English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

International audienceStrong pair bonds generally increase fitness in monogamous organisms, butmay also underlie the risk of hampering it when re-pairing fails after thewinter season. We investigated whether partners would either maintain contactor offset this risk by exploiting sex-specific favourable niches duringwinter in a migratory monogamous seabird, the southern rockhopper penguinEudyptes chrysocome. Using light-based geolocation,we showthat although thespatial distribution of both sexes largely overlapped, pair-wise mates werelocated on average 595+260 km (and up to 2500 km) apart during winter.Stable isotope data also indicated a marked overlap between sex-specific isotopicniches (d13C and d15N values) but a segregation of the feeding habitats(d13C values) within pairs. Importantly, the tracked females remained longer(12 days) at sea than males, but all re-mated with their previous partnersafter winter. Our study provides multiple evidence that migratory speciesmaywell demonstrate pair-wise segregation even in the absence of sex-specificwinter niches (spatial and isotopic).We suggest that dispersive migration patternswith sex-biased timings may be a sufficient proximal cause forgenerating such a situation in migratory animals

Mates but not sexes differ in migratory niche in a monogamous penguin species