Table 12.Use of food resources by seabirds in the oceanic and offshore neritic habitats, Bering Sea domain.Information is from Tables 1-10. (Trophic level I = plants, II = secondary carnivore, III = tertiary carnivore, IV = upper level carnivore; Sc = scavenger on carrion, offal, or detritus [II-IV]; x = major food in diet, o = minor food, * = incidental food, ? = probable food.)SeabirdsBird trophic levels and food categoriesIIIIIIVScCrustaceanPolychaeteCoelenterateFish/Squid eggs & LarvaeFishCephalopodBirdsCarrion/offal/detritusDiomedea nigripesxoooxxxD. immutabilisxFulmarus glacialisxoxoxxxPuffinus griseusxxxP. tenuirostrisxoxPterodroma inexpectataxxOceanodroma furcataxooxxxxPhalaropus fulicariusxxoLobipes lobatusxxoStercorariusspp.oxx?xLarus hyperboreusxoooxx?xL. glaucescensxoooxx?xRissa tridactylaxxxoR. brevirostrisxxxoXema sabinixxooSterna paradisaeaxxooUria aalgexoxxU. lomviaxoxxLunda cirrhata?xxFratercula corniculata*xxSynthliboramphus antiquusxxCyclorrhynchus psittaculusxo**Aethia cristatellaxxA. pusillaxoA. pygmaeax
Information contained in Tables 11-15 can be summarized to show characteristics of seabird trophic relations. One such characteristic is the range of diet breadth or diet complexity (Table 16). Few species (about 6%) feed on only one type of prey and might, therefore, be referred to as "specialists." Included are eared grebe(Podiceps caspicus), Laysan albatross, brown pelican, emperor goose(Philacte canagica), black brant(Bernicia bernicla), peregrine falcon, and whiskered auklet(Aethia pygmaea). Consideration of these species as specialists may require revision when more data become available. Except for the albatross and auklet, these species are members of the inshore neritic cohort. Food specialization does not seem to be characteristic of oceanic birds in particular or of most seabirds in general.
Table 13.Use of food resources by seabirds in the Alaska Stream domain.Information is from Tables 1-10. (Trophic level I = plants, II = secondary carnivore, III = tertiary carnivore, IV = upper level carnivore, Sc = scavenger on carrion, offal, or detritus [II-IV]; x = major food in diet, o = minor food, * = incidental food, ? = probable food.)SeabirdsHabitat, bird trophic levels (I-IV. Sc), and food categoriesOceanic and offshore neriticInshore neritic Inshore neriticIIIIIIVScIIIIIIIVScCrustaceanPolychaeteCoelenterateFish/squideggs&larvaeFishCephalopodBirdsCarrion/offal/detritusPlantCrustacean,midwaterCrustacean,benthicCoelenterateEchinodermMolluscFish,midwaterFish,benthicCephalopodBirdsFish/squideggs&larvaeCarrion/offal/detritusGavia immer*xxG. adamsii*oxG. stellata*oxPodiceps grisegenaoxoDiomedea nigripesxoooxxxFulmarus glacialisxoxoxxxPuffinus griseusxxxoP. tenuirostrisxoxoPterodroma inexpectataxxOceanodroma furcataxooxxxxPhalacrocorax auritusoxoP. pelagicusxxP. urilexxPhilacte canagicaxClangula hyemalisoxoHistrionicus histrionicusxxoPolysticta stellerioxooSomateria mollissimaxoxS. spectabilisooxS. fischerixxMelanitta deglandixoM. perspicillataoxoM. nigraooxMergus serratoroxxHaliaeetus leucocephalusxxxFalco peregrinusxPhalaropus fulicariusxxoxxLobipes lobatusxxoxxStercorariusspp.oxx?xxxxLarus hyperboreusooooooooooxxxL. glaucescensooooooooooxxxL. argentatusooooooooooxoxL. canusxoooxxRissa tridactylaxxxoR. brevirostrisxxxoSterna paradisaeaxxooxoS. aleuticaxoUria aalgexoxxooxoU. lomviaxoxxoxoxLunda cirrhata?xxFratercula corniculata*xxCepphus columbaoxoBrachyramphus marmoratusxoxB. brevirostrisxoSynthliboramphus antiquusxxxCyclorrhynchus psittaculusxo**Aethia cristatellaxxA. pusillaxoA. pygmaeax
Table 14.Use of food resources by seabirds in the oceanic habitat, central subarctic domain.Information is from Tables 1-10. (Trophic level I = plants, II = secondary carnivore, III = tertiary carnivore, IV = upper level carnivore, Sc = scavenger on carrion, offal, or detritus [II-IV]; x = major food in diet, o = minor food, * = incidental food, ? = probable food.)SeabirdsBird trophic levels and food categoriesIIIIIIVScCrustaceanPolychaeteCoelenterateFish/squid eggs & larvaeFishCephalopodBirdsCarrion/offal/detritusDiomedea nigripesxoooxxxD. immutabilisxFulmarus glacialisxoxoxxxPuffinus carneipesoxxP. griseusxxxP. tenuirostrisxoxPterodroma inexpectataxxOceanodroma furcataxoooxxxO. leucorhoaxoooxxxPhalaropus fulicariusxxoLobipes lobatusxxoStercorariusspp.oxx?xLarus hyperboreusxoooxx?xL. glaucescensxoooxx?xL. argentatusxoooxxxRissa tridactylaxxxoXema sabinixxooSterna paradisaeaxxooUria aalgex*xxU. lomviax*xxLunda cirrhataoxxFratercula corniculata*xxCerorhinca monocerataxxSynthliboramphus antiquusxxCyclorrhynchus psittaculusxo**Ptychoramphus aleuticusxo
Most species (roughly 53% in any community) include two or three prey categories in their diets—usually midwater schooling fish, squid, and crustaceans. These birds include the most numerous in the communities—the shearwaters and some alcids—which feed largely on three prey types, and also include some of the less abundant birds, the marine ducks, which feed mostly on two prey categories.
The remaining seabirds are more general in their feeding. Many have large populations, but are not as abundant as shearwaters or most alcids. The true "generalists" are the species that feed on as many as eight or more types of prey, and relatively few (12%) such species exist in each avian community. These birds, the scavengers, include black-footed albatross, fulmar, storm-petrels, and large gulls. The petrels are the scavengers of the oceanic habitat and the gulls are their counterparts in the neritic habitat (but see Sanger 1973).
Another comparison is shown in Table 17, where the species in each community are categorized according to the number feeding at each trophic level. If a species feeds at more than one level, it is tallied once in each level. Most seabirds (66-77%) feed at the second and third levels as secondary and tertiary carnivores. Few feed as terminal carnivores, and relatively few are scavengers. Actually, most scavenging occurs at levels II and III, so about 90% of the seabirds in each community feed at levels II and III. Communities including an inshore neritic feeding element are the only ones that include herbivores, and even then, few of these species exist in significant numbers in the marine environment (discounting estuaries and sheltered bays).
Table 15.Use of food resources by seabirds in the North American coastal domain.Information is from Tables 1-10. (Trophic level I = plants, II = secondary carnivore, III = tertiary carnivore, IV = upper level carnivore, Sc = scavenger on carrion, offal, or detritus [II-IV]; x = major food in diet, o = minor food, * = incidental food, ? = probable food.)SeabirdsHabitat, bird trophic levels (I-IV, Sc), and food categoriesOceanic and offshore neriticInshore neriticIIIIIIVScIIIIIIIVScCrustaceanPolychaeteCoelenterateFish-squideggs&larvaeFishCephalopodBirdsCarrion/offal/detritusPlantCrustacean,midwaterCrustacean,benthicCoelenterateEchinodermMolluscFish/squideggs&larvaeFish,midwaterFish,benthicCephalopodBirdsCarrion/offal/detritusGavia immer*xxG. adamsii*oxG. arcticaoxG. stellataoxPodiceps grisegenaoxoP. nigricollisxoP. auritusxxoAechmophorus occidentalisoxxDiomedea nigripesxoooxxxFulmarus glacialisxoxoxxxPuffinus creatopusoxxP. carneipesoxxP. bullerixxxP. griseusxxxoooP. tenuirostrisxoxoooOceanodroma furcataxoooxxxPelecanus occidentalisxPhalacrocorax auritusoxoP. penicillatusoxP. pelagicusxxBranta berniclaxClangula hyemalisoxooHistrionicus histrionicusoxoMelanitta deglandixooM. perspicillataoxoM. nigra*ooxMergus serrator*xxHaliaeetus leucocephalusxxxFalco peregrinusxPhalaropus fulicariusxxoxxoLobipes lobatusxxoxxoStercorariusspp.oxx?xxxoxLarus hyperboreusoooo?ooooooxxxL. glaucescensoooo?oooooxxxxL. occidentalisxxxxoxooo**xxoxL. argentatusoooooxoooooxoxL. heermannixxxL. canusxoooxxxL. philadelphiaxxoRissa tridactylaxxxoXema sabinixxooSterna paradisaeaxxooS. hirundooxUria aalgexoxxoxoU. lomviaxoxxoxoxLunda cirrhata?xxFratercula corniculata*xxCerorhinca monocerataxxCepphus columbaoxoBrachyramphus marmoratusxoxB. brevirostrisxoSynthliboramphus antiquusxxoPtychoramphus aleuticusxx
Table 16.Number of seabirds of different oceanographic regions having different numbers of categories of food in their diets.Oceanographic region (domain)Number of categories in the diets[36]12345-778+Bering Sea coastal31196545Bering Sea2657050Alaskan Stream314145445Central Subarctic1684070North American Coastal314176346Total12515328122416Percent total species (196)62627146128
It is readily apparent from the foregoing comparisons that much overlap exists in the prey eaten by seabirds within each community. The question whether real competition ever exists is academic. Competition perhaps exists only rarely because seabirds partition resources through use of different feeding methods, selection of different-sized prey, and habitat zonation. Table 18 lists feeding methods (after Ashmole 1971 and Ainley 1977) and the body size and bill length of each species considered in this review. Bill length is usually related directly to body size (Ashmole 1968; Bédard 1969b), but note, for instance, that the longer species of the two kittiwakes has the shorter bill. Body weight would be a better measure of relative size than body size, but few reliable weight data are available for seabirds.
The use of different feeding methods by species in each community grossly assigns birds to feeding at different depths. Thus, whereas shearwaters, puffins, and small gulls (Xemasp.,Rissaspp.) overlap almost entirely in prey categories and even prey species, the gulls can capture these organisms only at the surface; the shearwaters capture them at shallow depths; and the puffins capture them at much deeper depths. Direct field observations of this phenomenon are few but Gould (1971) and Sealy (1973a) compared the diets of birds feeding in mixed-species flocks. An example of how even finer divergence in feeding methods helps to partition food resources has been provided by Spring (1971) in his comparison of the two murres. Both species feed by diving to great depths, but the thick-billed murre is able to hover over the bottom and thereby is better able to capture benthic organisms.
Table 17.Number of species feeding at different trophic levels within seabird communities and habitats of the northeastern North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea.A single species can be represented in more than one level. (Trophic level I = vegetarian, II = secondary carnivore, III = tertiary carnivore, IV = upper level carnivore, Sc = scavenger [II-IV].)DomainOceanic/offshore neriticInshore neriticIIIIIIVScIIIIIIIVScBering Sea Coastal11171?106231866Bering Sea22213?11—————Alaska Stream21191?125282166Central Subarctic23223?12—————North American Coastal25243?1132835710Total10210311?561479741922Proportion0.380.390.02[37]0.210.070.380.280.090.10
Table 18.Size relationships and feeding methods of major species in the eastern North Pacific and Bering Sea.(D = dive, SS = surface seize, PP = pursuit plunge, Di = dip, P = plunge, T = tip, x = eats seabirds, A = piracy, SP = shallow plunge.)SpeciesBody length[38](cm)Bill length[39](mm)Feeding[40]methodGavia adamsii63.590-91DG. immer61.080-82DG. arctica45.751-52DG. stellata43.551-52DPodiceps grisegena33.048-50DP. nigricollis22.924-26DP. auritus24.123-24DAechmophorus occidentalis45.765-76DDiomedea nigripes71.1141-144SSD. immutabilis71.1102-112SSFulmarus glacialis45.736-37SSPuffinus carneipes45.741-46PPP. creatopus45.741-46PPP. bulleri38.138-45PPP. griseus40.341-42PPP. tenuirostris38.131-32PPOceanodroma furcata19.015Di,SSO. leucorhoa19.016Di,SSPterodroma inexpectata29.226-27SSPhalacrocorax auritus68.655-57DP. penicillatus73.766-71DP. urile71.154-55DP. pelagicus55.947-50DPelecanus occidentalis104.0294-319PBrantaspp.(bernicla)43.533-36TPhilacte canagica45.737-42TAnasspp.40.032-35TClangula hyemalis38.125-27DHistrionicus histrionicus30.525-28DPolysticta stelleri30.537-43DSomateria mollisima43.545-55DS. spectabilis40.331-33DS. fischeri38.122-26DMelanitta deglandi35.641-44DM. perspicillata40.3ca. 40DM. nigra35.642-47DMergus serrator40.345-54DHaliaeetus leucocephalus80.052-54XFalco peregrinus37.521-25XPhalaropus fulicarius16.522SSLobipes lobatus15.222SSStercorarius pomarinus43.540SS,AS. parasiticus40.332SS,AS. longicaudus38.129SS,ALarus hyperboreus61.055-60SSL. glaucescens55.954-58SSL. occidentalis53.054-57SS,DiL. argentatus50.848-54SS,DiL. californicus43.545-50SS,DiL. heermanni38.142-46SS,DiL. canus35.634-36SS,DiL. philadelphia27.930-31DiRissa tridactyla34.239-40DiR. brevirostris38.129-30DiXema sabini27.926-27DiSterna paradisaea38.131-33Di,SPS. hirundo/forsteri35.636-39Di,SPS. aleutica33.033Di,SPUria aalge35.643-47DU. lomvia35.639-42DLunda cirrhata31.857-60DFratercula corniculata29.249-51DCerorhinca monocerata29.234-35DCepphus columba26.732-33DBrachyramphus marmoratus20.315DB. brevirostris19.010DSynthliboramphus antiquus20.313DPtychoramphus aleuticus17.819DAethia pygmaea16.58-9DA. pusilla13.38DA. cristatella17.811DCyclorrhynchus psittaculus18.415D
The scavengers (generalists) offer a good example of how a range of bird and bill sizes is usually represented among species having similar diets and feeding methods. The progression of oceanic scavenger sizes is graded rather evenly from the black-footed albatross down to the northern fulmar, to the scaled petrel, to the storm-petrel. All these species capture prey that occur only at or near the water surface. Recently Sanger (1973) reported appreciable numbers of glaucous-winged gulls(Larus glaucescens)and herring gulls(L. argentatus), noted neritic scavengers, out in the oceanic realm of the petrel. He presented limited data that suggested an overlap between the diet of these gulls and that of black-footed albatrosses, as noted by Miller (1940). It would not be surprising if these gulls were as much generalists in the oceanic habitat as they are in the neritic. Interestingly, their bill and body sizes fall between those of the albatross and the fulmar, thus in theory enabling them to invade the oceanic habitat without great competition. It is likely that their invasion occurred during historical times and is related to their habit of following fishing boats from shore out to sea (Sanger 1973). If so, the gulls might be assuming from other species part of a previously uncontested resource.
Another interesting group of species that shows close similarities in diet consists of the piscivorous loons, grebes, and mergansers. All these birds, including seven or eight species, apparently feed on fish occurring on or near the bottom in the inshore neritic habitat. Again, however, an even progression in size exists: yellow-billed loon(Gavia adamsii), common loon(G. immer), arctic loon(G. arctica), red-throated loon(G. stellata), western grebe(Aechmophorus occidentalis), red-necked grebe(Podiceps grisegena), and common merganser(Mergus merganser). Most likely then, they select different-sized fish. Another example of this phenomenon is provided by the eight neritic gulls, which are largely scavengers and show a remarkably even progression in bill and body size. Finally, as shown clearly by Bédard (1969a, 1969b) and Harris (1970), alcids of different sizes select different-sized prey, often of the same species.
A final important way in which seabirds partition available resources is by inhabiting different zones. Zonation is especially evident during the breeding season when species common to the same breeding site sort themselves out according to the distances they range for food. This phenomenon was discussed by Murphy (1936), Shuntov (1974), Sealy (1972), Cody (1973), and Scott (1973).
The species that appear to have specialized food habits (if further research confirms that indeed they do) are probably very sensitive to vagaries in food availability or are, at least, much more sensitive than other species. Some specialists which also have very restricted distributions would, therefore, be susceptible to localized catastrophes occurring where specialists are concentrated around the food resource. This is proved in the case of the scoters, which are both specialized and rather restricted to nearshore beds of molluscs and have fallen victim to local oil slicks (Smail et al. 1972). An example of another potentially critical situation is that of the black brant, which at certain times of the year concentrate their entire population around eelgrass beds in Bristol Bay, Alaska, where much offshore oil drilling may soon occur.
Birds adapted to feed by diving, with the exception of cormorants, spend most of their time in the water. These species are therefore most susceptible to oiling (Smail et al. 1972), but pursuit plungers (the shearwaters) are also highly susceptible (Point Reyes Bird Observatory, unpublished data). A characteristic of polar and subpolar seabird communities is the high percentage of birds that feed by diving and pursuit plunging. These birds are mostly absent from tropical and subtropical communities because feeding by these methods is not adaptive there (Ainley 1977). Hence, oil pollution has all the potential of rendering maladaptive the principal feeding methods of many polar seabirds.
Another way in which seabird feeding relates to conservation problems concerns competition between birds and man for commercially valuable fishes. A related problem is the mass mortality of seabirds due to man's fishing gear. An acute situation is the drowning of seabirds caught in salmon gill nets (Bartonek et al. 1974; Pacific Seabird Group 1975; Ripley 1975; King et al., this volume). Immediate action is definitely required.
Further, competition between birds and man for the same resource has the potential for disastrous effects on bird populations if humans out-compete the birds and overfish the resource. A classic example, reviewed by Idyll (1973), is the possible collapse of the Peruvian anchovy(Engraulis ringens)fishery; if overfishing and an El Niño should coincide, the Peruvian seabird populations could collapse as well. The California fisheries and apparently the double-crested cormorants that nest on the Farallon Islands have both suffered from the demise of the Pacific sardine(Sardinops caerulea)in the California current (Ainley and Lewis 1974). In regulating fish harvests, fishery organizations should include in their calculations the harvest by creatures other than man (Schaefer 1970), rather than evading the issue by referring to a vague "natural mortality."
Finally, fishing by humans can benefit seabirds by removing fish (or whales) that compete with birds for food (Laws 1977). A potential example is that of northern California, where salmon and seabirds both feed heavily on juvenile rockfishes (Fitch and Lavenberg 1971; Point Reyes Bird Observatory, unpublished data). Harvest of salmon should theoretically leave more rockfish available for birds to eat. This sort of situation has not yet been fully documented and definitely warrants further study, especially in such areas as the Bering Sea, where some fish stocks have become depressed due to overfishing (Gulland 1970).
Many people realize intuitively that seabirds are important members of marine ecosystems. Although the supporting evidence is not now available, it will be needed if seabirds are to be protected. Emotion alone will not justify the protection of seabirds in an age when the human race moves steadily toward global famine. The job at hand is, in part, to sell seabirds, not just to the public, government officials, executives of oil companies, or fish-packing concerns, but also to marine biologists and oceanographers, for the scientists have the best means to study organisms at sea. We must move away from the concept that seabirds are merely yo-yos of various sizes, shapes, and colors on strings of various lengths that venture forth to sea from the land, grab a quick lunch, and then return to the safety of terra firma. Seabirds are marine organisms and deserve at least as much research attention as that currently given marine mammals.
The information now available on seabird diets is largely presented in terms of the number and volume of various prey species taken. Whereas these data provide the relative importance of prey, fishery data on prey stocks are usually measured in terms of biomass. Thus, it is difficult to relate seabird data to the immense wealth of information on biological oceanography. If we are to recognize the importance of seabirds in the nutrient and energy cycling of marine ecosystems, rather than considering them merely as "yo-yo predators," we must relate them to the total marine community.
The goal of marine ornithologists should be to refine and broaden considerably in detail such studies as those by Sanger (1972), Shuntov (1974), and Laws (1977), who attempted to assess the relations between seabird populations and stocks of other marine organisms for the northern North Pacific, the world oceans, and the Antarctic, respectively. The trophic roles played by seabirds must be studied in detail at the community level year-round before those analyses can be properly refined. Another exemplary work is that done by Brownell (1974), who studied trophic relations of higher vertebrates off Uruguay, including dolphins, pinnipeds, seabirds, and some large fish. In a review study, Sanger (1974) considered the food-chain relations of similar vertebrates in the Bering Sea. These sorts of studies will serve to bring the role of seabirds into perspective with other upper trophic level feeders.
We much appreciate the opportunity to participate in the symposium at which this paper was presented. The encouragement and help given by J. C. Bartonek was indispensable. D. G. Ainley's participation in the symposium was supported by the Point Reyes Bird Observatory. This is contribution No. 124 of the Point Reyes Bird Observatory.