Oecologia

, Volume 53, Issue 2, pp 170–178 | Cite as

Foraging strategies and prey switching in the California sea otter

  • Richard S. Ostfeld
Article

Summary

Southern sea otters (Enhydra lutris nereis), in recovering from near extinction, are gradually extending their range to include areas from which they have been absent for more than one hundred years. This study took advantage of the otters' relatively sudden arrival in the area near Santa Cruz, California, to monitor their prey selection in the first two years of residence there. Foraging observations revealed that sea urchins (Strongly-locentrotus franciscanus) were heavily preyed upon initially, but virtually disappeared from the diet after one year of sea otter residence. The disappearance of sea urchins was accompanied by an increased use of kelp crabs (Pugettia producta) and the appearance of clams (Gari californica) in the otters' diet. Abalones (Haliotis rufescens) and cancer crabs (Cancer spp.) remained fairly stable as dietary items throughout the two year period. An electivity index was used to quantify sea otter preferences, which corresponded closely with a ranking scheme based on energy intake/unit foraging time calculated for each major prey species. As predicted by optimal foraging theory, sea otters prefer food species of high rank and replace depleted dietary items with those of next highest rank. The process of dietary switching was analyzed with respect to foraging success rates, and it appears that poor success rates, associated with predation on an increasingly rarer prey species (sea urchins), drive sea otters to hunt for different prey. Both patch selection and search image formation appear to function in this process. The potential effects on community structure and stability of predators exhibiting a preference for the most profitable prey are discussed.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Charnov EL (1976) Optimal foraging: attack strategy of a mantid. Am Nat 110:611–617Google Scholar
  2. Collier GH, Rovee-Collier CK (1981) A comparative analysis of optimal foraging behavior: laboratory simulations. In: Kamil AC, Sargent TD (eds) Foraging behavior: ecological, ethological, and psychological approaches. Garland STPM Press, New York, p 39–76Google Scholar
  3. Cornell H (1976) Search strategies and the adaptive significance of switching in some general predators. Am Nat 110:317–320Google Scholar
  4. Costa DP (1978) The ecological energetics, water and electrolyte balance of the California Sea Otter, Enhydra lutris. PhD Dissertation, Univ of California, Santa CruzGoogle Scholar
  5. Duggins DO (1980) Kelp beds and sea otters: an experimental approach. Ecology 61:447–453Google Scholar
  6. Ebert EE (1968) A food habits study of the southern sea otter Enhydra lutris nereis. Calif Fish Game 54:33–42Google Scholar
  7. Emlen JM, Emlen MGR (1975) Optimal choice in diet: test of a hypothesis. Am Nat 109:427–435Google Scholar
  8. Estes JA, Jameson RJ, Johnson AM (In press) Food selection and some foraging tactics of sea otters. In: Proc Worldwide Furbearer Conf. University of Maryland PressGoogle Scholar
  9. Estes JA, Palmisano JF (1974) Sea otters: their role in structuring nearshore communities. Science 185:1058–1060Google Scholar
  10. Estes JA, Smith NS, Palmisano JF (1978) Sea otter predation and community organization in the western Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Ecology 59:822–833Google Scholar
  11. Foster MS, Cowen RK, Agegian CR, Rose DK, Van Wagenen RF, Hurley AC (1979) Continued studies of the effects of sea otter foraging on kelp forest communities in central California. Report to Calif Dept Fish Game, 106 pGoogle Scholar
  12. Hall KRL, Schaller GB (1964) Tool-using behavior of the California sea otter. J Mamm 45:287–298Google Scholar
  13. Hines AH, Loughlin TR (1980) Observations of sea otters digging for clams at Monterey Harbor, California. Fish Bull 78:159–163Google Scholar
  14. Hughes RN (1979) Optimal diets under the energy maximization premise: the effects of recognition time and learning. Am Nat 113:209–221Google Scholar
  15. Ivlev VS (1961) Experimental ecology of the feeding of fishes. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, USAGoogle Scholar
  16. Kenyon KW (1969) The sea otter in the eastern Pacific Ocean. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, North American Fauna No. 69, 352 pGoogle Scholar
  17. Loughlin TR (1977) Activity patterns, habitat partitioning, and grooming behavior of the sea otter, Enhydra lutris, in California. PhD Dissertation, Univ of California, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  18. Lowry LF, Pearse JS (1973) Abalones and sea urchins in an area inhabited by sea otters. Mar Biol 23:312–319Google Scholar
  19. Lubchenco J (1978) Plant species diversity in a marine intertidal community: importance of herbivore food preference and algal competitive abilities. Am Nat 112:23–39Google Scholar
  20. MacArthur RH, Pianka ER (1966) On the optimal use of a patchy environment. Am Nat 100:603–609Google Scholar
  21. Mattison JE, Trent JD, Shanks AL, Adkin TB, Pearse JS (1977) Movement and feeding activity of red sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus franciscanus) adjacent to a kelp forest. Mar Biol 39:25–30Google Scholar
  22. Murdoch WW (1969) Switching in general predators: experiments on predator specificity and stability of prey populations. Ecol Monog 39:335–354Google Scholar
  23. Murdoch WW, Oaten A (1975) Predation and population stability. Adv Ecol Res 9:1–131Google Scholar
  24. Norberg RA (1977) An ecological theory on foraging time and energetics and choice of optimal food-searching method. J Anim Ecol 46:511–529Google Scholar
  25. Paine RT (1969) A note on trophic complexity and community stability. Am Nat 103:91–93Google Scholar
  26. Pearse JS, Costa DP, Yellin MB, Agegian CB (1977) Localized mass mortality of red sea urchins, Strongylocentrotus franciscanus near Santa Cruz, California. Fish Bull 75:645–648Google Scholar
  27. Pearse JS, Hines AH (1979) Expansion of a central California kelp forest following the mass mortality of sea urchins. Mar Biol 51:83–91Google Scholar
  28. Peterson RS, Odemar MW (1969) Population growth of the sea otter in California: results of aerial censuses and behavioral studies. Proceedings of the 6th Ann Conf Biol Sonar Diving Mamm, Stanford Research Institute: 69–72Google Scholar
  29. Pyke GH, Pulliam HR, Charnov EL (1977) Optimal foraging: a selective review of theory and tests. Q Rev Biol 52:137–154Google Scholar
  30. Rapport DJ (1981) Foraging behavior of Stentor coeruleus: a microeconomic approach. In: Kamil AC, Sargent TD (eds) Foraging behavior: ecological, ethological, and psychological approaches. Garland STPM Press, New York, p 77–93Google Scholar
  31. Royama T (1970) Factors governing the hunting behavior and selection of food by the Great Tit (Parus major L.). J Anim Ecol 39:619–668Google Scholar
  32. Schoener TW (1971) Theory of feeding strategies. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 2:369–404Google Scholar
  33. Shimek SJ (1977) The underwater foraging habits of the sea otter, Enhydra lutris. Calif Fish Game 63:120–122Google Scholar
  34. Shimek SJ, Monk A (1977) The daily activity of the sea otter off the Monterey Peninsula, California. J Wildl Man 41:277–283Google Scholar
  35. Simenstad CA, Estes JA, Kenyon KW (1978) Aleuts, sea otters, and alternate stable-state communities. Science 200:403–411Google Scholar
  36. Tinbergen L (1960) The natural control of insects in pinewoods. I. Factors influencing the intensity of predation by songbirds. Arch Néerl Zool 13:265–343Google Scholar
  37. Vandevere JE (1969) Feeding behavior of the southern sea otter. Proc 6th Ann Conf Biol Sonar Diving Mamm, Stanford Research Institute: 87–94Google Scholar
  38. Werner EE, Hall DJ (1974) Optimal foraging and the size selection of prey by the gluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). Ecology 55:1042–1052Google Scholar
  39. Wild PW, Ames JA (1974) A report on the sea otter, Enhydra lutris L., in California. Calif Fish Game Mar Res Tech Rep No 20Google Scholar
  40. Yellin MB, Agegian CR, Pearse JS (1978) Ecological benchmarks in the Santa Cruz County kelp forests before the re-establishment of sea otters. Report to the Marine Mammal Commission. 124 pGoogle Scholar
  41. Zach R, Smith JNM (1981) Optimal foraging in wild birds? In: Kamil AC, Sargent TD (eds) Foraging behavior: ecological, ethological, and psychological approaches. Garland STPM Press, New York, p 95–109Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard S. Ostfeld
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Coastal Marine StudiesUniversity of CaliforniaSanta CruzUSA

Personalised recommendations