Volume 54, No. 2
Volumes > 38 (2010-->)
- Volume 54, No. 2, 2026
- Volume 54, No. 1, 2026
- Volume 53, No. 2, 2025
- Volume 53, No. 1, 2025
- Volume 52, No. 2, 2024
- 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:
Biometrics as predictors of chick age in European Storm Petrels Hydrobates pelagicus.
Citation
Bennett, S., & Bolton, M. (2026). Biometrics as predictors of chick age in European Storm Petrels Hydrobates pelagicus.
Marine Ornithology, 54(2),
259-266.
http://doi.org/10.5038/2074-1235.54.2.1705
Received 30 October 2025, accepted 07 February 2026
Date Published: 2026/10/15
Date Online: 2026/09/20
Key words: biometrics, growth curve, growth rates, Hydrobatidae, physiology, Procellariiformes
Abstract
Hatching dates for seabird chicks are often unknown, though they are of key utility for monitoring breeding timing, success, and chick fitness. Biometric measurements of known-age chicks can be used to construct growth curves for estimating the ages of chicks of unknown age. Such growth curves can be of particular use in species whose nesting attempts are not readily observed, such as in burrow-nesting species. However, comprehensive growth curves for chicks are not available for many seabird species. Here we use data collected in two breeding seasons on Mousa, Shetland, United Kingdom, to produce growth rate curves for the burrow-nesting European Storm Petrel Hydrobates pelagicus. We analyse data on body mass, and wing and tarsus length measurements, of known-age chicks. Importantly, all models account for individual-level variation in growth rates. Body mass and tarsus length increased consistently with age until ca. 40 d, after which body mass decreased and tarsus growth plateaued as chicks approached fledging size. We provide estimates of age and their associated body mass, tarsus length, and wing length across the full range of biometric measurements modelled. Age estimates derived from these biometrics will facilitate the ageing of storm petrel chicks to within ca. 3-6 d for birds up to around 65 d old. Obtaining multiple biometric measurements from individuals, and/or using multiple biometric types, may further refine these estimates.
References
Albores-Barajas, Y. V., Massa, B., Tagliavia, M., & Soldatini, C. (2015). Parental care and chick growth rate in the Mediterranean Storm-petrel Hydrobates pelagicus melitensis. Avocetta, 39(1), 29-35.
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2025). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4 (R package version 1.1-37) [Computer software]. Comprehensive R Archive Network. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
Bedolla-Guzmán, Y., Masello, J. F., Aguirre-Muñoz, A., Lavaniegos, B. E., & Quillfeldt, P. (2017). Breeding biology, chick growth, and diet of the Least Storm-Petrel Oceanodroma microsoma on Islas San Benito, Mexico. Marine Ornithology, 45(2), 129-138. http://doi.org/10.5038/2074-1235.45.2.1219
Benowitz-Fredericks, Z. M., Kitaysky, A. S., & Thompson, C. W. (2006). Growth and allocation in captive Common Murre (Uria aalge) chicks (Croissance et allocation chez des Oisillons Uria aalge). The Auk, 123(3), 722-734. https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/123.3.722
Benson, R. M. S. J., & Piatt, J. F. (2003). Assessing chick growth from a single visit to a seabird colony. Marine Ornithology, 31(2), 181-184. http://doi.org/10.5038/2074-1235.31.2.578
Boedeker, P. (2021). Nonlinear mixed-effects growth models: A tutorial using ‘saemix' in R. Methodology, 17(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.5964/meth.7061
Boersma, P. D., & Parrish, J. K. (1998). Flexible growth rates in Fork-Tailed Storm-Petrels: A response to environmental variability. The Auk, 115(1), 67-75. https://doi.org/10.2307/4089112
Bolton, M. (1995). Food delivery to nestling storm petrels: Limitation or regulation? Functional Ecology, 9(2), 161-170. https://doi.org/10.2307/2390560
Bolton, M. (1996). Energy expenditure, body-weight and foraging performance of Storm Petrels Hydrobates pelagicus breeding in artificial nesting chambers. Ibis, 138(3), 405-409. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.1996.tb08058.x
Comets, E., Lavenu, A., & Lavielle, M. (2017). Parameter estimation in nonlinear mixed effect models using saemix, an R implementation of the SAEM algorithm. Journal of Statistical Software, 80(3), 1-41. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v080.i03
Davis, P. (1957). The breeding of the storm petrel. British Birds, 1(3), 85-101.
Demongin, L. (2016). European Storm Petrel Hydrobates pelagicus. In Identification guide to birds in the hand: The 301 species most frequently caught in Western Europe: Identification, measurements, geographical variation, moult, sex and age (p. 53). Pelagic Publishing.
Fiske, J. A., Gannon, D., & Newman, A. E. M. (2013). Effects of repeated investigator handling of Leach's Storm-Petrel chicks on growth rates and the acute stress response. Journal of Field Ornithology, 84(4), 425-432. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofo.12041
Hatchwell, B. J. (1991). An experimental study of the effects of timing of breeding on the reproductive success of Common Guillemots (Uria aalge). Journal of Animal Ecology, 60(3), 721-736. https://doi.org/10.2307/5410
Huin, N., & Prince, P. A. (2000). Chick growth in albatrosses: Curve fitting with a twist. Journal of Avian Biology, 31(3), 418-425. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-048X.2000.310318.x
Hunt, G. L., & Hunt, M. W. (1976). Gull chick survival: The significance of growth rates, timing of breeding and territory size. Ecology, 57(1), 62-75. https://doi.org/10.2307/1936398
Jakubas, D., Wojczulanis-Jakubas, K., & Jensen, J.-K. (2014). Body size variation of European Storm Petrels Hydrobates pelagicus in relation to environmental variables. Acta Ornithologica, 49(1), 71-82. https://doi.org/10.3161/000164514X682904
Mauck, R. A., & Ricklefs, R. E. (2005). Control of fledging age in Leach's Storm-Petrel, Oceanodroma leucorhoa: Chick development and prefledging mass loss. Functional Ecology, 19(1), 73-80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0269-8463.2005.00933.x
Minguez, E. (1996). Nestling feeding strategy of the British storm-petrel Hydrobates pelagicus in a Mediterranean colony. Journal of Zoology, 239(4), 633-643. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1996.tb05467.x
Minguez, E., & Oro, D. (2003). Variations in nest mortality in the European storm petrel Hydrobates pelagicus. Ardea, 91(1), 113-117.
Quillfeldt, P., & Peter, H.-U. (2000). Provisioning and growth in chicks of Wilson's storm-petrels (Oceanites oceanicus) on King George Island, South Shetland Islands. Polar Biology, 23(12), 817-824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003000000158
R Core Team. (2024). R (version 4.3) [Computer software]. The R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/
Redfern, C. P. F., & Clark, J. A. (2001). Data collection and biometrics. In Ringers' manual (4th ed., pp. 223-224). British Trust for Ornithology.
Sauve, D., Friesen, V. L., Hatch, S. A., Elliott, K. H., & Charmantier, A. (2023). Shifting environmental predictors of phenotypes under climate change: A case study of growth in high latitude seabirds. Journal of Avian Biology, 2023(5-6), e03062. https://doi.org/10.1111/jav.03062
Scott, D. A. (1970). The breeding biology of the storm petrel Hydrobates pelagicus [Doctoral dissertation, University of Oxford]. Oxford University Research Archive. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:24973c21-ab78-42f1-a3c1-a7665b776bbf
Snow, D. W., & Perrins, C. M. (1998). European Storm Petrel, Hydrobates pelagicus. In The birds of the Western Palearctic: Concise edition (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.