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.

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.

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.