploitation. Journal of Avian Biology 49: jav-01455. doi:10.1111/jav.01455
ELLIS, J. 2005. Marine birds on land: a review of plant biomass, species richness, and community composition in seabird colonies. Plant Ecology 181: 227-241. doi:10.1007/s11258-005-7147-y
ERWIN, R.M. & THOMAS W.C. 1982. Estimating reproductive success in colonial waterbirds: an evaluation. Colonial Waterbirds 5: 49-56. doi:10.2307/1521032
FOSTER, S., SWANN, R.L & FURNESS R.W. 2017. Can changes in fishery landings explain long-term population trends in gulls? Bird Study 64: 90-97. doi:10.1080/00063657.2016.1274287
GARTHE, S., SCHWEMMER, P., PAIVA, V. ET AL. 2016. Terrestrial and marine foraging strategies of an opportunistic seabird species breeding in the Wadden Sea. PLoS One 11: e0159630. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0159630
GALARZA, A. 2008. Variaciones en los parámetros reproductores de la gaviota patiamarilla (Larus michahellis) de dos colonias de Pais Vasco (Golfo de Vizcaya). Artado 3: 9-17.
GALARZA, A., & ARIZAGA, A. 2014. Population dynamics of a colony of Little Egrets Egretta garzetta at an estuary in northern Spain. Ardeola 61: 285-296
GASTON, A.J. 2004. Seabirds: A Natural History. New Haven, USA: Yale University Press. doi:10.1093/condor/107.3.728
HAMMOUDA, A., HAMZA, F., PEARCE-DUVET, J. & SELMI, S. 2016. Relationship between clutch size, egg volume and hatching success in a Yellow-legged Gull Larus michahellis colony in south-eastern Tunisia. Journal of African Ornithology 87: 139-144
HUNT, G.L. 1972. Influence of food distribution and human disturbance on the reproductive success of Herring Gulls. Ecology 53: 1051-1061. doi:10.2307/1935417
HIOM L., BOLTON, M. & MONAGHAN, P. 1991. Experimental evidence for food limitation of egg production in gulls. Ornis Scandinavica 22: 94-97
ISENMANN, P. 1976. Contribution à l'étude de la biologie de la reproduction et de l'écologie du goéland argenté à pieds jaunes (Larus argentatus michahellis) en Camargue. Revue d'Ecologie (Terre & Vie) 30: 551-563
JEHL, J.R. 1971. Patterns of hatching success in subarctic birds. Ecology 52: 169-173. doi:10.2307/1934750
JUEZ, L., ALDALUR, A., HERRERO, A., GALARZA, A. & ARIZAGA. J. 2015. Effect of age, colony of origin and year on survival of Yellow-legged Gulls Larus michahellis in the Bay of Biscay. Ardeola: Revista Ibérica de Ornitología 62: 139-150. doi:10.13157/arla.62.1.2015.139
KRAUSE, J. & RUXTON, G.D. 2002. Living in Groups. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
KIM, S.Y & MONAGHAN, P. 2005. Effects of vegetation on nest microclimate and breeding performance of Lesser Black-Backed Gulls (Larus fuscus). Journal of Ornithology 146: 176-183. doi:10.1007/s10336-005-0077-6
KIM, S.Y. & MONAGHAN, P. 2005. Interacting effects of nest shelter and breeder quality on behaviour and breeding performance of Herring Gulls. Animal Behaviour 69: 301-306
KUBELKA, V., SLÁDEČEK, M., ZÁMEČNÍK, V., VOZABULOVÁ, E. & ŠÁLEK, M. 2020. Seasonality predicts egg size better than nesting habitat in a precocial shorebird. Ardea 107: 239-250. doi:10.5253/arde.v107i3.a4
MARTINEZ-ABRAIN, A., ORO, D. & CARDA, J. 2002. Movements of Yellow-legged Gulls Larus [cachinnans] michahellis from two small western Mediterranean colonies. Atlantic Seabirds 4: 101-108.
MARTÍNEZ-ABRAÍN, A., ORO, D., IZQUIERDO, J., FERRIS, V. & BARRIONUEVO, R. 2003. A comparison of two methods to estimate breeding productivity in a colonial ground-nesting gull Larus cachinnans. Marine Ornithology 31: 71-74.
MCKNIGHT, A., IRONS, D.B., LOFTIN, C.S., MCKINNEY, S. & OLSEN, B. 2020. Combined influence of intrinsic and environmental factors in shaping productivity in a small pelagic gull, the Black-legged Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla. Marine Ecology Progress Series 633: 207-223. doi:10.3354/meps13162
MIYAZAKI, M. 1996. Vegetation cover, kleptoparasitism by diurnal gulls, and timing of arrival of nocturnal rhinoceros auklets. The Auk 113: 698-702
MONTEVECCHI, W.A. 1978. Nest site selection and its survival value among laughing gulls. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 4: 143-161.
O'HANLON, N., ALONSO, S., MILLER, J., MCGILL, R. & NAGER, R. 2019. Landscape‐mediated variation in diet is associated with egg size and maculation in a generalist forager. Ibis 162: 687-700 doi:10.1111/ibi.12739
O'HANLON, N.J., MCGILL, R.A.R. & NAGER, R.G. 2017. Increased use of intertidal resources benefits breeding success in a generalist gull species. Marine Ecology Progress Series 574: 193-210. doi:10.3354/meps12189
ORO, D., BOSCH, M. & RUIZ, X. 1995. Effects of a trawling moratorium on the breeding success of the Yellow‐legged Gull Larus cachinnans. Ibis 137: 547-549. doi:10.1111/j.1474-919X.1995.tb03265.x
PARSONS, K.C. 1982. Nest-site habitat and hatching success of gulls. Colonial Waterbirds 5: 131-138. doi:10.2307/1521044
PIEROTTI, R. & ANNETT, C.A. 1991. Diet choice in the Herring Gull: constraints imposed by reproductive and ecological factors. Ecology 72: 319-328. doi:10.2307/1938925
RIADH MOULAÏ, R.R., SADOUL, N. & DOUMANDJI, S. 2006. Population size and breeding biology of Yellow-legged Gull, Larus michahellis in Béjaia area (Algeria). Alauda 74: 225-234
REAL, E., ORO, D., MARTÍNEZ‐ABRAÍN, A. ET AL. 2017. Predictable anthropogenic food subsidies, density‐dependence and socio‐economic factors influence breeding investment in a generalist seabird. Journal of Avian Biology 48: 1462-1470. doi:10.1111/jav.01454
RENNER, H.M., DRUMMOND, B.A., BENSON, A. & PAREDES, R. 2014. Reproductive success of kittiwakes and murres in sequential stages of the nesting period: relationships with diet and oceanography. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 109: 251-265. doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2014.03.006
RODWAY, M.S., MONTEVECCHI, W., & CHARDINE, J. 1996. Effects of investigator disturbance on breeding success of Atlantic puffins Fratercula arctica. Biological Conservation 76: 311-319. doi:10.1016/0006-3207(94)00118-9
RODWAY, M.S. & REGEHR, H.M. 1999. Habitat selection and reproductive performance of food-stressed Herring gulls. The Condor 101: 566-576
ROSS-SMITH, V., JOHNSTON, A., & FERNS, P. 2015. Hatching success in Lesser Black-backed Gulls Larus fuscus - an island case study of the effects of egg and nest site quality. Seabird 28: 1-16.
SALIVA, J.E. & BURGER, J. 1989. Effect of experimental manipulation of vegetation density on nest-site selection in sooty terns. The Condor 91: 689-698
WITH, K.A. & WEBB, D.R. 1993. Microclimate of ground nests: the relative importance of radiative cover and wind breaks for three grassland species. The Condor 95: 401-413
YORIO, P., BERTELLOTTI, M. & QUINTANA, F. 1995. Preference for covered nest sites and breeding success in Kelp gulls Larus dominicanus. Marine Ornithology 23: 121-128.
ZORROZUA, N., ALDALUR, A., HERRERO, A. ET AL. 2020a. Breeding Yellow-Legged gulls increase consumption of terrestrial prey after landfill closure. Ibis 162: 50-62. doi:10.1111/ibi.12701
ZORROZUA, N., EGUNEZ, A., ALDALUR, A. ET AL. 2020b. Evaluating the effect of distance to different food subsidies on the trophic ecology of an opportunistic seabird species. Journal of Zoology. 311: 45-55. doi:10.1111/jzo.12759