Coyotes Hunt Harbor Seal Pups on the California Coast

IF 4.3 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY Ecology Pub Date : 2025-02-12 DOI:10.1002/ecy.70031
Francis D. Gerraty, Sarah Grimes, Sue Pemberton, Sarah G. Allen, Sarah A. Codde
{"title":"Coyotes Hunt Harbor Seal Pups on the California Coast","authors":"Francis D. Gerraty,&nbsp;Sarah Grimes,&nbsp;Sue Pemberton,&nbsp;Sarah G. Allen,&nbsp;Sarah A. Codde","doi":"10.1002/ecy.70031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Terrestrial carnivores hunt marine mammals along many coastlines around the world, yet the dynamics of these predator–prey relationships are rarely well characterized (Griffin et al., <span>2023</span>; Stander, <span>2019</span>; Way &amp; Horton, <span>2004</span>). Among marine mammals, pinnipeds (i.e., seals and sea lions) may be particularly vulnerable to land-based predators when they aggregate onshore to rest, give birth, nurse, breed, molt, avoid marine predators, and thermoregulate (Catenazzi &amp; Donnelly, <span>2008</span>; Nordstrom, <span>2002</span>). Many pinniped species exhibit strong site fidelity, so rookery beaches where birthing and breeding take place can generate spatially and temporally predictable prey aggregations for terrestrial predators. These aggregations of large and calorically rich prey can serve as a substantial food source that may lead to shifts in predator behavior, abundance, and species interactions (Roffler et al., <span>2023</span>; Skinner et al., <span>1995</span>).</p><p>During routine harbor seal (<i>Phoca vitulina</i>) population monitoring at a small mainland rookery site at MacKerricher State Beach (Mendocino County, California) during the March–June pupping seasons in 2016 and 2017, we noticed a surprising trend in harbor seal pup mortality. In each year, three harbor seal pups were found in dune vegetation above the high tide line adjacent to the rookery, showing numerous signs of predation-driven mortality, including marks in the sand indicative of a struggle, drag marks from the lower intertidal to the dune area, massive hemorrhaging in the head and neck region, and skull punctures (Figure 1). This characteristic pattern of pup mortality increased in frequency in 2018 and 2019, when 11 and 12 pups were respectively found showing similar signs of predation. In most cases, pup carcasses were found within an approximately 25-m<sup>2</sup> area of dune vegetation, with skulls disarticulated from the rest of the body at the C1 vertebra, and skulls were missing on several occasions. This unusual pup mortality pattern has been documented at the MacKerricher rookery site every year since 2016—including four cases in 2024—for a total of 55 suspected predation events (Figure 2; Appendix S1: Table S1).</p><p>Across dozens of kill site investigations and harbor seal pup necropsies from 2016 to 2022, we strongly suspected that coyotes were responsible for most or all the predation events due to the presence of canid tracks adjacent to kill sites and drag marks, the presence of coyote scat near seal carcasses, and puncture wounds to the skull and neck consistent with canid predation. To confirm that coyotes were hunting harbor seal pups at the MacKerricher State Beach rookery, we placed one to two motion-triggered camera traps (Browning Strike Force HD Pro X) in April–May 2023 (16 trap-nights) and two to four camera traps in April–May 2024 (48 trap-nights) to document pup predation events. Cameras were mounted to driftwood and programmed to take 20 or 60-s videos when triggered, with a 30-s “quiet period” following video capture before another video could be triggered. Throughout 64 trap-nights (32 nights total), we documented three instances of individual coyotes dragging harbor seal pups into dune vegetation, opening carcasses through the head and neck region, feeding, and removing skulls (Video S1). These events occurred in the evening and early morning hours, between 23:00 and 5:00. Necropsies and kill site investigations conducted the morning following each of these predation events revealed drag marks in the sand, massive hemorrhaging in the neck region, skull punctures, and skull disarticulation from the body consistent with prior events of suspected predation (Figure 1). These lines of corroborating evidence suggest that the harbor seal pups documented on camera were killed by coyotes rather than scavenged, and the consistency of these predation events with over 50 pup carcasses showing similar mortality patterns in 2016–2024 is suggestive that coyotes regularly hunt seal pups in this locality (Figure 2; Appendix S1: Table S1).</p><p>We estimated the standard length of harbor seal pups during field necropsies, as direct measurement was often impossible due to skull removal by coyotes. The mean estimated length of coyote-killed seals was 80.57 ± 0.89 cm (SE; <i>n</i> = 54), indicating that most were less than two weeks old and had an estimated body mass of 13–15 kg (Cottrell et al., <span>2002</span>). For comparison, coyotes in the western United States typically have a body mass between 10 and 14 kg, making each harbor seal pup a substantial food source (Hinton et al., <span>2019</span>). The seasonality of coyote predation events reflects this trend of coyotes primarily killing young and small harbor seal pups, with 70.9% of predation events occurring within the first 20 days of the pupping season at the MacKerricher rookery (April 14 to May 4; Figure 2A). High rates of coyote predation on small seal pups could indicate that coyotes target this age class or that seal pups become less vulnerable to predation as they age due to increases in body size, vigilance, or escape ability. In addition, coyotes at MacKerricher State Park appear to first remove harbor seal pup skulls and consume brain tissue, potentially because the brain tissue is highly nutritious, easily accessible, and/or can be easily carried to the den for later consumption or for feeding coyote pups. Our cameras documented coyotes returning to seal pup carcasses to scavenge on subsequent evenings, along with other coastal scavengers exploiting the coyote-killed pinniped carrion including Bald Eagles (<i>Haliaeetus leucocephalus</i>), Turkey Vultures (<i>Cathartes aura</i>), Common Ravens (<i>Corvus corax</i>), gulls (<i>Larus</i> spp.), and rodents.</p><p>Lastly, to assess whether harbor seal pup predation by coyotes occurs across a larger geographic scale on the California coast, we also gathered observations of coyote–seal interactions from seal rookery monitors, naturalists, and wildlife photographers through word-of-mouth networking. From these contributors, we received documentation of four independent direct observations of coyotes successfully hunting harbor seal pups at two rookery sites in Marin County (Drakes Estero and Bolinas Lagoon; Appendix S1: Table S1, Observations 32, 37, 40, and 50). In each of these instances, observers watched one or two coyotes ambushing hauled-out harbor seals at the edge of exposed intertidal sandbars within coastal lagoons (Figure 3). In all cases, the hunting coyote(s) charged at large aggregations of harbor seal adults and pups, causing seals to flush into the water to escape predation. Coyotes captured seal pups onshore or, in one instance, in shallow water, killing them with bites to the neck.</p><p>Coyotes are abundant in California's coastal ecosystems and are known to consume a diverse array of marine resources including seabirds, intertidal invertebrates, fishes, and beach-cast pinniped carrion (Reid et al., <span>2018</span>; Rose &amp; Polis, <span>1998</span>; Zilz et al., <span>2023</span>). While coyote acquisition of marine resources occurs primarily via scavenging, coyotes have been documented hunting marine mammals in other regions including a sea otter in Alaska (Monnett &amp; Siniff, <span>1986</span>) and a harp seal in Massachusetts (Way &amp; Horton, <span>2004</span>). In addition, coyote predation was acknowledged as a source of harbor seal pup mortality in Washington by Steiger et al. (<span>1989</span>). However, aside from the observations and data presented herein, evidence and detailed descriptions of serial pinniped predation by coyotes remain limited.</p><p>Pinnipeds are among the largest and most nutritionally valuable parcels of organic matter available to predators in coastal ecosystems (Quaggiotto et al., <span>2018</span>). Pinniped rookeries, which exhibit predictable aggregations of high-value prey, can consequently serve as important sites of marine-to-terrestrial nutrient subsidies to land-based pinniped predators (Catenazzi &amp; Donnelly, <span>2008</span>; Stander, <span>2019</span>). Along the California coast, pinnipeds can constitute over 20% of the diet of coyotes in areas adjacent to rookeries (Reid et al., <span>2018</span>). Rookery-associated marine subsidies may, in turn, drive behavioral and numerical responses in coastal coyote populations (Rose &amp; Polis, <span>1998</span>). Future efforts to quantify the ecological consequences of pinniped subsidies to coastal coyotes should assess whether pinniped predation modifies coyote space use, behavior, health, abundance, and interspecific interactions.</p><p>Coyote predation may also lead to changes in seal behavior and space use in order to reduce predation risk. Harbor seals abandon haul-outs when they detect terrestrial predators, and the selection of isolated haul-out sites may serve as a behavioral adaptation to avoid predation by terrestrial consumers (Nordstrom, <span>2002</span>; Figure 3). Actual or perceived risk of coyote predation may drive harbor seal distributional shifts away from rookeries with predator access, including the mainland sandy beach rookery at MacKerricher State Park. Overall harbor seal abundance has declined at the MacKerricher rookery since 2018, and we have also noticed that the distribution of hauled-out harbor seals within the rookery has shifted away from the mainland sandy beach onto adjacent rocky intertidal outcroppings that are only connected to the mainland during low tide (Appendix S1: Figure S1). It is possible that between- and within-rookery shifts in harbor seal space use have emerged as a behavioral response to the risk of coyote predation, but these associations between seal redistribution and coyote predation remain anecdotal and do not appear to have limited pup predation.</p><p>Harbor seals have used the MacKerricher rookery for decades, so the observed increase in coyote predation on seal pups since 2016 may reflect improved documentation rather than a true rise in predation rates. The rookery monitoring program has focused on counting adult and juvenile seals within the rookery since 2007, while coyotes tend to drag carcasses away from the rookery into nearby vegetation, thereby making predation events less noticeable. Since 2016, enhanced attention to mortality patterns by rookery monitors has likely contributed to better recognition of these events. However, changes in coyote behavior, abundance, alternative prey availability, or other ecological factors could also have led to a genuine increase in predation rates.</p><p>Our observations and data indicate that coyotes are an ambush predator of harbor seal pups in multiple regions along the California coast, including one mainland rookery in which coyotes regularly hunt seals during the pupping season. Due to their large body size and predictable availability, harbor seal pups can serve as a substantial food source for coyote predators that may generate cascading ecological effects in terrestrial ecosystems. Coyote predation may also lead to shifts in seal behavior and haul-out site selection to reduce predation risk. Consequently, coyote predation of harbor seal pups can link the dynamics of marine and terrestrial ecosystems, highlighting the need for future research to uncover the ecological consequences of this previously undescribed predator–prey interaction.</p><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p>","PeriodicalId":11484,"journal":{"name":"Ecology","volume":"106 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ecy.70031","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ecy.70031","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Terrestrial carnivores hunt marine mammals along many coastlines around the world, yet the dynamics of these predator–prey relationships are rarely well characterized (Griffin et al., 2023; Stander, 2019; Way & Horton, 2004). Among marine mammals, pinnipeds (i.e., seals and sea lions) may be particularly vulnerable to land-based predators when they aggregate onshore to rest, give birth, nurse, breed, molt, avoid marine predators, and thermoregulate (Catenazzi & Donnelly, 2008; Nordstrom, 2002). Many pinniped species exhibit strong site fidelity, so rookery beaches where birthing and breeding take place can generate spatially and temporally predictable prey aggregations for terrestrial predators. These aggregations of large and calorically rich prey can serve as a substantial food source that may lead to shifts in predator behavior, abundance, and species interactions (Roffler et al., 2023; Skinner et al., 1995).

During routine harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) population monitoring at a small mainland rookery site at MacKerricher State Beach (Mendocino County, California) during the March–June pupping seasons in 2016 and 2017, we noticed a surprising trend in harbor seal pup mortality. In each year, three harbor seal pups were found in dune vegetation above the high tide line adjacent to the rookery, showing numerous signs of predation-driven mortality, including marks in the sand indicative of a struggle, drag marks from the lower intertidal to the dune area, massive hemorrhaging in the head and neck region, and skull punctures (Figure 1). This characteristic pattern of pup mortality increased in frequency in 2018 and 2019, when 11 and 12 pups were respectively found showing similar signs of predation. In most cases, pup carcasses were found within an approximately 25-m2 area of dune vegetation, with skulls disarticulated from the rest of the body at the C1 vertebra, and skulls were missing on several occasions. This unusual pup mortality pattern has been documented at the MacKerricher rookery site every year since 2016—including four cases in 2024—for a total of 55 suspected predation events (Figure 2; Appendix S1: Table S1).

Across dozens of kill site investigations and harbor seal pup necropsies from 2016 to 2022, we strongly suspected that coyotes were responsible for most or all the predation events due to the presence of canid tracks adjacent to kill sites and drag marks, the presence of coyote scat near seal carcasses, and puncture wounds to the skull and neck consistent with canid predation. To confirm that coyotes were hunting harbor seal pups at the MacKerricher State Beach rookery, we placed one to two motion-triggered camera traps (Browning Strike Force HD Pro X) in April–May 2023 (16 trap-nights) and two to four camera traps in April–May 2024 (48 trap-nights) to document pup predation events. Cameras were mounted to driftwood and programmed to take 20 or 60-s videos when triggered, with a 30-s “quiet period” following video capture before another video could be triggered. Throughout 64 trap-nights (32 nights total), we documented three instances of individual coyotes dragging harbor seal pups into dune vegetation, opening carcasses through the head and neck region, feeding, and removing skulls (Video S1). These events occurred in the evening and early morning hours, between 23:00 and 5:00. Necropsies and kill site investigations conducted the morning following each of these predation events revealed drag marks in the sand, massive hemorrhaging in the neck region, skull punctures, and skull disarticulation from the body consistent with prior events of suspected predation (Figure 1). These lines of corroborating evidence suggest that the harbor seal pups documented on camera were killed by coyotes rather than scavenged, and the consistency of these predation events with over 50 pup carcasses showing similar mortality patterns in 2016–2024 is suggestive that coyotes regularly hunt seal pups in this locality (Figure 2; Appendix S1: Table S1).

We estimated the standard length of harbor seal pups during field necropsies, as direct measurement was often impossible due to skull removal by coyotes. The mean estimated length of coyote-killed seals was 80.57 ± 0.89 cm (SE; n = 54), indicating that most were less than two weeks old and had an estimated body mass of 13–15 kg (Cottrell et al., 2002). For comparison, coyotes in the western United States typically have a body mass between 10 and 14 kg, making each harbor seal pup a substantial food source (Hinton et al., 2019). The seasonality of coyote predation events reflects this trend of coyotes primarily killing young and small harbor seal pups, with 70.9% of predation events occurring within the first 20 days of the pupping season at the MacKerricher rookery (April 14 to May 4; Figure 2A). High rates of coyote predation on small seal pups could indicate that coyotes target this age class or that seal pups become less vulnerable to predation as they age due to increases in body size, vigilance, or escape ability. In addition, coyotes at MacKerricher State Park appear to first remove harbor seal pup skulls and consume brain tissue, potentially because the brain tissue is highly nutritious, easily accessible, and/or can be easily carried to the den for later consumption or for feeding coyote pups. Our cameras documented coyotes returning to seal pup carcasses to scavenge on subsequent evenings, along with other coastal scavengers exploiting the coyote-killed pinniped carrion including Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Turkey Vultures (Cathartes aura), Common Ravens (Corvus corax), gulls (Larus spp.), and rodents.

Lastly, to assess whether harbor seal pup predation by coyotes occurs across a larger geographic scale on the California coast, we also gathered observations of coyote–seal interactions from seal rookery monitors, naturalists, and wildlife photographers through word-of-mouth networking. From these contributors, we received documentation of four independent direct observations of coyotes successfully hunting harbor seal pups at two rookery sites in Marin County (Drakes Estero and Bolinas Lagoon; Appendix S1: Table S1, Observations 32, 37, 40, and 50). In each of these instances, observers watched one or two coyotes ambushing hauled-out harbor seals at the edge of exposed intertidal sandbars within coastal lagoons (Figure 3). In all cases, the hunting coyote(s) charged at large aggregations of harbor seal adults and pups, causing seals to flush into the water to escape predation. Coyotes captured seal pups onshore or, in one instance, in shallow water, killing them with bites to the neck.

Coyotes are abundant in California's coastal ecosystems and are known to consume a diverse array of marine resources including seabirds, intertidal invertebrates, fishes, and beach-cast pinniped carrion (Reid et al., 2018; Rose & Polis, 1998; Zilz et al., 2023). While coyote acquisition of marine resources occurs primarily via scavenging, coyotes have been documented hunting marine mammals in other regions including a sea otter in Alaska (Monnett & Siniff, 1986) and a harp seal in Massachusetts (Way & Horton, 2004). In addition, coyote predation was acknowledged as a source of harbor seal pup mortality in Washington by Steiger et al. (1989). However, aside from the observations and data presented herein, evidence and detailed descriptions of serial pinniped predation by coyotes remain limited.

Pinnipeds are among the largest and most nutritionally valuable parcels of organic matter available to predators in coastal ecosystems (Quaggiotto et al., 2018). Pinniped rookeries, which exhibit predictable aggregations of high-value prey, can consequently serve as important sites of marine-to-terrestrial nutrient subsidies to land-based pinniped predators (Catenazzi & Donnelly, 2008; Stander, 2019). Along the California coast, pinnipeds can constitute over 20% of the diet of coyotes in areas adjacent to rookeries (Reid et al., 2018). Rookery-associated marine subsidies may, in turn, drive behavioral and numerical responses in coastal coyote populations (Rose & Polis, 1998). Future efforts to quantify the ecological consequences of pinniped subsidies to coastal coyotes should assess whether pinniped predation modifies coyote space use, behavior, health, abundance, and interspecific interactions.

Coyote predation may also lead to changes in seal behavior and space use in order to reduce predation risk. Harbor seals abandon haul-outs when they detect terrestrial predators, and the selection of isolated haul-out sites may serve as a behavioral adaptation to avoid predation by terrestrial consumers (Nordstrom, 2002; Figure 3). Actual or perceived risk of coyote predation may drive harbor seal distributional shifts away from rookeries with predator access, including the mainland sandy beach rookery at MacKerricher State Park. Overall harbor seal abundance has declined at the MacKerricher rookery since 2018, and we have also noticed that the distribution of hauled-out harbor seals within the rookery has shifted away from the mainland sandy beach onto adjacent rocky intertidal outcroppings that are only connected to the mainland during low tide (Appendix S1: Figure S1). It is possible that between- and within-rookery shifts in harbor seal space use have emerged as a behavioral response to the risk of coyote predation, but these associations between seal redistribution and coyote predation remain anecdotal and do not appear to have limited pup predation.

Harbor seals have used the MacKerricher rookery for decades, so the observed increase in coyote predation on seal pups since 2016 may reflect improved documentation rather than a true rise in predation rates. The rookery monitoring program has focused on counting adult and juvenile seals within the rookery since 2007, while coyotes tend to drag carcasses away from the rookery into nearby vegetation, thereby making predation events less noticeable. Since 2016, enhanced attention to mortality patterns by rookery monitors has likely contributed to better recognition of these events. However, changes in coyote behavior, abundance, alternative prey availability, or other ecological factors could also have led to a genuine increase in predation rates.

Our observations and data indicate that coyotes are an ambush predator of harbor seal pups in multiple regions along the California coast, including one mainland rookery in which coyotes regularly hunt seals during the pupping season. Due to their large body size and predictable availability, harbor seal pups can serve as a substantial food source for coyote predators that may generate cascading ecological effects in terrestrial ecosystems. Coyote predation may also lead to shifts in seal behavior and haul-out site selection to reduce predation risk. Consequently, coyote predation of harbor seal pups can link the dynamics of marine and terrestrial ecosystems, highlighting the need for future research to uncover the ecological consequences of this previously undescribed predator–prey interaction.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
土狼在加利福尼亚海岸猎杀海豹幼崽
陆地食肉动物沿着世界各地的许多海岸线捕食海洋哺乳动物,然而这些捕食者-猎物关系的动态很少被很好地描述(Griffin等人,2023;机架,2019;的方式,霍顿,2004)。在海洋哺乳动物中,当鳍足类动物(如海豹和海狮)聚集在岸上休息、分娩、哺乳、繁殖、换毛、躲避海洋捕食者和调节体温时,它们可能特别容易受到陆地捕食者的攻击。唐纳利,2008;诺德斯特姆,2002)。许多鳍状物种表现出很强的地点保真度,因此产卵和繁殖的栖息地海滩可以为陆地捕食者提供空间和时间可预测的猎物聚集。这些大型和高热量猎物的聚集可以作为一个重要的食物来源,可能导致捕食者行为、丰度和物种相互作用的变化(Roffler等人,2023;Skinner et al., 1995)。在2016年3月至6月的幼崽季节,我们在加利福尼亚州门多西诺县MacKerricher State Beach的一个小型大陆繁殖地进行了常规斑海豹(Phoca vitulina)种群监测,注意到斑海豹幼崽死亡率出现了令人惊讶的趋势。每年,在毗邻繁殖地的高潮线以上的沙丘植被中发现三只海豹幼崽,显示出许多捕食导致死亡的迹象,包括沙子上表明挣扎的痕迹,从潮间带下游到沙丘地区的拖痕,头颈部大量出血,以及头骨穿刺(图1)。这种幼崽死亡的特征模式在2018年和2019年频率增加。当11岁和12岁的幼崽分别表现出类似的捕食迹象时。在大多数情况下,在大约25平方米的沙丘植被区域内发现了幼崽的尸体,头骨在C1椎骨处与身体的其他部分脱节,并且有几次头骨丢失。自2016年以来,这种不寻常的幼崽死亡模式每年都在MacKerricher的栖息地被记录下来,包括2024年的4例,总共发生了55起疑似捕食事件(图2;附录S1:表S1)。从2016年到2022年,通过对数十个杀戮地点的调查和对海豹幼崽的尸检,我们强烈怀疑土狼应对大部分或所有的捕食事件负责,因为在杀戮地点和拖痕附近存在犬科动物的足迹,海豹尸体附近存在土狼的粪便,以及头骨和颈部的穿刺伤口与犬科动物的捕食一致。为了证实土狼正在MacKerricher State Beach的栖息地捕猎海豹幼崽,我们在2023年4月至5月(16个陷阱之夜)放置了一到两个动作触发相机陷阱(Browning Strike Force HD Pro X),并在2024年4月至5月(48个陷阱之夜)放置了两到四个相机陷阱来记录幼崽捕食事件。摄像机被安装在浮木上,并被编程为在触发时拍摄20或60秒的视频,在视频捕获之后有30秒的“安静期”,然后才能触发另一个视频。在64个陷阱之夜(总共32个晚上)中,我们记录了三个单独的土狼将港海豹幼崽拖到沙丘植被中,在头部和颈部打开尸体,进食并移除头骨的例子(视频S1)。这些事件发生在晚上和凌晨,在23:00到5:00之间。在这些捕食事件发生后的早晨进行的尸检和杀戮现场调查显示,沙滩上有拖痕,颈部有大量出血,头骨穿孔,头骨从身体上脱落,这些都与之前的疑似捕食事件一致(图1)。这些确凿的证据表明,相机记录的海豹幼崽是被郊狼杀死的,而不是被食腐动物吃掉的。这些捕食事件的一致性与2016-2024年超过50只幼崽的尸体显示出相似的死亡模式,这表明土狼经常在该地区捕猎海豹幼崽(图2;附录S1:表S1)。我们在野外尸检中估计了海豹幼崽的标准长度,因为由于土狼的头骨被移除,直接测量通常是不可能的。被郊狼杀死的海豹平均长度为80.57±0.89 cm (SE;n = 54),这表明大多数是不到两周大的,估计体重为13-15 kg (Cottrell et al., 2002)。相比之下,美国西部的土狼通常体重在10到14公斤之间,这使得每只海豹幼崽都是重要的食物来源(Hinton et al., 2019)。土狼捕食事件的季节性反映了这一趋势,即土狼主要捕食幼海豹和小斑海豹,70.9%的捕食事件发生在幼崽季节的前20天(4月14日至5月4日;图2 a)。 土狼对小海豹的高捕食率可能表明土狼以这个年龄段为目标,或者海豹幼崽随着年龄的增长,由于体型、警惕性或逃跑能力的增加,它们变得不那么容易受到捕食。此外,MacKerricher州立公园的土狼似乎首先会移除海豹幼仔的头骨并消耗脑组织,可能是因为脑组织营养丰富,容易获取,并且/或者可以很容易地带到洞穴中供以后食用或喂养土狼幼仔。我们的摄像机记录了土狼在随后的夜晚返回海豹幼崽的尸体,以及其他沿海食腐动物利用土狼杀死的鳍状腐肉,包括秃鹰(Haliaeetus leucocephalus),土耳其秃鹫(Cathartes aura),普通乌鸦(Corvus corax),海鸥(Larus spp.)和啮齿动物。最后,为了评估土狼是否在加州海岸更大的地理范围内捕食海豹幼崽,我们还通过口口相传的网络收集了海豹栖息地监测员、自然学家和野生动物摄影师对土狼与海豹相互作用的观察结果。从这些贡献者那里,我们收到了四份独立的直接观察文件,记录了土狼在马林县的两个栖息地(德雷克斯埃斯特罗和博利纳斯泻湖;附录S1:表S1,观察结果32、37、40和50)。在每一种情况下,观察者都看到一到两只土狼在沿海泻湖暴露的潮间带沙洲边缘伏击被拖出的海豹(图3)。在所有情况下,猎食的土狼都冲向成群的成年海豹和幼海豹,导致海豹冲进水中以逃避捕食。土狼在岸上捕获海豹幼崽,有一次在浅水区捕获海豹幼崽,用咬脖子的方式杀死它们。土狼在加州的沿海生态系统中非常丰富,众所周知,它们会消耗各种海洋资源,包括海鸟、潮间带无脊椎动物、鱼类和海滩上的鳍状腐肉(Reid et al., 2018;玫瑰,城邦,1998;Zilz et al., 2023)。虽然土狼主要通过食腐来获取海洋资源,但也有文献记载土狼在其他地区捕食海洋哺乳动物,包括阿拉斯加的海獭(Monnett &amp;Siniff, 1986)和马萨诸塞州的竖琴海豹(Way &amp;霍顿,2004)。此外,Steiger等人(1989)认为,土狼的捕食是华盛顿海豹幼崽死亡的一个原因。然而,除了本文提供的观察和数据外,土狼的一系列鳍状捕食的证据和详细描述仍然有限。鳍足动物是沿海生态系统中捕食者可利用的最大、最有营养价值的有机物质之一(Quaggiotto等人,2018)。鳍状肢类动物的栖息地表现出可预测的高价值猎物聚集,因此可以作为陆地鳍状肢捕食者从海洋到陆地营养补贴的重要场所(Catenazzi;唐纳利,2008;机架,2019)。在加利福尼亚海岸,鳍足类动物可以占到栖息地附近地区土狼饮食的20%以上(Reid et al., 2018)。与栖息地相关的海洋补贴可能反过来推动沿海郊狼种群的行为和数字反应(Rose &amp;城邦,1998)。未来量化对沿海郊狼的鳍状补贴的生态后果的努力应该评估鳍状捕食是否改变了郊狼的空间利用、行为、健康、丰度和种间相互作用。土狼的捕食也可能导致海豹行为和空间利用的变化,以减少捕食风险。当海豹发现陆地捕食者时,它们会放弃捕食,选择孤立的捕食地点可能是一种行为适应,以避免陆地捕食者的捕食(Nordstrom, 2002;图3)实际或感知到的土狼捕食的风险可能会导致斑海豹的分布从捕食者进入的栖息地转移,包括MacKerricher州立公园的大陆沙滩栖息地。自2018年以来,MacKerricher繁殖地的海豹数量整体下降,我们也注意到,在繁殖地内,被拖出的海豹的分布已经从大陆的沙滩转移到邻近的潮间带岩石露头,这些露头只在退潮时与大陆相连(附录S1:图S1)。海豹在栖息地之间和栖息地内的空间使用变化可能是对土狼捕食风险的一种行为反应,但海豹重新分布和土狼捕食之间的这些联系仍然是轶事,似乎并没有限制幼崽的捕食。几十年来,海豹一直在麦更富的栖息地生活,因此自2016年以来观察到的土狼捕食海豹幼崽的增加可能反映了文献的改善,而不是捕食率的真正上升。 自2007年以来,栖息地监测项目一直专注于统计栖息地内的成年和幼年海豹,而土狼往往会把尸体从栖息地拖到附近的植被中,从而使捕食事件不那么明显。自2016年以来,鸦群监测员对死亡模式的更多关注可能有助于更好地认识这些事件。然而,土狼行为、丰度、可替代猎物或其他生态因素的变化也可能导致捕食率的真正增加。我们的观察和数据表明,在加利福尼亚海岸的多个地区,土狼是海豹幼崽的伏击捕食者,包括一个大陆栖息地,土狼经常在幼崽季节捕猎海豹。由于它们巨大的体型和可预测的可用性,海豹幼崽可以作为土狼捕食者的重要食物来源,这可能会在陆地生态系统中产生连锁生态效应。土狼的捕食也可能导致海豹行为的改变和拖出地点的选择,以减少捕食的风险。因此,土狼捕食海豹幼崽可以将海洋和陆地生态系统的动态联系起来,这突出了未来研究揭示这种先前未描述的捕食者-猎物相互作用的生态后果的必要性。作者声明无利益冲突。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Ecology
Ecology 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
2.10%
发文量
332
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Ecology publishes articles that report on the basic elements of ecological research. Emphasis is placed on concise, clear articles documenting important ecological phenomena. The journal publishes a broad array of research that includes a rapidly expanding envelope of subject matter, techniques, approaches, and concepts: paleoecology through present-day phenomena; evolutionary, population, physiological, community, and ecosystem ecology, as well as biogeochemistry; inclusive of descriptive, comparative, experimental, mathematical, statistical, and interdisciplinary approaches.
期刊最新文献
Adaptive responses to environmental variability in rotifers: Integrating plasticity and bet hedging in dormancy exit Associational effects need to be studied within an optimal foraging framework Increased root‐derived carbon buffers soil carbon loss under simultaneous warming and nitrogen addition Social and structural traits influence species gains while resources influence species losses in a native grassland Ecological forecasts highlight opposing effects of long-term climate change on population demography.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1