Predictors of foraging plasticity by greater flamingo (Phoenicopterus roseus) in intertidal soft sediments
Numerous studies have emphasised the importance of apex predators in determining community dynamics and broader functioning in marine ecosystems. However, less understood is the ecology of plastic foraging behaviours employed by predators, with drivers of foraging plasticity being a particular knowledge gap in marine sediments. In June/July 2015, we assessed the role of traits and abundance of prey assemblages in influencing decisions made by greater flamingos Phoenicopterus roseus to employ different foraging behaviours in intertidal sandflat ecosystems in Langebaan Lagoon, on the west coast of South Africa (33°11′27″S, 18°07′37″E and 33°03′54″S, 17°58′07″E). Greater flamingos feed by either (1) creating pits, which involves flamingos stirring up deep sediments with their feet or (2) creating channels, in which their inverted bills are swept from side to side on the sediment surface. RandomForest modelling techniques indicated that both pit- and channel-foraging strategies were linked to low macrofaunal biomass in sediment patches, indicating that smaller prey items may be preferred targets for consumption. Channel foraging was linked mainly to the abundance of surface-associated fauna, suggesting that this feeding technique was predominantly a surficial foraging strategy. The probability of pit foraging increased with increasing concentrations of benthic microalgae, suggesting that high microalgal biomass may be linked to pit foraging. Overall, this study adds to knowledge on the role of flamingos as predators in marine sediments, by highlighting biotic predictors of foraging plasticity. The study demonstrates the relevance of understanding potential drivers of foraging plasticity in developing a predictive understanding of predator impacts in heterogeneous ecosystems.
Funding for the research was provided by the National Research Foundation (NRF). We thank the students of the Biological Sciences Department, University of Cape Town, for field and laboratory assistance.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All applicable international, national and/or institutional (University of Cape Town) guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. Due to the observational nature of the study, animal ethics approval was not required.
- Abu-Mostafa YS, Magdon-Ismail M, Lin H (2012) Learning from data. AML Book, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
- Allen RP (1956) The Flamingos: their life history and survival. Research Report #5 of the National Audubon Society. National Audubon Society, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Bell WJ (1991) Searching behaviour. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Branch GM, Griffith CL, Branch ML, Beckley LE (2010) Two oceans: a guide to the marine life of southern Africa. Struik Nature, Cape TownGoogle Scholar
- Brown C, King C, Mossbarger S, Barron J (2005) Flamingo husbandry guidelines. American Zoo and Aquarium Association, Silver SpringGoogle Scholar
- Carpenter SR, Cole JJ, Kitchell JF, Pace ML (2010) Trophic cascades in lakes: lessons and prospects. In: Terborgh J, Estes JA (eds) Trophic cascades: predators, prey and the changing dynamics of nature. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Greeff JM, Whiting MJ (2000) Foraging-Mode Plasticity in the lizard Platysaurus broadleyi. Herpetologica 56:402–407Google Scholar
- Holme NA (1964) Methods of sampling the benthos. In: Russel FS (ed) Advances in marine biology. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
- IBM (2015) IBM SPSS statistics 22 core systems user’s guide. IBM Corporation, ArmonkGoogle Scholar
- Johnson AR (1997) Phoenicopterus ruber Greater Flamingo. BWP Update 1:15–23Google Scholar
- Johnson A, Cezilly F (2007) The greater Flamingo. T & AD Poyser, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Liaw A, Wiener M (2002) Classification and regression by randomForest. R News 2(3):18–22Google Scholar
- Miller TJ (2002) Assemblages, communities, and species interactions. In: Fuimann LE, Werner RG (eds) Fishery science: the unique contributions of early life stages. Blackwell Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Molles MC (2015) Ecology: concepts and applications, 7th edn. McGraw-Hill Education, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Monaghan P, Walton P, Wanless S, Uttley JD, Burns MD (1994) Effects of prey abundance on the foraging behaviour, diving efficiency and time allocation of breeding guillemots Uria aalge. Ibis 136:214–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.1994.tb01087.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pillay D, Branch GM, Forbes AT (2007a) The influence of bioturbation by the sandprawn Callianassa kraussi on feeding and survival of the bivalve Eumarcia paupercula and the gastropod Nassarius kraussianus. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 344:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2006.10.044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Putman R, Wratten SD (1984) Principles of ecology. Croom Helm, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Swennen C (1976) Wadden seas are rare, hospitable and productive. In: Smart M (ed) Proceedings of the international conference on conservation of wetlands and waterfowl, Heiligenhafen. International Waterfowl Research Bureau, SlimbridgeGoogle Scholar
- Zydelis R, Richman SE (2015) Foraging behaviour, ecology, and energetics of sea ducks. In: Savard JPL, Derksen DV, Esler D, Eadie JM (eds) Ecology and conservation of North American Sea ducks. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar