Aspects of chick-provisioning in Wilson's Storm-Petrel were measured at Palmer Station, Antarctica. Chicks received meals averaging 9.2 g (21% of adult body mass) with a mean frequency of 1.1 feeds/chick day. Feeding frequency decreased as chicks grew, but meal mass remained relatively constant throughout the fledging period. Free lipids accounted for an average of 24% of the mass and over 60% of the energy in a meal. The energy density of the meals averaged 16.1 kJ/g, nearly triple that of whole prey. The estimated rates at which gross and metabolizable energy were delivered to the chick averaged 163 and 147 kJ/days, respectively, over the 60 day fledging period. Low nest temperatures resulted in high energy requirements by the chicks. Rates of respiratory energy metabolism averaged 133 kJ/day over the fledging period and reached peak levels of ∼160 kJ/day. Rates of energy deposition in tissues averaged only 18.4 kJ/day with a peak rate of ∼57 kJ/day. Thus, total metabolizable energy requirements of the chick averaged 151 kJ/day, which is within 3% of estimated metabolizable energy intake. Wilson's Storm-Petrel chicks have energy requirements nearly double those of Leach's Storm-Petrel chicks which grow in a more temperate climate. Wilson's Storm-Petrel adults appear to meet demands of their chicks with a high frequency of meal delivery and high energy density of meals compared to those of Leach's Storm-Petrel. A comparison of the rates of energy utilization by foraging adults of the two species suggests that the high energy demands of the Wilson's Storm-Petrel chicks have selected for a foraging strategy in adult Wilson's Storm-Petrels that is expensive in terms of energy and time. Low air temperatures, a short summer season, and the presence of diurnal predators on the breeding grounds are among the factors which have shaped the chick-provisioning strategy of this species. The data suggest that Wilson's Storm-Petrels could not breed successfully in the Antarctic without the ability to produce stomach oils.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Obst et al. (1993) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: