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.

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.

Pinniped Populations at Islas ae Guadalupe, San Benito, Cedros, and Natividad, Baja California, in 1968

In April and June 1968, the Pacific Ocean Biological Survey Program (POBSP) of the Smithsonian Institution conducted surveys on breeding marine birds and pinnipeds on various Mexican islands. Between 18 to 26 April and 21 to 29 June, pinniped populations were surveyed at Islas de Guadalupe, San Benito, Cedros, and Natividad off Baja California. Species observed were the California sea lion, Zalophus californianus, Guadalupe fur seal, Arctocephalus townsendi, harbor seal, Phoca vitulina, and northern elephant seal, Mirounga angustirostris

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.

Modeling Age-Specific Mortality For Marine Mammal Populations

A method is presented for estimating age-specific mortality based on minimal information: a model life table and an estimate of longevity. This approach uses expected patterns of mammalian survivorship to define a general model of age-specific mortality rates. One such model life table is based on data for northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus) using Siler’s (1979) 5-parameter competing risk model. Alternative model life tables are based on historical data for human females and on a published model for Old World monkeys. Survival rates for a marine mammal species are then calculated by scaling these models by the longevity of that species. By using a realistic model (instead of assuming constant mortality), one can see more easily the real biological limits to population growth. The mortality estimation procedure is illustrated with examples of spotted dolphins (Stenella attenuata) and harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena).

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.

Killer Whales and Marine Mammal Trends in The North Pacific—A Re-Examination of Evidence for Sequential Megafauna Collapse and the Prey-Switching Hypothesis

Springer et al. (2003) contend that sequential declines occurred in North Pacific populations of harbor and fur seals, Steller sea lions, and sea otters. They hypothesize that these were due to increased predation by killer whales, when industrial whaling’s removal of large whales as a supposed primary food source precipitated a prey switch. Using a regional approach, we reexamined whale catch data, killer whale predation observations, and the current biomass and trends of potential prey, and found little support for the prey-switching hypothesis. Large whale biomass in the Bering Sea did not decline as much as suggested by Springer et al., and much of the reduction occurred 50–100 yr ago, well before the declines of pinnipeds and sea otters began; thus, the need to switch prey starting in the 1970s is doubtful. With the sole exception that the sea otter decline followed the decline of pinnipeds, the reported declines were not in fact sequential. Given this, it is unlikely that a sequential megafaunal collapse from whales to sea otters occurred. The spatial and temporal patterns of pinniped and sea otter population trends are more complex than Springer et al. suggest, and are often inconsistent with their hypothesis. Populations remained stable or increased in many areas, despite extensive historical whaling and high killer whale abundance. Furthermore, observed killer whale predation has largely involved pinnipeds and small cetaceans; there is little evidence that large whales were ever a major prey item in high latitudes. Small cetaceans (ignored by Springer et al.) were likely abundant throughout the period. Overall, we suggest that the Springer et al. hypothesis represents a misleading and simplistic view of events and trophic relationships within this complex marine ecosystem.

Implantation of Subcutaneous Radio Transmitters in the Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina)

Radio telemetry has become a standard tool for studying the behavior, physiology, life history traits, and population dynamics of marine mammals. Radio transmitters typically are attached to the hind flippers of pinnipeds or glued to the fur using marine epoxy or other cyanocrylare adhesives (Fedak et al. 1983, Bengtson 1993, Jeffries et al. 1993). Longterm data acquisition is difficult, however, because radio-flipper transmitters commonly tear from the webbing of the flipper and instruments that are glued to the fur are shed during the seasonal molt.

An Overview of Historical Beaver Management in Arizona

In the mid-1820s, Anglo-American fur trappers, known as "mountain men," entered Arizona and began trapping beaver (Castor canadensis). In Arizona there have been a number of famous mountain men such as Sylvester and James Pattie, Ewing Young, Jededia Smith, and Bill Williams who trapped along the waterways in northern and southern Arizona. Although the heyday of mountain men lasted only a few decades due to a population decline of beaver, management of these animals continues to this day. The purpose of managing beavers shifted from monetary gain to controlling wildlife damage. During the late 1900s, beaver were still widely distributed in limited numbers throughout much of the state. We provide a historical overview of beaver management in Arizona with emphasis on the mountain men, recreational trapping, wildlife damage management, and beaver research in Arizona.

The Probe, Issue 164 – April 1996

Opportunities and Challenges Within Wildlife Damage Management, by Robert H. Schmidt, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Utah State University, Logan Utah 84322-5210 IVFDM Not IVPDM by Robert H. Giles, Jr., Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0321 Letter to Editor RE: Pet Sterilization and Animal Rights Correspondence Course Announcement-- Utah State University Virus "Cure" for Rabbit Problem Eludes Human Controls Call for Nominations for Berryman Institute Awards Video Review: Review of "Professional Coyote Trapping" Produced by Fur-Fish-Game, 2878, E. Main St., Columbus, OH 43209. 80 minutes. Wildlife Control Seminar Makes Points With Michigan Man

HAWAIIAN SUGAR CANE RAT CONTROL METHODS AND PROBLEMS

The problem of rats in our Hawaiian sugar cane fields has been with us for a long time. Early records tell of heavy damage at various times on all the islands where sugar cane is grown. Many methods were tried to control these rats. Trapping was once used as a control measure, a bounty was used for a time, gangs of dogs were trained to catch the rats as the cane was harvested. Many kinds of baits and poisons were used. All of these methods were of some value as long as labor was cheap. Our present day problem started when the labor costs started up and the sugar industry shifted to long cropping. Until World War II cane was an annual crop. After the war it was shifted to a two year crop, three years in some places. Depending on variety, location, and soil we raise 90 to 130 tons of sugar cane per acre, which produces 7 to 15 tons of sugar per acre for a two year crop. This sugar brings about $135 dollars per ton. This tonnage of cane is a thick tangle of vegetation. The cane grows erect for almost a year, as it continues to grow it bends over at the base. This allows the stalk to rest on the ground or on other stalks of cane as it continues to grow. These stalks form a tangled mat of stalks and dead leaves that may be two feet thick at the time of harvest. At the same time the leafy growing portion of the stalk will be sticking up out of the mat of cane ten feet in the air. Some of these individual stalks may be 30 feet long and still growing at the time of harvest. All this makes it very hard to get through a cane field as it is one long, prolonged stumble over and through the cane. It is in this mat of cane that our three species of rats live. Two species are familiar to most people in the pest control field. Rattus norvegicus and Rattus rattus. In the latter species we include both the black rat and the alexandrine rats, their habits seem to be the same in Hawaii. Our third rat is the Polynesian rat, Rattus exlans, locally called the Hawaiian rat. This is a small rat, the average length head to tip of tail is nine inches and the average body weight is 65 grams. It has dark brownish fur like the alexandrine rats, and a grey belly. It is found in Indonesia, on most of the islands of Oceania and in New Zealand. All three rats live in our cane fields and the brushy and forested portions of our islands. The norway and alexandrine rats are found in and around the villages and farms, the Polynesian rat is only found in the fields and waste areas. The actual amount of damage done by rats is small, but destruction they cause is large. The rats gnaw through the rind of the cane stalk and eat the soft juicy and sweet tissues inside. They will hollow out one to several nodes per stalk attacked. The effect to the cane stalk is like ringing a tree. After this attack the stalk above the chewed portion usually dies, and sometimes the lower portion too. If the rat does not eat through the stalk the cane stalk could go on living and producing sugar at a reduced rate. Generally an injured stalk does not last long. Disease and souring organisms get in the injury and kill the stalk. And if this isn't enough, some insects are attracted to the injured stalk and will sometimes bore in and kill it. An injured stalk of cane doesn't have much of a chance. A rat may only gnaw out six inches of a 30 foot stalk and the whole stalk will die. If the rat only destroyed what he ate we could ignore them but they cause the death of too much cane. This dead, dying, and souring cane cause several direct and indirect tosses. First we lose the sugar that the cane would have produced. We harvest all of our cane mechanically so we haul the dead and souring cane to the mill where we have to grind it with our good cane and the bad cane reduces the purity of the sugar juices we squeeze from the cane. Rats reduce our income and run up our overhead.

The Probe, Issue 171 – November 1996

Park Service Thwarts Cat Allies, by Marilyn Davis, Native Species Network, Bodega Bay, California Jim Miller Elected VP of Wildlife Society ADC Aerial Hunting Accident Kills 2 Obituary: Carl R. Gustavson HSUS Former Employee File Lawsuits Rats Shut Down Internet at Stanford Call for Papers: A Symposium on Mammal Trapping August 1997 in Edmonton, Alberta Fur in Cyberspace: The Fur Institute of Canada announces it has established a site on the World Wide Web, at the following address: http://www.fur.ca. Book Review: Beaver and Otter: Open Water Techniques, by Charles Dobbins 1992. Beaver Pond Publishing and Printing, P.O. Box 224, Greenville, Pennsyulvania, 16125. 114 pages. American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians: Resolution on Management of Feral Cats Use of Zinc Phosphide for Marmot Control, by Mark Collinge, NADCA Northern Rockies Region Director, USDA-APHIS-ADC Cat Colony Ordinance Adopted by Santa Clara County, California