Towards a better characterisation of deep-diving whales’ distributions by using prey distribution model outputs?

In habitat modelling, environmental variables are assumed to be proxies of lower trophic levels distribution and by extension, of marine top predator distributions. More proximal variables, such as potential prey fields, could refine relationships between top predator distributions and their environment. In situ data on prey distributions are not available over large spatial scales but, a numerical model, the Spatial Ecosystem And POpulation DYnamics Model (SEAPODYM), provides simulations of the biomass and production of zooplankton and six functional groups of micronekton at the global scale. Here, we explored whether generalised additive models fitted to simulated prey distribution data better predicted deep-diver densities (here beaked whales Ziphiidae and sperm whales Physeter macrocephalus) than models fitted to environmental variables. We assessed whether the combination of environmental and prey distribution data would further improve model fit by comparing their explanatory power. For both taxa, results were suggestive of a preference for habitats associated with topographic features and thermal fronts but also for habitats with an extended euphotic zone and with large prey of the lower mesopelagic layer. For beaked whales, no SEAPODYM variable was selected in the best model that combined the two types of variables, possibly because SEAPODYM does not accurately simulate the organisms on which beaked whales feed on. For sperm whales, the increase model performance was only marginal. SEAPODYM outputs were at best weakly correlated with sightings of deep-diving cetaceans, suggesting SEAPODYM may not accurately predict the prey fields of these taxa. This study was a first investigation and mostly highlighted the importance of the physiographic variables to understand mechanisms that influence the distribution of deep-diving cetaceans. A more systematic use of SEAPODYM could allow to better define the limits of its use and a development of the model that would simulate larger prey beyond 1,000 m would probably better characterise the prey of deep-diving cetaceans.

Prey and habitat distribution are not enough to explain predator habitat selection: addressing intraspecific interactions, behavioural state and time

Background Movements and habitat selection of predators shape ecological communities by determining the spatiotemporal distribution of predation risk. Although intraspecific interactions associated to territoriality and parental care are involved in predator habitat selection, few studies have addressed their effects simultaneously with those of prey and habitat distribution. Moreover, individuals require behavioural and temporal flexibility in their movement decisions to meet various motivations in a heterogeneous environment. To untangle the relative importance of ecological determinants of predator fine-scale habitat selection, we studied simultaneously several spatial, temporal, and behavioural predictors of habitat selection in territorial arctic foxes (Vulpes lagopus) living within a Greater snow goose (Anser caerulescens atlantica) colony during the reproductive season. Methods Using GPS locations collected at 4-min intervals and behavioural state classification (active and resting), we quantified how foxes modulate state-specific habitat selection in response to territory edges, den proximity, prey distribution, and habitats. We also assessed whether foxes varied their habitat selection in response to an important phenological transition marked by decreasing prey availability (goose egg hatching) and decreasing den dependency (emancipation of cubs). Results Multiple factors simultaneously played a key role in driving habitat selection, and their relative strength differed with respect to the behavioural state and study period. Foxes avoided territory edges, and reproductive individuals selected den proximity before the phenological transition. Higher goose nest density was selected when foxes were active but avoided when resting, and was less selected after egg hatching. Selection for tundra habitats also varied through the summer, but effects were not consistent. Conclusions We conclude that constraints imposed by intraspecific interactions can play, relative to prey distribution and habitat characteristics, an important role in the habitat selection of a keystone predator. Our results highlight the benefits of considering behavioural state and seasonal phenology when assessing the flexibility of predator habitat selection. Our findings indicate that considering intraspecific interactions is essential to understand predator space use, and suggest that using predator habitat selection to advance community ecology requires an explicit assessment of the social context in which movements occur.

Effects of Prey Distribution and Heterospecific Interactions on the Functional Response of Harmonia axyridis and Aphidius gifuensis to Myzus persicae

Natural enemy guilds normally forage for prey that is patchily distributed simultaneously. Previous studies have investigated the influence of conspecific interactions and prey distribution on the functional response of natural enemies. However, little is known about how prey distribution and heterospecific interactions between natural enemies could affect their foraging efficiency. We examined the effects of prey distribution (aggregate and uniform) and heterospecific interactions on the functional response of a predator, Harmonia axyridis (Pallas) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) and a parasitoid, Aphidius gifuensis Ashmead (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) to the green peach aphid, Myzus persicae (Sulzer) (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Type II functional responses were observed in all experiments. Functional response curves of single H. axyridis or A. gifuensis were higher in the aggregate treatment than in the uniform treatment when aphid densities were between 40–180 or 70–170, respectively. When comparing between aggregate and uniform treatments with the heterospecific enemy occurrence, no differences were found in the parasitism efficiency of A. gifuensis, while H. axyridis consumed more aphids in the aggregate treatment than in the uniform treatment when aphid densities were between 50–230. The functional response of individual H. axyridis was not affected by A. gifuensis under two aphid distributions. However, the functional response of a single A. gifuensis and the treatment when A. gifuensis concurrently with H. axyridis overlapped in uniform treatment of above approximately 150 aphids. Our results indicate that the predation rate of H. axyridis was affected by aphid distribution, but was not affected by heterospecific interactions. The parasitism rate of A. gifuensis was affected by aphid distribution, and by heterospecific interactions in both the aggregate and uniform treatments. Thus, to optimize the management efficiency of M. persicae, the combined use of H. axyridis and A. gifuensis should be considered when M. persicae is nearly uniformly distributed under relatively high density.

Spatial niche partitioning among three small cetaceans in the eastern coastal area of Hokkaido, Japan

Spatial niche partitioning of marine mammals is thought to be caused by dietary differences. However, due to the difficulty involved with conducting simultaneous marine predator and prey distribution surveys at the same scale, marine mammals have not been studied alongside their prey distribution. To understand the spatial niche overlap between 3 small cetaceans observed in the eastern coastal waters of Hokkaido, Japan (Pacific white-sided dolphin Lagenorhynchus obliquidens, Dall’s porpoise Phocoenoides dalli, and harbor porpoise Phocoena phocoena), and the mechanisms behind the differences in their distributions, visual and hydroacoustic surveys using a quantitative echosounder were concurrently conducted. A clear spatial niche overlap was observed between the Pacific white-sided dolphin and Dall’s porpoise, whereas the spatial overlap was moderate between the harbor porpoise and the other 2 species. In areas where Pacific white-sided dolphins were observed, potential prey was abundant in a shallower layer, at approximately 80-90 m depth. On the other hand, potential prey was more abundant in deeper layers in areas where Dall’s and harbor porpoises were observed. Water depth affected the potential prey abundance at all depth layers (0-300 m), as potential prey were more abundant in areas with a shallower water depth. Additionally, potential prey were more abundant in shallower layers (3-200 m) than in deeper layers (200-300 m), where the maximum water depth was 3000 m. The differences in spatial niche among Pacific white-sided dolphin, Dall’s porpoise, and harbor porpoise might cause their dietary differences, as they are epipelagic feeders, midwater feeders, and both epipelagic and midwater feeders, respectively.