Show simple item record

Files in this item

Thumbnail

Item metadata

dc.contributor.authorHooker, Sascha Kate
dc.contributor.authorBarychka, Tatsiana
dc.contributor.authorJessopp, Mark J
dc.contributor.authorStaniland, Iain J
dc.date.accessioned2015-10-01T23:12:40Z
dc.date.available2015-10-01T23:12:40Z
dc.date.issued2015-09-29
dc.identifier.citationHooker , S K , Barychka , T , Jessopp , M J & Staniland , I J 2015 , ' Images as proximity sensors : the incidence of conspecific foraging in Antarctic fur seals ' , Animal Biotelemetry , vol. 3 , 37 . https://doi.org/10.1186/s40317-015-0083-2en
dc.identifier.issn2050-3385
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 193890101
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: 5e5e860f-a9b1-42aa-af33-c701de5b7611
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 85018192858
dc.identifier.otherORCID: /0000-0002-7518-3548/work/47136149
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10023/7581
dc.description.abstractBackground: Although there have been recent advances in the development of animal-attached ‘proximity’ tags to remotely record the interactions of multiple individuals, the efficacy of these devices depends on the instrumentation of sufficient animals that subsequently have spatial interactions. Among densely colonial mammals such as fur seals, this remains logistically difficult, and interactions between animals during foraging have not previously been recorded. Results: We collected data on conspecific interactions during diving at sea using still image and video cameras deployed on 23 Antarctic fur seals. Animals carried cameras for a total of 152 days, collecting 38,098 images and 369 movies (total time 7.35 h). Other fur seals were detected in 74% of deployments, with a maximum of five seals seen at one time (n = 122 images, 28 videos). No predators other than conspecifics were observed. Detection was primarily limited by light conditions, since conspecifics were usually further from each other than the 1-m range illuminated by camera flash under low light levels. Other seals were recorded at a range of depths (average 27 ± 14.3 m, max 66 m). In terms of bouts of dives, still images of other seals were recorded in 5 single dives (of 330) and 28 bouts of dives <2 min apart (of 187). Linear mixed models suggested a relationship between conspecific observations per dive and the number of krill images recorded per dive. Using light conditions as a proxy for detectability, other seals were more likely to be observed at the bottom of dives than during descent or ascent. Seals were also more likely to be closer to each other and oriented perpendicular to each other at the bottom of dives, and in the same direction as each other during ascent. Conclusions: These results are contrary to animal-attached camera observations of penguin foraging, suggesting differing group-foraging tactics for these marine predators. Group foraging could have consequences for models linking predator behaviour to prey field densities since this relationship may be affected by the presence of multiple predators at the same patch.
dc.format.extent11
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofAnimal Biotelemetryen
dc.rights© 2015 Hooker et al. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.en
dc.subjectPinnipeden
dc.subjectAnimal-attached cameraen
dc.subjectSocialityen
dc.subjectForagingen
dc.subjectGroupsen
dc.subjectArctocephalus gazellaen
dc.subjectQH301 Biologyen
dc.subject.lccQH301en
dc.titleImages as proximity sensors : the incidence of conspecific foraging in Antarctic fur sealsen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.contributor.sponsorThe Royal Societyen
dc.description.versionPublisher PDFen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. School of Biologyen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. Marine Alliance for Science & Technology Scotlanden
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. Scottish Oceans Instituteen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. Institute of Behavioural and Neural Sciencesen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. St Andrews Sustainability Instituteen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. Sea Mammal Research Uniten
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40317-015-0083-2
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden
dc.identifier.grantnumberen


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record