Provisioning Strategies of Antarctic Fur Seals and Chinstrap Penguins Produce Different Responses to Distribution of Common Prey and Habitat

Central-place foragers that must return to a breeding site to deliver food to offspring are faced with trade-offs between prey patch quality and distance from the colony. Among colonial animals, pinnipeds and seabirds may have different provisioning strategies, due to differences in their ability to travel and store energy. We compared the foraging areas of lactating Antarctic fur seals and chinstrap penguins breeding at Seal Island, Antarctica, to investigate whether they responded differently to the distribution of their prey (Antarctic krill and myctophid fish) and spatial heterogeneity in their habitat. Dense krill concentrations occurred in the shelf region near the colony. However, only brooding penguins, which are expected to be time-minimizers because they must return frequently with whole food for their chicks, foraged mainly in this proximal shelf region. Lactating fur seals and incubating penguins, which can make longer trips to increase energy gain per trip, and so are expected to be energy-maximizers, foraged in the more distant (>20 km from the island) slope and oceanic regions. The shelf region was characterized by more abundant, but lower-energy-content immature krill, whereas the slope and oceanic regions had less abundant but higher-energy-content gravid krill, as well as high-energy-content myctophids. Furthermore, krill in the shelf region undertook diurnal vertical migration, whereas those in the slope and oceanic regions stayed near the surface throughout the day, which may enhance the capture rate for visual predators. Therefore, we sug- gest that the energy-maximizers foraged in distant, but potentially more profitable feeding regions, while the time-minimizers foraged in closer, but potentially less profitable regions. Thus, time and energy constraints derived from different provisioning strategies may result in sympatric colonial predator species using different foraging areas, and as a result, some central-place foragers use sub- optimal foraging habitats, in terms of the quality or quantity of available prey.

Distribution of Rain Gardens in Lincoln Nebraska: Are Rain Gardens more Likely to be Built Near Bodies of Water

Abstract Rain gardens are an important tool in reducing the amount of stormwater runoff and accompanying pollutants from entering the city’s streams and lakes, and reducing their water quality. This thesis project analyzed the number of rain gardens installed through the City of Lincoln Nebraska Watershed Management’s Rain Garden Water Quality Project in distance intervals of one-eighth mile from streams and lakes. This data shows the distribution of these rain gardens in relation to streams and lakes and attempts to determine if proximity to streams and lakes is a factor in homeowners installing rain gardens. ArcGIS was used to create a map with layers to determine the number of houses with rain gardens in 1/8 mile distance increments from the city’s streams and lakes and their distances from a stream or lake. The total area, number of house parcels, and the type and location of each parcel type were also determined for comparison between the distance interval increments. The study revealed that fifty-eight percent of rain gardens were installed within a quarter mile of a stream or lake (an area covering 60% of the city and including 58.5% of the city’s house parcels), and that eighty percent of rain gardens were installed within three-eighth mile of streams or lakes (an area covering 75% of the city and 78.5% of the city’s house parcels). All parcels in the city are within 1 mile of a stream or lake. Alone the number of project houses per distance intervals suggested that proximity to a stream or lake was a factor in people’s decisions to install rain gardens. However, when compared to the number of house parcels available, proximity disappears as a factor in project participation.