4.2 Article

Temporal structure of diving behaviour in sympatric Antarctic and subantarctic fur seals

期刊

MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES
卷 372, 期 -, 页码 277-287

出版社

INTER-RESEARCH
DOI: 10.3354/meps07689

关键词

Optimal foraging; Foraging niche segregation; Foraging behaviour; Diel trends; Diurnal activity; Myctophidae; Syntopy; Archival tags

资金

  1. Institut Polaire Franqais Paul Emile Victor (IPEV),
  2. Draney-Anderson Foundation
  3. Memorial University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lactation is considerably briefer (4 vs. 10 mo) and daily pup energy expenditure higher in Antarctic (AFS) than in subantarctic fur seals (SFS), even in sympatric populations of both species, where their foraging locations and diets are similar. Therefore, lactational demands may be higher for AFS females. We investigated whether sympatric lactating AFS and SFS females differ in their physiological or behavioural diving capacities, and in the temporal structure of foraging behaviour. Mean dive depth and duration were greater in SFS, but dives below 1 40 m were performed only by AFS. An index of activity level during the bottom phase of dives, when fur seals are thought to capture prey, was higher in SFS. Despite these differences, SFS females showed a steady increase in the minimum postdive interval following dives lasting longer than 250 s, compared to the steady increase following dives lasting longer than only 150 s in AFS. These results suggest that physiological constraints on diving behaviour are stronger on AFS females, and that the behavioural aerobic dive limit is greater for SFS. Assuming that dive bouts reflect foraging in prey patches, AFS females exploited more patches per unit time, and remained in them for briefer periods of time, compared to SFS females. Dive bout structure did not differ between overnight and long foraging trips. Our data suggest that AFS females spend greater foraging effort, but may gain access to prey patches of better quality, which may help them cope with higher lactational. demands.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据