Monitoring the Prey-Field of Marine Predators: Combining Digital Imaging With Datalogging Tags

There is increasing interest in the diving behavior of marine mammals. However, identifying foraging among recorded dives often requires several assumptions. The simultaneous acquisition of images of the prey encountered, together with records of diving behavior will allow researchers to more fully investigate the nature of subsurface behavior. We tested a novel digital camera linked to a time-depth recorder on Antarctic fur seals (Arctocephalus gazella). During the austral summer 2000-2001, this system was deployed on six lactating female fur seals at Bird Island, South Georgia, each for a single foraging trip. The camera was triggered at depths greater than 10 m. Five deployments recorded still images (640 x 480 pixels) at 3-sec intervals (total 8,288 images), the other recorded movie images at 0.2-sec intervals (total 7,598 frames). Memory limitation (64 MB) restricted sampling to approximately 1.5 d of 5-7 d foraging trips. An average of 8.5% of still pictures (2.4%-11.6%) showed krill (Euphausia superba) distinctly, while at least half the images in each deployment were empty, the remainder containing blurred or indistinct prey. In one deployment krill images were recorded within 2.5 h (16 km, assuming 1.8 m/sec travel speed) of leaving the beach. Five of the six deployments also showed other fur seals foraging in conjunction with the study animal. This system is likely to generate exciting new avenues for interpretation of diving behavior.

Hunting and social behaviour of leopard seals (Hydrurga leptonyx) at Seal Island, South Shetland Islands, Antarctica

The hunting behavior of leopard seals Hydrurga leptonyx was monitored opportunistically at Seal Island, South Shetland Islands, during the austral summers from 1986/87 to 1994/95. Leopard seals used several methods to catch Antarctic fur seal pups Arctocephalus gazella and chinstrap penguins Pygoscelis antarctica, and individuals showed different hunting styles and hunting success. One to two leopard seals per year were responsible for an average of 60% of observed captures of fur seal pups. Leopard seals preyed on penguins throughout the summer, but preyed on fur seal pups only between late December and mid-February. Hunting behavior differed significantly between different locations on the island; fur seals were hunted only at one colony, and penguins were hunted in several areas. The relative abundance of prey types, size of prey in relation to predator, and specialization of individual leopard seals to hunt fur seal prey probably influence individual prey preferences among leopard seals. On five occasions, two leopard seals were seen together on Seal Island. Possible interpretations of the relationship between the interacting leopard seals included a mother-offspring relationship, a consorting male-female pair, and an adult leopard seal followed by an unrelated juvenile. In two incidents at Seal Island, two leopard seals were observed interacting while hunting: one seal captured fur seal pups and appeared to release them to the other seal. Observations of leopard seals interacting during hunting sessions were difficult to confirm as co-operative hunting, but they strongly implied that the two seals were not agonistic toward one another. The hunting success of individual leopard seals pursuing penguins or fur seals is probably high enough for co-operative hunting not to become a common hunting strategy; however, it may occur infrequently when it increases the hunting productivity of the seals.

Taking account of dependent species in management of the Southern Ocean krill fishery: estimating crabeater seal abundance off east Antarctica

1. The crabeater seal Lobodon carcinophaga is considered to be a key species in the krill-based food web of the Southern Ocean. Reliable estimates of the abundance of this species are necessary to allow the development of multispecies, predator–prey models as a basis for management of the krill fishery in the Southern Ocean. 2. A survey of crabeater seal abundance was undertaken in 1500 000 km2 of pack-ice off east Antarctica between longitudes 64–150° E during the austral summer of 1999/2000. Sighting surveys, using double observer line transect methods, were conducted from an icebreaker and two helicopters to estimate the density of seals hauled out on the ice in survey strips. Satellite-linked dive recorders were deployed on a sample of seals to estimate the probability of seals being hauled out on the ice at the times of day when sighting surveys were conducted. Model-based inference, involving fitting a density surface, was used to infer densities in the entire survey region from estimates in the surveyed areas. 3. Crabeater seal abundance was estimated to be between 0.7 and 1.4 million animals (with 95% confidence), with the most likely estimate slightly less than 1 million. 4. Synthesis and applications. The estimation of crabeater seal abundance in Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) management areas off east Antarctic where krill biomass has also been estimated recently provides the data necessary to begin extending from single-species to multispecies management of the krill fishery. Incorporation of all major sources of uncertainty allows a precautionary interpretation of crabeater abundance and demand for krill in keeping with CCAMLR’s precautionary approach to management. While this study focuses on the crabeater seal and management of living resources in the Southern Ocean, it has also led to technical and theoretical developments in survey methodology that have widespread potential application in ecological and resource management studies, and will contribute to a more fundamental understanding of the structure and function of the Southern Ocean ecosystem.

Population Growth of Antarctic Fur Seals: Limitation by a Top Predator, The Leopard Seal?

Antarctic fur seals (Arctocephalus gazella) in the South Shetland Islands are recovering from 19th-century exploitation more slowly than the main population at South Georgia. To document demographic changes associated with the recovery in the South Shetlands, we monitored fur seal abundance and reproduction in the vicinity of Elephant Island during austral summers from 1986/1987 through 1994/1995. Total births, mean and variance of birth dates, and average daily mortality rates were estimated from daily live pup counts at North Cove (NC) and North Annex (NA) colonies on Seal Island. Sightings of leopard seals (Hydrurga leptonyx) and incidents of leopard seal predation on fur seal pups were recorded opportunistically during daily fur seal research at both sites. High mortality of fur seal pups, attributed to predation by leopard seals frequently observed at NC, caused pup numbers to decline rapidly between January and March (i.e., prior to weaning) each year and probably caused a long-term decline in the size of that colony. The NA colony, where leopard seals were never observed, increased in size during the study. Pup mortality from causes other than leopard seal predation appeared to be similar at the two sites. The number of pups counted at four locations in the Elephant Island vicinity increased slowly, at an annual rate of 3.8%, compared to rates as high as 11% at other locations in the South Shetland Islands. Several lines of circumstantial evidence are consistent with the hypothesis that leopard seal predators limit the growth of the fur seal population in the Elephant Island area and perhaps in the broader population in the South Shetland Islands. The sustained growth of this fur seal population over many decades rules out certain predator–prey models, allowing inference about the interaction between leopard seals and fur seals even though it is less thoroughly studied than predator–prey systems of terrestrial vertebrates of the northern hemisphere. Top-down forces should be included in hypotheses for future research on the factors shaping the recovery of the fur seal population in the South Shetland Islands.