angel-sexualsizedimorphism-2015.pdf (822.83 kB)
Sexual size dimorphism and body condition in the Australasian Gannet
journal contribution
posted on 2015-12-04, 00:00 authored by Lauren Angel, Melanie Rose Wells, M A Rodríguez-Malagón, E Tew, J R Speakman, John ArnouldJohn ArnouldSexual size dimorphism is widespread throughout seabird taxa and several drivers leading to its evolution have been hypothesised. While the Australasian Gannet (Morus serrator) has previously been considered nominally monomorphic, recent studies have documented sexual segregation in diet and foraging areas, traits often associated with size dimorphism. The present study investigated the sex differences in body mass and structural size of this species at two colonies (Pope's Eye, PE; Point Danger, PD) in northern Bass Strait, south-eastern Australia. Females were found to be 3.1% and 7.3% heavier (2.74 ± 0.03, n = 92; 2.67 ± 0.03 kg, n = 43) than males (2.66 ± 0.03, n = 92; 2.48 ± 0.03 kg, n = 43) at PE and PD, respectively. Females were also larger in wing ulna length (0.8% both colonies) but smaller in bill depth (PE: 2.2%; PD: 1.7%) than males. Despite this dimorphism, a discriminant function provided only mild accuracy in determining sex. A similar degree of dimorphism was also found within breeding pairs, however assortative mating was not apparent at either colony (R2 < 0.04). Using hydrogen isotope dilution, a body condition index was developed from morphometrics to estimate total body fat (TBF) stores, where TBF(%) = 24.43+1.94*(body mass/wing ulna length) - 0.58*tarsus length (r2 = 0.84, n = 15). This index was used to estimate body composition in all sampled individuals. There was no significant difference in TBF(%) between the sexes for any stage of breeding or in any year of the study at either colony suggesting that, despite a greater body mass, females were not in a better condition than males. While the driving mechanism for sexual dimorphism in this species is currently unknown, studies of other Sulids indicate segregation in foraging behaviour, habitat and diet may be a contributing factor.
History
Journal
PLoS oneVolume
10Issue
12Article number
e0142653Pagination
1 - 16Publisher
Public Library of ScienceLocation
San Francisco, Calif.Publisher DOI
ISSN
1932-6203Language
engPublication classification
C Journal article; C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journalCopyright notice
2015, The AuthorsUsage metrics
Categories
No categories selectedKeywords
Licence
Exports
RefWorks
BibTeX
Ref. manager
Endnote
DataCite
NLM
DC