Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 152, Issue 1, pp 213–224 | Cite as

Foraging behaviour of sympatric Antarctic and subantarctic fur seals: does their contrasting duration of lactation make a difference?

  • Sebastián P. LuqueEmail author
  • John P. Y. Arnould
  • Edward H. Miller
  • Yves Cherel
  • Christophe Guinet
Research Article

Abstract

The duration of periods spent ashore versus foraging at sea, diving behaviour, and diet of lactating female Antarctic (Arctocephalus gazella, AFS) and subantarctic (A. tropicalis, SFS) fur seals were compared at Iles Crozet, where both species coexist. The large disparity in lactation duration (SFS: 10 months, AFS: 4 months), even under local sympatry, has led to the expectation that AFS should exhibit higher foraging effort or efficiency per unit time than SFS to allow them to wean their pups in a shorter period of time. Previous evidence, however, has not supported these expectations. In this study, the distribution of foraging trip durations revealed two types of trips: overnight (OFT, <1 day) and long (LFT, >1 day), in common with other results from Macquarie Island. However, diving behaviour differed significantly between foraging trip types, with greater diving effort in OFTs than in LFTs, and diving behaviour differed between fur seal species. OFTs were more frequent in SFS (48%) than in AFS (28%). SFS performed longer LFTs and maternal attendances than AFS, but spent a smaller proportion of their foraging cycle at sea (66.2 vs. 77.5%, respectively). SFS dove deeper and for longer periods than AFS, in both OFTs and LFTs, although indices of diving effort were similar between species. Diel variation in diving behaviour was lower among SFS, which foraged at greater depths during most of the night time available than AFS. The diving behaviour of AFS suggests they followed the nychthemeral migration of their prey more closely. Concomitant with the differences in diving behaviour, AFS and SFS fed on the same prey species, but in different proportions of three myctophid fish (Gymnoscopelus fraseri, G. piabilis, and G. nicholsi) that represented most of their diet. The estimated size of the most important fish consumed did not vary significantly between fur seal species, suggesting that the difference in dive depth was mostly a result of changes in the relative abundance of these myctophids. The energy content of these fish at Iles Crozet may thus influence the amount and quality of milk delivered to pups of each fur seal species. These results contrast with those found at other sites where both species coexist, and revealed a scale of variation in foraging behaviour which did not affect their effort while at sea, but that may be a major determinant of foraging efficiency and, consequently, maternal investment.

Keywords

Diving Behaviour Dive Depth Dive Duration Diel Pattern Scat Sample 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was possible thanks to the financial and logistic support from the Institut Polaire Français Paul Emile Victor (IPEV), the Draney-Anderson Foundation, and a graduate student fellowship from the Department of Biology of Memorial University (SPL). We are very grateful to the members of the 39th and 40th missions to Iles Crozet, who participated in many aspects of field work. Research was conducted in accordance with the guidelines provided by IPEV.

References

  1. Arnould JPY, Hindell MA (2001) Dive behaviour, foraging locations, and maternal attendance patterns of Australian fur seals (Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus). Can J Zool 79:35–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnould JPY, Boyd IL, Socha DG (1996) Milk consumption and growth efficiency in Antarctic fur seal (Arctocephalus gazella) pups. Can J Zool 74:254–266Google Scholar
  3. Arnould JPY, Luque SP, Guinet C, Costa DP, Kingston J, Shaffer SA (2003) The comparative energetics and growth strategies of sympatric Antarctic and Subantarctic fur seal pups at Îles Crozet. J Exp Biol 206:4497–4506PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bailleul F, Luque SP, Dubroca L, Arnould JPY, Guinet C (2005) Differences in foraging strategy and maternal behaviour between two sympatric fur seal species at the Crozet Islands. Mar Ecol Progress Ser 293:273–282Google Scholar
  5. Beauplet G, Dubroca L, Guinet C, Cherel Y, Dabin W, Gagne C, Hindell M (2004) Foraging ecology of subantarctic fur seals Arctocephalus tropicalis breeding on Amsterdam Island: seasonal changes in relation to maternal characteristics and pup growth. Mar Ecol Progress Ser 273:211–225Google Scholar
  6. Beck CA, Bowen WD, Iverson SJ (2000) Seasonal changes in buoyancy and diving behaviour of adult grey seals. J Exp Biol 203:2323–2330PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bester MN, Bartlett PA (1990) Attendance behaviour of Antarctic and subantarctic fur seal females at Marion Island. Antarct Sci 2:309–312Google Scholar
  8. Bester MN, Laycock PA (1985) Cephalopod prey of the Subantarctic fur seal, Arctocephalus tropicalis, at Gough Island. In: Siegfried WR, Condy PR, Laws RM (eds) Antarctic nutrient cycles and food webs. Springer, Berlin, pp 551–554Google Scholar
  9. Boness DJ, Bowen WD (1996) The evolution of maternal care in pinnipeds. Bioscience 46:645–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bonner N (1999) Seals and sea lions of the world. Blandford, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Boyd IL (1999) Foraging and provisioning in Antarctic fur seals: interannual variability in time–energy budgets. Behav Ecol 10:198–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boyd IL, Croxall JP (1992) Diving behaviour of lactating Antarctic fur seals. Can J Zool 70:919–928Google Scholar
  13. Boyd IL, Lunn NJ, Barton T (1991) Time budgets and foraging characteristics of lactating Antarctic fur seals. J Anim Ecol 60:577–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Boyd IL, Arnould JPY, Barton T, Croxall JP (1994) Foraging behaviour of Antarctic fur seals during periods of contrasting prey abundance. J Anim Ecol 63:703–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Casaux R, Baroni A, Arrighetti F, Ramón A, Carlini A (2003) Geographical variation in the diet of the Antarctic fur seal Arctocephalus gazella. Polar Biol 26:753–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clarke MR (1986) A handbook for the identification of squid beaks. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Costa DP (1991) Reproductive and foraging energetics of pinnipeds: implications for life history patterns. In: Renouf D (ed) The Behavior of Pinnipeds. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 300–344Google Scholar
  18. Costa DP, Gales NJ (2000) Foraging energetics and diving behavior of lactating New Zealand sea lions, Phocarctos hookeri. J Exp Biol 203:3655–3665PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Costa DP, Gales NJ (2003) Energetics of a benthic diver: seasonal foraging ecology of the Australian sea lion, Neophoca cinerea. Ecol Monogr 73:27–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Costa DP, Trillmich F, Croxall JP (1988) Intraspecific allometry of neonatal size in the Antarctic fur seal (Arctocephalus gazella). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22:361–364Google Scholar
  21. Croxall JP, Everson I, Kooyman GL, Ricketts C, Davis RW (1985) Fur seal diving behaviour in relation to vertical distribution of krill. J Anim Ecol 54:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Daneri GA (1996) Fish diet of the Antarctic fur seal, Arctocephalus gazella, in summer, at Stranger Point, King George Island, South Shetland Islands. Polar Biol 16:353–355Google Scholar
  23. Doidge DW, Croxall JP (1985) Diet and energy budget of the Antarctic fur seal, Arctocephalus gazella, at South Georgia. In: Siegfried WR, Condy PR, Laws RM (eds) Antarctic nutrient cycles and food webs. Springer, Berlin, pp 543–550Google Scholar
  24. Duhamel G, Koubbi P, Ravier C (2000) Day and night mesopelagic fish assemblages off the Kerguelen Islands. Polar Biol 23:106–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ferreira SM, Bester MN (1999) Chemical immobilization, physical restraint, and stomach lavaging of fur seals (Arctocephalus spp.) at Marion Island. S Afr J Wildl Res 29:55–61Google Scholar
  26. Gales R, Pemberton D (1994) Diet of the Australian fur seal in Tasmania. Aust J Mar Freshw Res 45:653–664Google Scholar
  27. Gentry RL (1998) Behavior and ecology of the northern fur seal. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  28. Gentry RL, Kooyman GL (1986) Fur seals: maternal strategies on land and at sea. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  29. Gentry RL, Costa DP, Croxall JP, David JHM, Davis RW, Kooyman GL, Majluf P, McCann TS, Trillmich F (1986) Synthesis and conclusions. In: Gentry RL, Kooyman GL (eds) Fur seals: maternal strategies on land and at sea. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 220–264Google Scholar
  30. Georges JY, Guinet C (2000a) Early mortality and perinatal growth in the subantarctic fur seal (Arctocephalus tropicalis) on Amsterdam Island. J Zool (Lond) 251:277–287Google Scholar
  31. Georges JY, Guinet C (2000b) Maternal care in the Subantarctic fur seals on Amsterdam Island. Ecology 81:295–308Google Scholar
  32. Georges JY, Bonadonna F, Guinet C (2000a) Foraging habitat and diving activity of lactating Subantarctic fur seals in relation to sea-surface temperatures at Amsterdam Island. Mar Ecol Progress Ser 196:291–304Google Scholar
  33. Georges JY, Tremblay Y, Guinet C (2000b) Seasonal diving behaviour in lactating Subantarctic fur seals on Amsterdam Island. Polar Biol 23:59–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Goebel ME, Bengtson JL, DeLong RL, Gentry RL, Loughlin TR (1991) Diving patterns and foraging locations of female northern fur seals. Fishery Bull 89:171–179Google Scholar
  35. Goldsworthy SD (1999) Maternal attendance behaviour of sympatrically breeding Antarctic and subantarctic fur seals, Arctocephalus spp., at Macquarie Island. Polar Biol 21:316–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Goldsworthy SD, Hindell MA, Crowley HM (1997) Diet and diving behaviour of sympatric fur seals Arctocephalus gazella and A. tropicalis at Macquarie Island. In: Hindell MA, Kemper C (eds) Marine mammal research in the Southern hemisphere: status, ecology and medicine, vol 1. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton, pp 151–163Google Scholar
  37. Green K (1997) Diving behaviour of Antarctic fur seals Arctocephalus gazella Peters around Heard Island. In: Hindell MA, Kemper C (eds) Marine mammal research in the Southern hemisphere: status, ecology and medicine, vol 1. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton, pp 97–104Google Scholar
  38. Green K, Williams R, Burton HR (1997) Foraging ecology of Antarctic fur seals Arctocephalus gazella Peters around Heard Island. In: Hindell MA, Kemper C (eds) Marine mammal research in the Southern hemisphere: status, ecology and medicine, vol 1. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton, pp 105–113Google Scholar
  39. Guinet C, Georges JY (2000) Growth in pups of the subantarctic fur seal (Arctocephalus tropicalis) on Amsterdam Island. J Zool (Lond) 251:289–296Google Scholar
  40. Guinet C, Jouventin P, Georges JY (1994) Long term population changes of fur seals Arctocephalus gazella and Arctocephalus tropicalis on subantarctic (Crozet) and subtropical (St. Paul and Amsterdam) islands and their possible relationship to El Niño Southern Oscillation. Antarct Sci 6:473–478Google Scholar
  41. Hurlbert SH (1984) Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol Monogr 54:187–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kerley GIH. (1987) Arctocephalus tropicalis on the Prince Edward islands. In Croxall JP, Gentry RL (eds) NOAA Technical Report NMFS 51, US Department of Commerce, pp 61–64Google Scholar
  43. Kirkman SP, Bester MN, Hofmeyr GJG, Pistorius PA, Makhado AB (2002) Pup growth and maternal attendance patterns in Subantarctic fur seals. Afr Zool 37:13–19Google Scholar
  44. Kirkman SP, Bester MN, Makhado AB, Pistorius PA (2003) Female attendance patterns of Antarctic fur seals at Marion Island. Afr Zool 38:402–405Google Scholar
  45. Kirkman SP, Wilson W, Klages NTW, Bester MN, Isaksen K (2000) Diet and estimated food consumption of Antarctic fur seals at Bouvetoya during summer. Polar Biol 23:745–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Klages NTW, Bester MN (1998) Fish prey of fur seals Arctocephalus spp. at subantarctic Marion Island. Mar Biol 131:559–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lea MA, Cherel Y, Guinet C, Nichols PD (2002a) Antarctic fur seals foraging in the Polar Frontal zone: inter-annual shifts in diet as shown from fecal and fatty acid analyses. Mar Ecol Progress Ser 245:281–297Google Scholar
  48. Lea MA, Hindell M, Guinet C, Goldsworthy S (2002b) Variability in the diving activity of Antarctic fur seals, Arctocephalus gazella, at Iles Kerguelen. Polar Biol 25:269–279Google Scholar
  49. Lea MA, Nichols PD, Wilson G (2002c) Fatty acid composition of lipid-rich myctophids and mackerel fish (Champsocephalus gunnari)—Southern Ocean food-web implications. Polar Biol 25:843–854Google Scholar
  50. Lunn NJ, Boyd IL (1993) Influence of maternal characteristics and environmental variation on reproduction in Antarctic fur seals. In: Boyd IL (ed) Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, vol 66. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 115–129Google Scholar
  51. Lunn NJ, Boyd IL, Barton T, Croxall JP (1993) Factors affecting the growth rate and mass at weaning of Antarctic fur seals at Bird island, South Georgia. J Mammal 74:908–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Luque SP (2007). Diving behaviour analysis in R. R News 7 (in press)Google Scholar
  53. McCafferty DJ, Boyd IL, Walker TR, Taylor RI (1998) Foraging responses of Antarctic fur seals to changes in the marine environment. Mar Ecol Progress Ser 166:285–299Google Scholar
  54. Mori Y (1998) Optimal choice of foraging depth in divers. J Zool (Lond) 245:279–283Google Scholar
  55. Mori Y, Yoda K, Sato K (2001) Defining dive bouts using a sequential differences analysis. Behaviour 138:1451–1466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ochoa-Acuña H, Francis JM (1995) Spring and summer prey of the Juan Fernández fur seal, Arctocephalus philippii. Can J Zool 73:1444–1452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Page B, McKenzie J, Goldsworthy SD (2005) Inter-sexual differences in New Zealand fur seal behaviour. Mar Ecol Progress Ser 304:249–264Google Scholar
  58. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  59. R development Core Team (2006) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. ISBN 3-900051-00-3. http://www.R-project.org
  60. Reid K, Arnould JPY (1996) The diet of Antarctic fur seals Arctocephalus gazella during the breeding season at South Georgia. Polar Biol 16:105–114Google Scholar
  61. Robinson SA, Goldsworthy SD, van den Hoff J, Hindell MA (2002) The foraging ecology of two sympatric fur seal species, Arctocephalus gazella and Arctocephalus tropicalis, at Macquarie Island during the austral summer. Mar Freshw Res 53:1071–1082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Robison BH (2003) What drives the diel vertical migrations of Antarctic midwater fish? J Mar Biol Assoc U K 83:639–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schulz TM (2004) Pinniped lactation strategies: evaluation of data on maternal and offspring life history traits. Mar Mammal Sci 20:86–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Smale MJ, Watson G, Hecht T (1995) Otolith atlas of southern African marine fishes. JBL Smith Institute of Ichthyology, GrahamstownGoogle Scholar
  65. Sparrow MD, Heywood KJ (1996) Current structure of the south Indian Ocean. J Geophys Res 101:6377–6391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wells RS, Boness DJ, Rathbun GB, Rommel SA (1999) Behavior. In: Reynolds JE III (ed) Biology of marine mammals, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, pp 324–422Google Scholar
  67. Williams D, McEldowney A (1990) A guide to the fish otoliths from the waters off the Australian Antarctic Territory, Heard and Maquarie Islands. ANARE Res Notes 75:1–173Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sebastián P. Luque
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • John P. Y. Arnould
    • 3
  • Edward H. Miller
    • 1
  • Yves Cherel
    • 2
  • Christophe Guinet
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of BiologyMemorial UniversitySt John’sCanada
  2. 2.Centre d’Etudes Biologiques de Chizé, CNRSVilliers en BoisFrance
  3. 3.School of Life and Environmental SciencesDeakin UniversityBurwoodAustralia

Personalised recommendations