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.

BURROW-BUILDING STRATEGIES AND HABITAT USE OF VOLES IN PACIFIC NORTHWEST ORCHARDS

Seidel and Booth (1960) wrote that the "life histories of the genus Microtus are not numerous in the literature." In support of his observation he cited 6 publications, all dated between 1891 and 1953. Since then the literature has exploded with a proliferation of publications. An international literature review recently revealed over 3,500 citations for the genus. When Pitymys and Clethrionomys are included another 350 and 1,880, respectively, were found. Over the last 10 years approximately 3 new publications on voles appeared every 4 days; a significant output for what some would consider such an insignificant species. Most of the publications were the result of graduate research projects on population dynamics and species ecology. As such, many do not explore more than the rudimentary ecological relationships between the animal and their environments. Unfortunate, as well, is that all but one confined their observations to only a small part of their total environment. For many of these animals, their life underground may be more important for their survival than that above ground. Trapping studies conducted by Godfrey and Askham (1988) with permanently placed pitfall live traps in orchards revealed a significant inverse population fluctuation during the year. During the winter, when populations are expected to decrease, as many as 6 to 8 mature Microtus montanus were collected at any 1 time in the traps after several centimeters of snow accumulation. During the summer, when populations are expected to increase, virtually no animals were collected in the traps. According to current population dynamics theory, greater numbers of animals, including increasingly larger numbers of immature members of the community, should appear in any sample between the onset of the breeding period, generally in the spring, taper off during the latter part of the production season, usually late summer, and then decline as the limiting factors begin to take effect. For us, we trapped more animals in the fall and early winter than we did during the spring and summer. A review of the above literature did little to answer our question. Where are the animals going during the summer and why?