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.

Development and application of DNA techniques for validating and improving pinniped diet estimates

Polymerase chain reaction techniques were developed and applied to identify DNA from .40 species of prey contained in fecal (scat) soft-part matrix collected at terrestrial sites used by Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) in British Columbia and the eastern Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Sixty percent more fish and cephalopod prey were identified by morphological analyses of hard parts compared with DNA analysis of soft parts (hard parts identified higher relative proportions of Ammodytes sp., Cottidae, and certain Gadidae). DNA identified 213 prey occurrences, of which 75 (35%) were undetected by hard parts (mainly Salmonidae, Pleuronectidae, Elasmobranchii, and Cephalopoda), and thereby increased species occurrences by 22% overall and species richness in 44% of cases (when comparing 110 scats that amplified prey DNA). Prey composition was identical within only 20% of scats. Overall, diet composition derived from both identification techniques combined did not differ significantly from hard-part identification alone, suggesting that past scat-based diet studies have not missed major dietary components. However, significant differences in relative diet contributions across scats (as identified using the two techniques separately) reflect passage rate differences between hard and soft digesta material and highlight certain hypothesized limitations in conventional morphological-based methods (e.g., differences in resistance to digestion, hard part regurgitation, partial and secondary prey consumption), as well as potential technical issues (e.g., resolution of primer efficiency and sensitivity and scat subsampling protocols). DNA analysis of salmon occurrence (from scat soft-part matrix and 238 archived salmon hard parts) provided species-level taxonomic resolution that could not be obtained by morphological identification and showed that Steller sea lions were primarily consuming pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and chum (Oncorhynchus keta) salmon. Notably, DNA from Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) that likely originated from a distant fish farm was also detected in two scats from one site in the eastern Aleutian Islands. Overall, molecular techniques are valuable for identifying prey in the fecal remains of marine predators. Combining DNA and hard-part identification will effectively alleviate certain predicted biases and will ultimately enhance measures of diet richness, fisheries interactions (especially salmon-related ones), and the ecological role of pinnipeds and other marine predators, to the benefit of marine wildlife conservationists and fisheries managers.

HOME RANGES AND MOVEMENTS OF COYOTES IN THE NORTHERN CHIHUAHUAN DESERT

The coyote (Canis latrans) is among the most studied animals in North America. Because of its adaptability and success as a predator, the coyote has flourished and is still expanding its range. Coyotes can now be found throughout most of North America and south into Central America (Voight and Berg 1987). Studies in recent years have been extensive to understand the interrelationships of prey and coyotes (Shelton and Klindt 1974, Beckoff and Wells 1981), as well as demographic relationships (Davis et al. 1975, Knowlton and Stoddart 1978, Mitchell 1979, Bowen 1981) and feeding strategies (Todd and Keith 1976, Andelt et al. 1987, MacCracken and Hansen 1987, Gese et al. 1988a). With the advance of radio telemetry, researchers have investigated lifestyle characteristics spatially with home ranges or temporally with movements in relation to habitat requirements. Researchers have studied home ranges of coyotes in various regions of the United States (Livaitis and Shaw 1980, Andelt 1981, Springer 1982, Pyrah 1984, Gese et al. 1988a) and Canada (Bowen 1982). Some studies of home range were separated by season (Ozoga and Harger 1966) or relation to nearby food sources (Danner and Smith 1980). Home range analysis in relation to social interactions of coyotes has been either neglected, overlooked, or avoided. Gese et al. (1988a) recognized a transient class of coyote by home range size. Coyote social systems are very complex and can vary by season or locality in addition to some reports of group or pack systems (Hamlin and Schweitzer 1979, Beckoff and Wells 1981, Bowen 1981, Gese et al. 1988b). Coyotes maintain communication with conspecifics through vocal and olfactory signals (Lehner 1987, Bowen and McTaggert Cowan 1980). Social interactions may be by far the most complex and least understood aspect related to coyote ecology. Coyote movements can be related to many factors including food, water, cover, and social interactions. Movements in relation to food sources are well documented (Fitch 1948, Todd and Keith 1976, Danner and Smith 1980) although reports on movements in relation to water have not been reported, probably because of limited research in desert situations. There has been some mention of coyotes' movements in relation to cover (Wells and Beckoff 1982). The objectives of this study were to delineate annual and seasonal home ranges, movements, and habitat use of coyotes in the northern Chihuahuan desert.