Search

Knowledge of the factors shaping the foraging behaviour of species is central to understanding their ecosystem role and predicting their response to environmental variability. To maximise survival and reproduction, foraging strategies must balance the costs and benefits related to energy needed to pursue, manipulate, and consume prey with the nutritional reward obtained. While such information is vital for understanding how changes in prey assemblages may affect predators, determining these components is inherently difficult in cryptic predators. The present study used animal-borne video data loggers to investigate the costs and benefits related to different prey types for female Australian fur seals (Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus), a primarily benthic foraging species in the low productivity Bass Strait, south-eastern Australia. A total of 1,263 prey captures, resulting from 2,027 prey detections, were observed in 84.5 h of video recordings from 23 individuals. Substantial differences in prey pursuit and handling times, gross energy gain and total energy expenditure were observed between prey types. Importantly, the profitability of prey was not significantly different between prey types, with the exception of elasmobranchs. This study highlights the benefit of animal-borne video data loggers for understanding the factors that influence foraging decisions in predators. Further studies incorporating search times for different prey types would further elucidate how profitability differs with prey type.

The endangered Galapagos sea lion (GSL, Zalophus wollebaeki) exhibits a range of foraging strategies utilising various dive types including benthic, epipelagic and mesopelagic dives. In the present study, potential prey captures (PPC), prey energy consumption and energy expenditure in lactating adult female GSLs (n = 9) were examined to determine their foraging efficiency relative to the foraging strategy used. Individuals displayed four dive types: (a) epipelagic (100 m; MP) with a characteristic V-shape or U-shape diving profile; and (c) shallow benthic (100 m; DB) with square or flat-bottom dive profiles. These dive types varied in the number of PPC, assumed prey types, and the energy expended. Prey items and their energetic value were assumed from previous GSL diet studies in combination with common habitat and depth ranges of the prey. In comparison to pelagic dives occurring at similar depths, when diving benthically, GSLs had both higher prey energy consumption and foraging energy expenditure whereas PPC rate was lower. Foraging efficiency varied across dive types, with benthic dives being more profitable than pelagic dives. Three foraging trip strategies were identified and varied relative to prey energy consumed, energy expended, and dive behaviour. Foraging efficiency did not significantly vary among the foraging trip strategies suggesting that, while individuals may diverge into different foraging habitats, they are optimal within them. These findings indicate that these three strategies will have different sensitivities to habitat-specific fluctuations due to environmental change.