Abstract
Otariids exhibit a semiaquatic lifestyle, feeding in the water and breeding and resting on land. Fur seals and sea lions, the two groups of otariids, exhibit an overall income breeding system where the females alternate between trips to the foraging grounds and periods at the breeding colony to feed the pup. How far and how long lactating females can be away from their foraging trips is ultimately dictated by ecological and physiological tradeoffs. In this chapter, we examine the interrelations between behavior and physiology and how they enable or constrain the reproductive, foraging biology, and life history of otariids. For example, income breeding limits otariid females to forage near their reproductive colonies, which constrains them to inhabit highly productive oceanographic regions. Further, as sea lions are larger than fur seals they are capable of deeper and longer dives. As a result, fur seals tend to feed closer to the surface in the epipelagic regions, while sea lions tend to forage in deeper environments on benthic, epipelagic and mesopelagic prey. We review the patterns of resource acquisition and allocation, including an examination of the energetics of reproduction, milk composition, foraging behavior, and differences between fur seals and sea lions. Further, we assess how these factors may have led to their current distribution and demographic trends during the last decades. We finish by discussing how these physiological and ecological tradeoffs would have influenced the evolutionary history of otariids in the deep time.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
1 Introduction
The origin of the amphibious lifestyle of pinnipeds occurred at a time when coastal upwelling intensified (White et al. 1992), resulting in an abundant, diverse marine food resource for which there was likely decreased competition from other endothermic tetrapods (Vermeij and Dudley 2000; Lipps and Mitchell 1976). For pinnipeds, the necessity to return to land to mate and provision their young required a separation of feeding from breeding in both time and space (Bartholomew 1970; Cassini 1999). In response, otariids evolved a modified “income breeding” system (Costa 1991b; Costa 1991a; Schulz and Bowen 2005; Stephens et al. 2009). Under this strategy, production of milk is supported by many short foraging bouts across a prolonged lactation period (Fig. 2.1). The need to return to the colony to suckle the pup limits the amount of time a lactating otariid mother can forage at sea and thus constrains her to foraging on resources that are relatively close to the breeding colony (Costa 1993; Boyd 1998; Trillmich and Weissing 2006; Houston et al. 2007; Stephens et al. 2014). As a result, reproductive success in otariids is closely connected to the abundance and availability of local prey, creating a strong linkage between local environmental fluctuations (e.g. El Niño events) and population status (Trillmich et al. 1991; Costa 2008).
In the sections that follow, we examine how the interdependency between the requirement to provision the pup on shore with the need to forage at sea fundamentally constrains the reproductive pattern of otariids. This fundamental life-history constraint results in some common patterns that vary across the ecological conditions of the different habitats. We examine (1) the energetic challenges of income breeding, (2) the connection between habitat diversity and diversity of foraging patterns and breeding systems; (3) the origins and evolutionary implications of this reproductive strategy; and (4) future directions for research into otariid reproductive and foraging energetics.
2 Energetics of Growth, Reproduction and an Amphibious Lifestyle
Growth and reproduction require an animal to acquire more energy and nutrients than are necessary to support vital maintenance. In most mammals, males do not invest energy in parental care of the offspring; instead the cost of reproduction is associated with finding and maintaining access to estrous females and with inseminating as many females as possible. Specifically, in male otariids, reproductive success is associated with large body size. Thus, there is a substantial investment in growth, as large body size confers an advantage in fighting, dominance and territory maintenance as large animals can fast longer, allowing them to maintain their harem longer (Bartholomew 1970; Cassini 1999). The larger size of males is apparent at birth and is maintained throughout life (Payne 1979; Mattlin 1981; Costa and Gentry 1986; Trillmich 1986; Oftedal et al. 1987; Costa et al. 1988; Higgins et al. 1988; Ono and Boness 1996; Georges and Guinet 2001; Weise and Costa 2007). However, in some species (e.g. Guadalupe, Arctocephalus townsendi ; Juan Fernandez, A. philippii and Galapagos, A. galapagoensis fur seals and California sea lions, Zalophus californianus ), the physiological need to access cool water in warmer climates reduces the advantage of large body size (relative heat loss decrease along with increasing body size), thus sexual size dimorphism is reduced in those species that maintain harems in water, or that need access to water (Gentry 1973; Boness and Francis 1991).
For female mammals, reproductive costs are associated with investment in offspring growth through gestation and lactation. Gestation costs come in the form of the energy contained in fetal tissues, as well as the energy to fuel the metabolic processes associated with gestation—also known as the “heat of gestation” (Brody 1945). After a relatively long gestation period, otariid pups are born larger (representing 3.5%–16.5% of the maternal body size) than terrestrial carnivores (0.5%–3%), which is consistent with giving birth to a highly precocial pup . Nevertheless, their lactation duration is comparable to other carnivores (Costa and Maresh 2017). Lactation costs come in the form of the energy and nutrients contained in milk, as well as the energy to fuel milk synthesis. Among pinnipeds, otariids exhibit an income breeding system. Under this strategy, the energy and nutrients required for milk production are obtained during intermittent bouts of foraging, interspersed between shore visits to suckle the pup . For example, female California sea lions can make 50 trips to sea during an 11-month lactation period, typically spending ~3 days foraging within 85 km of their breeding colonies (Kuhn and Costa 2014) (Fig. 2.2).
The shortest lactation durations are 4 months and are found in the Antarctic (Arctocephalus gazella) and northern (Callorhinus ursinus ) fur seals, which inhabit high latitudes. Most otariids have a lactation period of about 11 months. The longest lactation periods are found in Australian sea lions (Neophoca cinerea ) and Galapagos fur seals. Those species have lactation durations of 17.5 months (Higgins and Gass 1993) and 2–3 years (Trillmich 1990), respectively. These prolonged lactation durations are thought to be associated with a less productive benthic ecosystem in Australia (Costa and Gales 2003) and the highly seasonal and unpredictable nature of prey resources in the Galapagos (Trillmich 1990). Thus, the income breeding strategy couples reproductive success with local prey abundance (Costa 1993; Boyd 1998), creating a strong link between local environmental fluctuations and population status (e.g. El Niño events) (Trillmich et al. 1991; Costa 2008). As a result, income breeders tend to be limited to breeding in highly productive regions (Costa 1993), and the few species that breed in less productive regions compensate with longer lactation periods. Abbreviations: AFS, Antarctic fur seals; AuFS, Australian fur seals; CFS, Cape fur seals; GFS, JFFS, Juan Fernandez fur seals; NFS, northern fur seals; ASL, Australian sea lions; CSL, California sea lions; SSL, Steller sea lions.
2.1 Tradeoffs in Time on Land and at Sea
In otariids, the timing and pattern of maternal investment are optimized in response to their different habitats. Sea lions tend to forage nearshore and make shorter trips (e.g. Steller sea lions, Eumetopias jubatus : ~ 2 days, Australian sea lions: ~2 days, southern sea lions, Otaria flavescens : 1.6 days, on average) than fur seals that forage further offshore and make longer trips (e.g. northern fur seals: 7.4 days, Juan Fernandez fur seals: 12.3 days, subantarctic fur seals, A. tropicalis: 16 days, Antarctic fur seals: 7.4 days, on average) (Gentry and Holt 1986; Ono et al. 1987; Boyd et al. 1991; Higgins and Gass 1993; Georges and Guinet 2000; Milette and Trites 2003; Soto et al. 2006). This is even observed within a species as northern fur seals at San Miguel Island where the shelf break is only 2 km away make 3.8 day foraging trips, compared to 7.1–9.8 day foraging trips on the Pribilof Islands where the shelf break is 115 km (Gentry 1998). Such a pattern follows central place foraging theory, which predicts that the optimal strategy is to make longer trips when prey is distant from the central place (reproductive colony ) and shorter trips when prey is nearby (Orians and Pearson 1977). Further, as females have longer foraging trips, it is optimal to provide more milk energy to the offspring per shore visit. This is not only more efficient; it also allows otariid mothers to provide similar amounts of energy while making fewer visits. Indeed, empirical data show that those species that make longer trips to sea provide proportionally more milk energy to their pups during their shore visit (Fig. 2.2). The ability to provide more milk energy over a short shore visit is made possible by the high fat content of their milk, which ranges between ~20% and 45% (Fig. 2.3a). In contrast, terrestrial mammals produce milk relatively low in fat. For example, cows and humans produce milk containing 4% and 8% fat, respectively. Nevertheless, there is a disadvantage to an elevated milk fat content, as it is associated with a reciprocal decrease in water content, with no corresponding change in protein content (Fig. 2.3b). Therefore, the protein-to-energy ratio of pinniped milk is lowest in the most energy-dense milk. While pups provisioned with high fat milk receive sufficient energy to fuel their metabolism, they receive relatively less protein that is essential for lean body growth. The issue of how a young pup who is still developing its physiological competence can maintain water balance when they receive relatively less water (as the milk they ingest is so lipid rich) remains unknown.
2.2 Diving Physiology and Capacity
Despite their external similarities, fur seals and sea lions differ in their morphology, physiology, foraging ecology, and life history (Arnould and Costa 2006). For instance, insulation in fur seals is mainly provided by a dense and impermeable fur coat (with an underfur layer), whereas in sea lions, insulation relies on a thick blubber layer (Liwanag et al. 2012a; Liwanag et al. 2012b). While blubber maintains its insulating quality with depth, the insulation of fur seals declines as the seal dives as the air contained in fur compresses (Repenning 1976). Furthermore, just as in sea otters, an air layer would add buoyancy that may require more effort during the descent phase of the dive.
Body size also differs between these groups, as sea lions are larger than fur seals, which results in differences in their physiology and foraging ecology. The larger body size of sea lions facilitates longer and deeper dives (Ponganis 2016). Thus, while sea lions tend to dive deeper and longer often foraging at or near the benthos on the continental shelf, fur seals tend to exploit the upper reaches (epipelagic) of the water column often offshore (Table 2.1 and Fig. 2.4) (Villegas-Amtmann et al. 2013). Diving capacity is, in part, controlled by body size, as the metabolic rate (oxygen demand) scales to body mass0.75 while oxygen stores (supply) scale with body mass1.0. Therefore, larger animals have a lower mass-specific metabolism for a relatively constant proportion of oxygen storage capacity (Ponganis 2016). All things being equal, large animals should be able to dive longer and deeper than small ones based on body size alone (dive ability scales with body mass 0.25). This pattern holds when we compare sea lions to fur seals, as sea lions are, in general, larger and are more capable divers than fur seals (Fig. 2.4). However, if we just compare sea lions, we find the largest sea lion species, the southern and Steller sea lions, make the shortest-shallowest dives (Hückstädt et al. 2016) while the smallest, the Galapagos sea lion makes the longest dives (Figs. 2.5 and 2.6) (Villegas-Amtmann and Costa 2010). The exceptional diving ability of Galapagos sea lions is made possible by having the highest oxygen storage capacity (greater blood volume and muscle myoglobin) of any otariid , equal to that of many deep diving phocids (Villegas-Amtmann and Costa 2010).
Different foraging patterns require different physiological capabilities as deeper dives are also longer. In air breathing vertebrates, the primary determinant of dive duration is the aerobic dive limit, which is determined by the animals’ oxygen stores coupled with the rate at which oxygen is utilized (Ponganis 2016). The oxygen storage capacity of mesopelagic and benthic divers (e.g. sea lions) is higher, enabling them to make longer dives compared to epipelagic foragers (e.g. fur seals) who have relatively lower oxygen stores and consequently shorter dives (Fig. 2.5). Greater oxygen stores are achieved by a synergistic effect between increases in hematocrit (proportion of red blood cells in whole blood), blood volume, and muscle myoglobin concentration (Ponganis 2016). Nevertheless, there is a tradeoff as an elevated hematocrit also increases blood viscosity, reducing the ability of blood to transport oxygen optimally (Hedrick and Duffield 1991). As otariids exhibit highly aerobic energetic foraging behavior, their hematocrit is lower than phocids but is optimal for maximizing oxygen delivery while maintaining elevated blood oxygen stores. Diving behavior and physiological capacity also vary within a species; for instance, individuals of Galapagos sea lions that make longer-deeper dives also have greater oxygen stores than those that make shorter-shallower dives (Villegas-Amtmann and Costa 2010). Further, the oxygen stores of California sea lions increase as they undergo seasonal increases in dive depth and duration (Villegas-Amtmann et al. 2012). Variation of oxygen stores within a species suggests that oxygen stores are plastic and may increase in response to periodic or prolonged bouts of hypoxia as a “training effect”.
In most cases, for most species, individual sea lions that dive longer also exhibit greater post-dive surface intervals (Fig. 2.7). Due to the need to maximize bottom time searching and/or pursuing prey, mesopelagic and benthic foraging otariids appear to be working closer to their physiological limits, often exceeding their aerobic dive limit (Costa and Gales 2000, 2003; Costa et al. 2000a, 2004). Because these deep diving species are already working at or near their maximum physiological capacity, they may have a limited ability to further increase their dive duration and/or foraging effort in order to respond to changes in their environment and resource limitations. Therefore, benthic-foraging species might be particularly sensitive to changes in their habitat resulting from climate change or interactions with fisheries, which remove the larger size classes of fish upon which they depend (Chilvers and Wilkinson 2009). In fact, species such as Australian and New Zealand sea lions, which specialize on benthic or demersal prey, have endangered populations, while the California sea lion, a generalist that feeds on prey throughout the water column, is now thriving and has recovered from previous exploitation (Chilvers and Meyer 2017; Hamer et al. 2013; Laake et al. 2018; Costa et al. 2006).
Further, the pressure imposed by fisheries would present an even more significant challenge for juvenile sea lions and fur seals as they are smaller, have less experience and are still acquiring their oxygen stores (Fowler et al. 2007b; Weise and Costa 2007; Shero et al. 2012). Not surprisingly, juvenile sea lions and fur seals make significantly shorter and typically shallower dives compared to adults (Loughlin et al. 2003; Pitcher et al. 2005; Fowler et al. 2006; Jeglinski et al. 2012; Leung et al. 2014) and they forage in different areas or within a restricted region of the same habitat as adults (Fowler et al. 2007a; Jeglinski et al. 2013; Hückstädt et al. 2014; McHuron et al. 2018a; Salton et al. 2019; Zeppelin et al. 2019). These factors make juveniles more susceptible to resource limitations in general and particularly so for benthic-foraging species, and are likely associated with the low recruitment in these declining populations (Costa et al. 2004; Arnould and Costa 2006).
2.3 Field Metabolic Rates
Field metabolic rate (FMR) measures an animal’s total energy expenditure after all constituent costs are supported, and provide insight into the energetic strategies used by marine mammals (Costa 2008). Several approaches have been used to study the FMR of animals at sea and onshore. Time budget analysis sums the daily metabolic costs associated with various activities (Williams et al. 2004, 2007). Other methods rely on predictive relationships between FMR and physiological variables such as heart rate or ventilation rate, between FMR and changes in body mass and composition, or between FMR and bio-mechanical power (Young et al. 2011; Fahlman et al. 2013; Maresh et al. 2015). The breeding system of otariids where mothers periodically forage at sea and return to the pup on shore facilitates measurements of female foraging behavior and energy expenditure. Measurements of FMR using the doubly labelled water method have taken advantage of the need for the mother to return to her pup onshore, as this facilitates the likelihood of recovering instruments and getting final blood samples required for FMR measurements. Thus, FMR measurements using doubly-labelled water have been carried out on a number of species, including northern, Antarctic, and Galapagos fur seals and California, Galapagos, Australian, and New Zealand sea lions (Costa and Gentry 1986; Costa et al. 1989; Costa and Gales 2000, 2003; Jeanniard-du-Dot et al. 2017a, b, c; Fowler et al. 2007b; McDonald et al. 2012; McHuron et al. 2017b, 2019; Arnould et al. 1996). These studies indicate that otariids have an expensive lifestyle, expending energy at ~6 times the predicted basal metabolic rate. Such a high field metabolic rate is consistent with a fast pace of life, where a high rate of energy expenditure is associated with a high rate of prey energy acquisition (Schmitz and Lavigne 1984; Wright et al. 2018), which in turns enables a greater investment of energy into reproduction. This is in marked contrast to the lower field metabolic rate (1.5-3 times) predicted for elephant (Mirounga spp.) and Weddell seals (Leptonychotes weddellii), phocids which also have a slower pace of life (Maresh et al. 2015).
FMRs are quite variable between and within species and are associated with year-to-year changes in both the abundance and availability of prey (Costa 2008). For example, California sea lions significantly increased their foraging effort in response to reductions in prey availability during the 1983 El Niño event (see below for more insights on the El Niño events). Foraging effort also varies with the type of prey consumed. In fact, northern fur seals, foraging on mature pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) during 1981, had lower metabolic rates than fur seals feeding predominately on juvenile pollock during 1982 (Fig. 2.8). Further, the importance of the thermal environment on field metabolic rate can also be seen in Galapagos fur seals and sea lions, which due to the warm equatorial climate, have substantially reduced field metabolic rates compared to other otariids (Trillmich and Kooyman 2001; Villegas-Amtmann et al. 2017).
3 Habitat Diversity, Foraging Patterns and Reproductive Strategies
Otariids occupy a wide range of habitats in the Pacific, South Atlantic and Southern Oceans, but are completely absent from the North Atlantic Ocean, which is consistent with both the historical and paleontological records of this family (Berta et al. 2018) (Fig. 2.9). They breed on predator-free islands and, in some cases, mainland colonies from the equatorial regions of the Galapagos to the sub-polar regions of the Antarctic and the Bering Sea. In contrast to true seals and walruses (see Miller and Kochnev, Chap. 22), otariids do not breed on ice. However, some species like Antarctic fur seals often haul out on ice floes to rest (Fig. 2.10). Within these regions, their distribution is limited to highly productive habitats, mostly associated with upwelling systems (Fig. 2.9). This distributional pattern results from the physiological constraints associated with income breeding, an energetically expensive strategy that requires abundant and predictable prey resources relatively near the colony (Costa 1993; Boyd 1998; Trillmich and Weissing 2006; Stephens et al. 2014).
3.1 Foraging Behavior Relative to Habitats and Energetics
Different habitats are associated with three distinct marine foraging patterns: epipelagic, where animals forage in the upper water column between 0 and 200 m; mesopelagic, where animals forage deeper between 200 and 1000 m, and benthic, where animals forage at or near the bottom of the seafloor (Costa et al. 2001, 2004, 2006; Arnould and Costa 2006) (Fig. 2.4). Benthic and mesopelagic dives are generally longer as animals must transit to depth before they can begin searching and pursuing prey and, once the prey has been captured or pursuit discontinued, they must then transit back to the surface (Fig. 2.4). As epipelagic dives are shallow, animals may initiate searching and pursuit at or near the surface or soon after the dive commences within little or no transit phase. Thus, epipelagic dives can be shorter than either mesopelagic or benthic dives as a greater proportion of the dive is spent searching or pursuing prey. Furthermore, these foraging strategies also affect the diet as epipelagic foragers can capture numerous small prey per dive, whereas benthic foragers tend to pursue single large prey per dive, and mesopelagic foragers pursue many small or a few large prey per dive (Costa 1988, 1991a, 1993; Volpov et al. 2016).
The tradeoffs associated with these different diving patterns have been examined using optimality models (Carbone and Houston 1996; Houston et al. 2003; Foo et al. 2016) and show that large prey and/or energy dense prey are preferred unless small or energy poor prey is considerably more abundant/available. However, there is an upper threshold that is determined by the animals’ digestive physiology when they can no longer forage as they are satiated and require time to process the ingested prey (Rosen and Trites 2004). Marine mammals have a long gut compared to terrestrial carnivores, and this may increase their capacity to process and absorb nutrients, increasing foraging efficiency (Williams and Yeates 2004; Williams et al. 2001). The occurrence of these foraging and diving patterns varies widely across the otariids (Table 2.1 and Fig. 2.4). Nevertheless, behavioral plasticity has been recognized in some species including Galapagos sea lions which exhibit all three foraging patterns (Villegas-Amtmann et al. 2008). Other species like Australian sea lions forage primarily at or near the benthos (Costa and Gales 2003), while New Zealand (Phocarctos hookeri ) sea lions, the deepest diving sea lion, forage in both the mesopelagic and benthic regions (Chilvers et al. 2006; Chilvers 2017).
Foraging patterns also vary with habitat and colony location. For example, Antarctic fur seal females feed primarily on krill around the Antarctic Peninsula (Osman et al. 2004) and South Georgia. However, at Kerguelen and Heard Islands, they forage deeper primarily on fish (Lea et al. 2008; Staniland et al. 2010). Dives are shallower when feeding on small prey, such as krill, compared to larger prey such as fish, which are larger and energetically more beneficial (Staniland et al. 2010). Similarly, female California sea lions foraging in the Southern California Bight are generalists foraging epipelagically on a variety of fish and squid (McHuron et al. 2016, 2018b). Still, in the Sea of Cortez (= Gulf of California), they forage both in the epipelagic and mesopelagic zones (Villegas-Amtmann et al. 2011).
Furthermore, benthic foraging species regularly undertake dive durations exceeding their calculated aerobic dive limit (cADL), whereas the epipelagic foraging species rarely dive longer than their cADL (Costa et al. 1999, 2004). Thus, benthic species might have a lower capacity to increase foraging effort in times of nutritional stress than epipelagic species. This reduced capacity or resilience to change could result in reductions in reproductive output, offspring growth, and survival (Arnould and Costa 2006). This pattern is supported by the lower reproductive rate observed in the Australian fur seals (A. pusillus doriferus) (and benthic feeding sea lions) compared to the epipelagic conspecific South African fur seal (A. pusillus pusillus) and California sea lions. Indeed, the difference between the mean birth rate of all benthic (61.7 ± 4.0%) and epipelagic (79.1 ± 1.1%) foragers approached significance (t2 = 4.15, P = 0.053). The low reproductive rate of Australian fur seals may explain their very slow recovery from commercial sealing in comparison to the rapid recovery of the conspecific South African fur seals, which is now the most numerous otariid . Similarly, California sea lions were hunted prior to their protection under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 and have since recovered, unlike anything observed in benthic foraging sea lions (Laake et al. 2018).
3.2 Consequences for Population Dynamics
Associated with these divergent trends of epipelagic and benthic foraging behavior are differences in the population dynamics of sea lions and fur seals. All species of otariid seals throughout the world were subject to extensive and, in most cases, excessive hunting pressure during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Wickens and York 1997) (Crespo, Chap. 24). By the late 1800s, however, most species were protected or were subject to sustainable harvests. Despite this protection, populations of the various sea lion species have experienced minimal recovery and, in some cases, are declining, whereas many fur seal species have recovered or are recovering (Wickens and York 1997; Costa et al. 2006; Kovacs et al. 2012). This suggests that there may be life-history consequences associated with the different foraging modes, which influence population dynamics (i.e., specific foraging mode may be more efficient?).
3.3 Role of Food Availability
The impact of environmental variability on marine mammal populations is best documented by their response to variations to the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). ENSO events are characterized by a reduction in upwelling favorable winds along the West Coasts of North and South America and teleconnections to other regions, including the Southern Ocean (Murphy et al. 2007; Clarke 2014). Among the changes that occur are the deepening of the thermocline depth and associated reductions in primary production due to the loss of upwelling. Most notable are the 1983 and 1998 ENSO events, where pinnipeds along the west coasts of North and South America faced significant reductions in prey availability, leading to increased foraging times, reduced prey captures rates, reduced pup growth rates, lower weaning weights, increased pup mortality , and in some cases reduced adult survival (Trillmich and Limberger 1985; Trillmich and Ono 1991; Boyd and Roberts 1993; Melin et al. 2012; Sielfeld et al. 2018). The impact of the 1983 and 1998 ENSO events on pup production in California sea lions is a remarkable example (Laake et al. 2018). Pup production significantly declined during the 1983 ENSO event and took almost a decade to recover to pre-ENSO values. This contrasts with the 1998 ENSO event, where although pup production declined during that event, it returned to near normal levels the following year. The difference is likely due to the mortality of both pups and breeding females during the 1983 ENSO event compared to just a loss of pups during the 1998 ENSO event. While the two events were of similar intensity, the 1983 event was of longer duration. There are also multidecadal trends such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which is likened to a longer-term ENSO event on the order of 10–20 years of warm vs. cold water regimes (Mestas-Nunez and Miller 2006; Pennington et al. 2006) that are also associated with changes in community composition (Chavez et al. 2003). These longer-term variations in climate have been suggested as a factor affecting the decline of Steller sea lions (Rodionov et al. 2005).
Successful reproduction by otariids requires a foraging pattern that optimizes the amount of time spent feeding at-sea with the amount of milk energy delivered to the pup waiting at the rookery . Studies of females with dependent young show that as food resources decrease, mothers first respond by increasing the intensity of their foraging effort, and if this is insufficient, by increasing the time spent at-sea. Females might be able to capture more prey by increasing the diving frequency and/or the time spent in foraging bouts (also resulting in decreased resting time) (Boyd 1996). In addition, females could increase the time at sea, allowing more foraging time and greater travel distances. For example, during a warm water event, lactating California sea lions traveled a mean of 117 ± 27 se km away from the colony compared to a mean of 68 ± 6.9 se km during normal years (Kuhn and Costa 2014). Attempts to increase foraging effort or intensity would be preferred, as longer foraging trips increase the time between visits to the pup . As trip durations increase, a greater proportion of the pup ’s energy budget is directed to maintenance rather than growth resulting in slower pup growth (Costa 2008, 2012) (Fig. 2.11). Some species are already working at their maximum capability and have little if any ability to increase their effort without negatively impacting pup growth (Costa et al. 2000b; McHuron et al. 2019). However, success averaged over a series of foraging events is more important than the success over a single foraging trip. This is supported by the observation that weaning mass of northern fur seals was not linked to success over an individual foraging trip (Goebel 2002).
4 Evolutionary Implications of Otariid Foraging Patterns
Pinnipeds have a globally distributed and well represented fossil record (Valenzuela-Toro and Pyenson 2019; Berta et al. 2018); however, their macroevolutionary history and ecological transitions, including the evolution of reproductive and foraging strategies, have been comparatively understudied. To date, our knowledge of pinniped reproductive strategies comes primarily from comparative morphology of fossils, including aspects of skull morphology and size (Cullen et al. 2014). Thus, it has been inferred that basal pinnipeds, such as Enaliarctos, known from the late Oligocene to early Miocene (~25 million years ago) of the eastern North Pacific (Berta et al. 1989), were sexually dimorphic. This attribute suggests that a polygynous breeding system was the ancestral state for the group (Wyss 1994; Cullen et al. 2014). These small fur seal-like sized early carnivores (150–170 cm) (Churchill et al. 2015) most likely made short trips to feed in the coastal ocean during a period when there was increased upwelling of cold nutrient rich water (White et al. 1992). Enhanced upwelling increased all levels of biological productivity (Lipps and Mitchell 1976), making prey species more available. In such systems, endothermic tetrapod predators would have faced reduced competition for the now abundant prey (Vermeij and Dudley 2000). Like all mammals, Enaliarctos and other basal pinnipeds would have high constant body temperature, which given an inferred relatively dense coat of fur, could be maintained even in cold water. As endotherms, these early pinnipeds would have maintained an elevated body temperature with a high aerobic metabolism that, in turn, allowed their muscles to perform optimally even when operating in cold water, similar to extant otariids. Considering that upwelled water is cold, the muscles of ectothermic prey are not as efficient and would thus be susceptible to predation from the faster, more efficient endothermic predators (Cairns et al. 2008; Grady et al. 2019). Therefore, the congruence of abundant prey and the predatory advantage of air-breathing endothermy would make it possible for these early pinnipeds to successfully inhabit coastal marine environments. As these taxa evolved, they diverged into different lineages, including the modern Otariidae as well as the morphologically and ecologically derived Phocidae and Odobenidae and the extinct seal-like taxa, Desmatophocidae. Subsequent transformations of their foraging and diving skills would allow them to forage further and deeper offshore, reducing competition with coexisting coastal nearshore marine mammals. Foraging further away from the colony would have resulted in an increase in the duration of their foraging trips along with a consequent decrease in their number and frequency. In this regard, increased milk lipid content in some groups (e.g. phocids and fur seals) would have facilitated rapid milk energy transfer, decreasing the time females needed to spend with their pups onshore.
Otariids were constrained to remain in the North Pacific Ocean until the Central American Seaway closed as it presented an ecological barrier to an income breeding otariid given their foraging and reproductive pattern are tightly linked in space and time to highly productive upwelling regions (Briscoe et al. 2017, 2018). Once the seaway closed during the late Pliocene (between 3 and 4 million years ago; Duque-Caro 1990; Hoorn and Flantua 2015; Montes et al. 2015; Kirby et al. 2008) oceanographic conditions, including the expansion of coastal upwelling conditions in the Southeast Pacific (Ibaraki 1997) developed. This would have allowed otariids to cross the equator into the Southern Hemisphere (Churchill et al. 2014). Once they invaded the South Eastern Pacific, otariids would have once again encountered an eastern boundary current with upwelling conditions that favored their energy expensive life history. It is interesting that before the closure of the Central American Seaway, there were several fossil phocids in the Southern Hemisphere during the Miocene and Pliocene (Valenzuela-Toro et al. 2013). This shows that phocid seals were able to disperse into the Southern Hemisphere before the Central American Seaway closed, probably because they had evolved a capital breeding system that allowed a spatial and temporal separation of feeding from breeding, increasing their dispersal capability (Costa 1993).
Once otariids dispersed into the Southern Hemisphere their more energy intensive lifestyle could take advantage of the highly productive upwelling regions as the reproductive output (total energy invested in offspring) is greater for species with higher metabolic rates and or that have a faster pace of life (Hennemann 1983; Schmitz and Lavigne 1984; Dmitriew 2011; Wright et al. 2018). It then follows that otariids with a high metabolic rate and thus a faster pace of life could obtain and invest more resources into reproduction and therefore were able to outcompete phocids who, as capital breeders, have a more economical lifestyle and slower pace of life. Other factors such as local and global changes in sea level and subsequent suitable habitat transformations might also play a role in this faunal turnover; however, new fossil findings are required to resolve this issue. Finally, the lack of otariids in the North Atlantic is consistent with the presence of an ecological barrier in the form of the equatorial region between the Gulf of Mexico and the Mediterranean Sea, preventing their dispersal in this region along with their dispersal into the Southern Hemisphere. Further, the orientation of land masses also prevents favorable cold-water oceanographic conditions that would facilitate the expansion of otariids from the South Atlantic across the equator into the North Atlantic.
5 Future Directions
While we have acquired a significant amount of information on the reproductive and foraging biology and energetics of otariids, considerable gaps remain. Most of the research has been carried out on tractable species such as Antarctic and Galapagos fur seals and Australian and New Zealand sea lions. The difficulty of accessing mothers and pups on rocky shorelines and their skittish nature has limited measurements on some of the most common species of otariids, such as Steller and California sea lions.
For most species, we lack fundamental bioenergetics measurements, such as prey assimilation efficiencies and metabolic rates. We also lack data on the birth mass, weaning mass, growth rate, and lactation duration. Milk intake and milk composition data have only been completed on a few species, and milk intake over the entire lactation interval has only been completed on Antarctic, Australian and northern fur seals. We have only scratched the surface of the physiological adaptations that allow otariid pups to rapidly process lipid-rich milk. Such data are critical to parametrize models that predict how environmental disturbance will affect behavior and ultimately, population dynamics (Costa 2012; McHuron et al. 2017a; Pirotta et al. 2018). The broad distribution of otariids presents a compelling argument that income breeding, as typified by otariids, is a more successful life history pattern than capital breeding, as exemplified in phocids. This appears to be the case, at least when prey is abundant. Further comparisons between different species in different habitats would help elucidate the eco-evolutionary dynamics that drove the emergence of the costs and benefits of these very different reproductive strategies. Integration of paleontological and neontological knowledge would help elucidate the ecological transitions, including the origin of the reproductive strategies and changes in the foraging ecology along the evolutionary history of otariids, and pinnipeds in general. A better understanding of the energetic constraints of different foraging patterns would allow better prediction on how changing ocean conditions and anthropogenic disturbance will affect otariid populations (McHuron et al. 2017a; Pirotta et al. 2018).
References
Arnould JPY, Boyd IL (1995) Temporal patterns of milk production in Antarctic fur seals (Arctocephalus gazella). J Zool 237(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1995.tb02741.x
Arnould JPY, Boyd IL, Speakman JR (1996) The relationship between foraging behaviour and energy expenditure in Antarctic fur seals. J Zool 239:769–782. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1996.tb05477.x
Arnould JPY, Costa DP (2006) Sea lions in drag, fur seals incognito: insights from the otariid deviants. Sea Lions of the World
Arnould JP, Hindell MA (2001) Dive behaviour, foraging locations, and maternal-attendance patterns of Australian fur seals (Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus). Can J Zool 79(1):35–48
Arnould JPY, Hindell MA (2002) Milk consumption, body composition and pre-weaning growth rates of Australian fur seal (Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus) pups. J Zool 256:351–359. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0952836902000389
Aurioles-Gamboa D (2015a) Arctocephalus townsendi. The IUCN red list of threatened species 2015: e.T2061A45224420. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T2061A45224420.en. Accessed 04 Jan 2020
Aurioles-Gamboa D (2015b) Arctocephalus philippii. The IUCN red list of threatened species 2015: e.T2059A61953525. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T2059A61953525.en. Accessed 05 Jan 2020
Aurioles-Gamboa D, Hernández-Camacho J (2015) Zalophus californianus. The IUCN red list of threatened species 2015: e.T41666A45230310. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41666A45230310.en. Accessed 05 Jan 2020
Bartholomew GA (1970) A model for the evolution of pinniped polygyny. Evolution 24(3):546–559. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1970.tb01790.x
Baylis AMM, Orben RA, Costa DP, Arnould JPY, Staniland IJ (2016) Sexual segregation in habitat use is smaller than expected in a highly dimorphic marine predator, the southern sea lion. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 554:201–211. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11759
Baylis AMM, Tierney M, Orben RA, Staniland IJ, Brickle P (2018) Geographic variation in the foraging behaviour of south American fur seals. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 596:233–245. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps12557
Berta A, Ray CE, Wyss AR (1989) Skeleton of the oldest known Pinniped, Enaliarctos mealsi. Science 244(4900):60–62. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.244.4900.60
Berta A, Churchill M, Boessenecker RW (2018) The origin and evolutionary biology of pinnipeds: seals, sea lions, and walruses. Ann Rev Earth Planet Sci 46:203–228. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-earth-082517-010009
Boness DJ, Francis JM (1991) The effect of thermoregulatory behaviour on the mating system of the Juan Fernández fur seal, Arctocephalus philippii. Behaviour 119(1-2):104–126. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853991x00391
Boyd IL (1996) Temporal scales of foraging in a marine predator. Ecology 77(2):426–434. https://doi.org/10.2307/2265619
Boyd IL (1998) Time and energy constraints in pinniped lactation. Am Nat 152(5):717–728. https://doi.org/10.1086/286202
Boyd IL, Roberts JP (1993) Tooth growth in male Antarctic fur seals (Arctocephalus gazella) from South Georgia: an indicator of long-term growth history. J Zool 229(2):177–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1993.tb02630.x
Boyd IL, Lunn NJ, Barton T (1991) Time budgets and foraging characteristics of lactating Antarctic fur seals. J Anim Ecol 60(2):577–592. https://doi.org/10.2307/5299
Briscoe DK, Hobday AJ, Carlisle A, Scales K, Eveson JP, Arrizabalaga H, Druon JN, Fromentin JM (2017) Ecological bridges and barriers in pelagic ecosystems. Deep Sea Res Part II 140:182–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2016.11.004
Briscoe DK, Fossette S, Scales KL, Hazen EL, Bograd SJ, Maxwell SM, McHuron EA, Robinson PW, Kuhn C, Costa DP, Crowder LB, Lewison RL (2018) Characterizing habitat suitability for a central-place forager in a dynamic marine environment. Ecol Evol 8(5):2788–2801. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3827
Brody S (1945) Bio-energetics and growth with special reference to the efficiency complex in domestic animals. Bio-energetics and growth with special reference to the efficiency complex in domestic animals. Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York
Cairns DK, Gaston AJ, Huettmann F (2008) Endothermy, ectothermy and the global structure of marine vertebrate communities. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 356:239–250. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps07286
Carbone C, Houston AI (1996) The optimal allocation of time over the dive cycle: an approach based on aerobic and anaerobic respiration. Anim Behav 51:1247–1255. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1996.0129
Cárdenas-Alayza S, Crespo E, Oliveira L (2016a) Otaria byronia. The IUCN red list of threatened species 2016: e.T41665A61948292. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T41665A61948292.en. Accessed 05 Jan 2020
Cárdenas-Alayza S Oliveira L, Crespo E (2016b) Arctocephalus australis ssp. australis. The IUCN red list of threatened species 2016: e.T2064A72050370. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T2064A72050370.en. Accessed 05 Jan 2020
Cassini MH (1999) The evolution of reproductive systems in pinnipeds. Behav Ecol 10(5):612–616. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/10.5.612
Chavez FP, Ryan J, Lluch-Cota SE, Niquen M (2003) From anchovies to sardines and back: multidecadal change in the Pacific Ocean. Science 299(5604):217–221. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1075880
Chilvers BL (2015) Phocarctos hookeri. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T17026A1306343. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T17026A1306343.en. Accessed 05 Jan 2020
Chilvers BL (2017) Stable isotope signatures of whisker and blood serum confirm foraging strategies for female New Zealand Sea lions (Phocarctos hookeri) derived from telemetry. Can J Zool 95(12):955–963. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjz-2016-0299
Chilvers BL, Meyer S (2017) Conservation needs for the endangered New Zealand Sea lion, Phocarctos hookeri. Aquat Conserv 27(4):846–855. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2742
Chilvers BL, Wilkinson IS (2009) Diverse foraging strategies in lactating New Zealand Sea lions. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 378:299–308. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps07846
Chilvers BL, Wilkinson IS, Duignan PJ, Gemmell NJ (2006) Diving to extremes: are New Zealand Sea lions (Phocarctos hookeri) pushing their limits in a marginal habitat? J Zool 269(2):233–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2006.00059.x
Churchill M, Boessenecker RW, Clementz MT (2014) Colonization of the southern hemisphere by fur seals and sea lions (Carnivora: Otariidae) revealed by combined evidence phylogenetic and Bayesian biogeographical analysis. Zool J Linnean Soc 172(1):200–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/zoj.12163
Churchill M, Clementz MT, Kohno N (2015) Cope’s rule and the evolution of body size in Pinnipedimorpha (Mammalia: Carnivora). Evolution 69(1):201–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.12560
Clarke AJ (2014) El Nino physics and El Nino predictability. Annu Rev Mar Sci 6(1):79–99. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-010213-135026
Costa DP (1988) Methods for studying the energetics of freely diving animals. Can J Zool 66:45–52
Costa DP (1991a) Reproductive and foraging energetics of high-latitude penguins, albatrosses and Pinnipeds - implications for life-history patterns. Am Zool 31(1):111–130. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/31.1.111
Costa DP (1991b) Reproductive and foraging energetics of pinnipeds: implications for life history patterns. In: The behaviour of pinnipeds. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 300–344
Costa DP (1993) The relationship between reproductive and foraging energetics and the evolution of the Pinnipedia. In: Boyd IL (ed) Marine mammals: advances in behavioural and population biology, vol 66. Symposia. Zoological Society of London. Oxford University Press, Symposium Zoological Society of London, Oxford, pp 293–314
Costa DP (2008) A conceptual model of the variation in parental attendance in response to environmental fluctuation: foraging energetics of lactating sea lions and fur seals. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwat Ecosyst 17(S1):S44–S52
Costa DP (2012) A bioenergetics approach to developing the PCAD model. In: Popper AN, Hawkins A (eds) The effects of noise on aquatic life. Advances in experimental medicine and biology. Springer, New York, pp 423–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7311-5_96
Costa DP, Gales NJ (2000) Foraging energetics and diving behavior of lactating New Zealand Sea lions, Phocarctos hookeri. J Exp Biol 203. (Pt 23:3655–3665
Costa DP, Gales NJ (2003) Energetics of a benthic diver: seasonal foraging ecology of the Australian sea lion, Neophoca cinerea. Ecol Monogr 73(1):27–43
Costa DP, Gentry RL (1986) Free-ranging energetics of northern fur seals. In: Gentry RL, Kooyman Gerald L (eds) Fur Seals: maternal strategies on land and at sea. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp 79–101
Costa DP, Maresh JL (2017) Energetics. Encyclopedia of marine mammals, 3rd edn. Academic, New York
Costa DP, Trillmich F, Croxall JP (1988) Intraspecific allometry of neonatal size in the antarctic fur seal (Arctocephalus galapagoensis). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 22(5):361–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00295105
Costa DP, Croxall JP, Duck CD (1989) Foraging energetics of antartic fur seals in relation to changes in prey availability. Ecology 70(3):596–606
Costa DP, Crocker DE, Gales NJ (1998) Blood volume and diving ability of the New Zealand sea lion, Phocarctos hookeri. Physiol Zool 71(2):208–213
Costa DP, Webb PM, Crocker DE, Goebel ME (1999) The role of physiology in the behavior of diving mammals: insights from animals in nature. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 124(SUPPL):S21
Costa DP, Gales NJ, Goebel MA (2000a) The role of physiology in the behavior of diving mammals. Am Zool 40(6):980–981
Costa DP, Goebel ME, Sterling JE (2000b) Foraging energetics and diving behavior of the Antarctic fur seal. Arctocephalus gazella at Cape Shirreff, Livingston Island. In: Davisons W, Howard-Williams C, Broady P (eds) Antarctic ecosystems: models for wider ecological understanding. New Zealand Natural Sciences Press, Christchurch, New Zealand, pp 77–84
Costa DP, Gales NJ, Goebel ME (2001) Aerobic dive limit: how often does it occur in nature? Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 129(4):771–783
Costa DP, Kuhn CE, Weise MJ, Shaffer SA, Arnould JPY (2004) When does physiology limit the foraging behaviour of freely diving mammals? Int Cong Ser 1275:359–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ics.2004.08.058
Costa DP, Weise MJ, Arnould JPY (2006) Potential influences of whaling on the status and trends of pinniped populations. Whales Whaling Ocean Ecosyst 2007:344–359
Cullen TM, Fraser D, Rybczynski N, Schroder-Adams C (2014) Early evolution of sexual dimorphism and polygyny in Pinnipedia. Evolution 68(5):1469–1484. https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.12360
Dmitriew CM (2011) The evolution of growth trajectories: what limits growth rate? Biol Rev 86(1):97–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2010.00136.x
Duque-Caro H (1990) Neogene stratigraphy, paleoceanography and paleobiogeography in Northwest South America and the evolution of the Panama seaway. Paleogeogr Palaeclimatol Palaeoecol 77:203–234
Fahlman A, Svard C, Rosen DAS, Wilson RP, Trites AW (2013) Activity as a proxy to estimate metabolic rate and to partition the metabolic cost of diving vs. breathing in pre- and post-fasted Steller Sea lions. Aquat Biol 18(2):175–184. https://doi.org/10.3354/ab00500
Foo D, Semmens JM, Arnould JPY, Dorville N, Hoskins AJ, Abernathy K, Marshall GJ, Hindell MA (2016) Testing optimal foraging theory models on benthic divers. Anim Behav 112:127–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehay.2015.11.028
Fowler SL, Costa DP, Arnould JPY, Gales NJ, Kuhn CE (2006) Ontogeny of diving behaviour in the Australian sea lion: trials of adolescence in a late bloomer. J Anim Ecol 75(2):358–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01055.x
Fowler SL, Costa DP, Arnould JPY (2007a) Ontogeny of movements and foraging ranges in the Australian Sea Lion. Mar Mamm Sci 23(3):598–614. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2007.00134.x
Fowler SL, Costa DP, Arnould JPY, Gales NJ, Burns JM (2007b) Ontogeny of oxygen stores and physiological diving capability in Australian sea lions. Funct Ecol 21(5):922–935. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2007.01295.x
Francis J, Boness D, Ochoa-Acuña H (1998) A protracted foraging and attendance cycle in female Juan Fernandez fur seals. Mar Mamm Sci 14(3):552–574
Gallagher AJ, Hammerschlag N, Cooke SJ, Costa DP, Irschick DJ (2015) Evolutionary theory as a tool for predicting extinction risk. Trends Ecol Evol 30(2):61–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.12.001
Gallo-Reynoso JP, Figueroa-Carranza AL, Le Boeuf BJ (2008) Foraging behavior of lactating Guadalupe fur seal females. In: Lorenzo C, Espinoza E, Ortega J (eds) Avances en el Estudio de los Mamíferos de México II. Publicaciones Especiales, vol II. Asociación Mexicana de Mastozoología, A. C., Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste, El Colegio de la frontera Sur, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Universidad Autónoma de Morelos, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Universidad Autónoma de Chiapas y Universidad Veracruzana, San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas, pp 595–614
Gamel CM, Davis RW, David JH, Meÿer MA, Brandon E (2005) Reproductive energetics and female attendance patterns of cape fur seals (Arctocephalus pusillus pusillus) during early lactation. Am Midl Nat 153(1):152–170. https://doi.org/10.1674/0003-0031(2005)153[0152:Reafap]2.0.Co;2
Gelatt T, Sweeney K (2016) Eumetopias jubatus. The IUCN red list of threatened species 2016: e.T8239A45225749. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T8239A45225749.en.Accessed 05 Jan 2020
Gelatt T, Ream R, Johnson D (2015) Callorhinus ursinus. The IUCN red list of threatened species 2015: e.T3590A45224953. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T3590A45224953.en. Accessed 05 Jan 2020
Gentry RL (1973) Thermoregulatory behavior of eared seals. Behaviour 46(1):73–93. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853973x00175
Gentry RL (1998) Female attendance pattern. In: Gentry RL (ed) Behavior and ecology of the northern Fur seal. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, p 221
Gentry RL, Holt JR (1986) Attendence behavior in northern fur seals. In: Gentry RL, Kooyman GL (eds) Fur seals: maternal strategies on land and at sea. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp 41–60
Georges J-Y, Guinet C (2000) Maternal care in the subantarctic fur seals on Amsterdam Island. Ecology 81(2):295–308. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[0295:Mcitsf]2.0.Co;2
Georges J-Y, Guinet C (2001) Prenatal investment in the subantarctic fur seal, Arctocephalus tropicalis. Can J Zool 79(4):601–609
Goebel ME (2002) Northern fur seal lactation, attendance and reproductive success in two years of contrasting oceanography. Dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz
Grady JM, Maitner BS, Winter AS, Kaschner K, Tittensor DP, Record S, Smith FA, Wilson AM, Dell AI, Zarnetske PL, Wearing HJ, Alfaro B, Brown JH (2019) Metabolic asymmetry and the global diversity of marine predators. Science 363(6425):366. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat4220
Hamer DJ, Goldsworthy SD, Costa DP, Fowler SL, Page B, Sumner MD (2013) The endangered Australian sea lion extensively overlaps with and regularly becomes by-catch in demersal shark gill-nets in south Australian shelf waters. Biol Conserv 157(0):386–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.07.010
Harcourt RG, Bradshaw CJ, Davis LS (2001) Summer foraging behaviour of a generalist predator, the New Zealand fur seal (Arctocephalus forsteri). Wildl Res 28(6):599–606
Hedrick MS, Duffield DA (1991) Hematological and rheological characteristics of blood in 7 marine mammal species - physiological implications for diving behavior. J Zool 225:273–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1991.tb03816.x
Hennemann WW III (1983) Relationship among body mass, metabolic rate and the intrinsic rate of natural increase in mammals. Oecologia 56:104–108
Higgins LV, Gass L (1993) Birth to weaning - parturition, duration of lactation, and attendance cycles of Australian sea lions (Neophoca cinerea). Can J Zool 71(10):2047–2055. https://doi.org/10.1139/z93-290
Higgins LV, Costa DP, Huntley AC, Boeuf BJ (1988) Behavioral and physiological measurements of maternal Investment in the Steller Sea Lion, Eumetopias jubatus. Mar Mamm Sci 4(1):44–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.1988.tb00181.x
Hofmeyr GJG (2015a) Arctocephalus tropicalis. The IUCN red list of threatened species 2015: e.T2062A45224547. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T2062A45224547.en. Accessed 05 Jan 2020
Hofmeyr GJG (2015b) Arctocephalus pusillus. The IUCN red list of threatened species 2015: e.T2060A45224212. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T2060A45224212.en. Accesses 05 Jan 2020
Hofmeyr GJG (2016) Arctocephalus gazella. The IUCN red list of threatened species 2016: e.T2058A66993062. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-1.RLTS.T2058A66993062.en. Accessed 05 Jan 2020
Hoorn C, Flantua S (2015) An early start for the Panama land bridge. Science 348(6231):186–187. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab0099
Houston AI, McNamara JM, Heron JE, Barta Z (2003) The effect of foraging parameters on the probability that a dive is successful. Proc Biol Sci 270(1532):2451–2455. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2003.2540
Houston AI, Stephens PA, Boyd IL, Harding KC, McNamara JM (2007) Capital or income breeding? A theoretical model of female reproductive strategies. Behav Ecol 18(1):241–250. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arl080
Hückstädt LA, Quiñones RA, Sepúlveda M, Costa DP (2014) Movement and diving patterns of juvenile male south American sea lions off the coast of Central Chile. Mar Mamm Sci 30(3):1175–1183. https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.12085
Hückstädt LA, Tift MS, Riet-Sapriza F, Franco-Trecu V, Baylis AM, Orben RA, Arnould JP, Sepulveda M, Santos-Carvallo M, Burns JM, Costa DP (2016) Regional variability in diving physiology and behavior in a widely distributed air-breathing marine predator, the south American sea lion (Otaria byronia). J Exp Biol 219 (Pt 15):2320–2330. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.138677
Ibaraki M (1997) Closing of the central American seaway and neogene coastal upwelling along the Pacific coast of South America. Tectonophysics 281(1–2):99–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1951(97)00161-3
Jeanniard-du-Dot T, Guinet C, Arnould JPY, Speakman JR, Trites AW (2017a) Accelerometers can measure total and activity-specific energy expenditures in free-ranging marine mammals only if linked to time-activity budgets. Funct Ecol 31(2):377–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12729
Jeanniard-du-Dot T, Trites AW, Arnould JPY, Guinet C (2017b) Reproductive success is energetically linked to foraging efficiency in Antarctic fur seals. PLoS One 12(4):e0174001. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174001
Jeanniard-du-Dot T, Trites AW, Arnould JPY, Speakman JR, Guinet C (2017c) Activity-specific metabolic rates for diving, transiting, and resting at sea can be estimated from time-activity budgets in free-ranging marine mammals. Ecol Evol 7(9):2969–2976. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2546
Jeglinski JWE, Werner C, Robinson PW, Costa DP, Trillmich F (2012) Age, body mass and environmental variation shape the foraging ontogeny of Galapagos Sea lions. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 453:279–296. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps09649
Jeglinski JW, Goetz KT, Werner C, Costa DP, Trillmich F (2013) Same size–same niche? Foraging niche separation between sympatric juvenile Galapagos Sea lions and adult Galapagos fur seals. J Anim Ecol 82(3):694–706. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12019
Kirby MX, Jones DS, MacFadden BJ (2008) Lower Miocene stratigraphy along the Panama Canal and its bearing on the central American peninsula. PLoS One 3(7):e2791. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002791
Kirkman SP, Costa DP, Harrison AL, Kotze PGH, Oosthuizen WH, Weise M, Botha JA, Arnould JPY (2019) Dive behaviour and foraging effort of female cape fur seals Arctocephalus pusillus pusillus. R Soc Open Sci 6(10):191369. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.191369
Kirkwood R, Goldsworthy S (2013) Fur seals and sea lions. Csiro Publishing, Melbourne
Kooyman GL, Trillmich F (1986) Diving behavior of Galapagos fur seals. In: Fur seals
Kovacs KM, Aguilar A, Aurioles D, Burkanov V, Campagna C, Gales N, Gelatt T, Goldsworthy SD, Goodman SJ, Hofmeyr GJG, Harkonen T, Lowry L, Lydersen C, Schipper J, Sipila T, Southwell C, Stuart S, Thompson D, Trillmich F (2012) Global threats to pinnipeds. Mar Mamm Sci 28(2):414–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2011.00479.x
Kuhn CE, Costa DP (2014) Interannual variation in the at-sea behavior of California Sea lions (Zalophus californianus). Mar Mamm Sci 30(4):1297–1319. https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.12110
Kuhn CE, Ream RR, Sterling JT, Thomason JR, Towell RG (2014) Spatial segregation and the influence of habitat on the foraging behavior of northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus). Can J Zool 92(10):861–873
Laake JL, Lowry MS, DeLong RL, Melin SR, Carretta JV (2018) Population growth and status of California Sea lions. J Wildl Manag 82(3):583–595. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21405
Lea MA, Guinet C, Cherel Y, Hindell M, Dubroca L, Thalmann S (2008) Colony-based foraging segregation by Antarctic fur seals at the Kerguelen archipelago. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 358:273–287. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps07305
Lea MA, Hindell M, Guinet C, Goldsworthy S (2002) Variability in the diving activity of Antarctic fur seals, Arctocephalus gazella, at Iles Kerguelen. Polar Biol 25(4):269–279
Leung ES, Chilvers BL, Nakagawa S, Robertson BC (2014) Size and experience matter: diving behaviour of juvenile New Zealand Sea lions (Phocarctos hookeri). Polar Biol 37(1):15–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-013-1405-6
Lipps JH, Mitchell E (1976) Trophic model for the adaptive radiations and extinctions of pelagic marine mammals. Paleobiology 2(2):147–155. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0094837300003420
Liwanag HEM, Berta A, Costa DP, Abney M, Williams TM (2012a) Morphological and thermal properties of mammalian insulation: the evolution of fur for aquatic living. Biol J Linn Soc 106(4):926–939. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2012.01900.x
Liwanag HEM, Berta A, Costa DP, Budge SM, Williams TM (2012b) Morphological and thermal properties of mammalian insulation: the evolutionary transition to blubber in pinnipeds. Biol J Linn Soc 107(4):774–787. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2012.01992.x
Luque SP, Arnould JP, Miller EH, Cherel Y, Guinet C (2007) Foraging behaviour of sympatric Antarctic and subantarctic fur seals: does their contrasting duration of lactation make a difference?. Mar Biol 152(1):213–224
Loughlin TR, Sterling JT, Merrick RL, Sease JL, York AE (2003) Diving behavior of immature Steller Sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus). Fish Bull 101(3):566–582
Maresh JL, Adachi T, Takahashi A, Naito Y, Crocker DE, Horning M, Williams TM, Costa DP (2015) Summing the strokes: energy economy in northern elephant seals during large-scale foraging migrations. Mov Ecol 3(1):22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40462-015-0049-2
Mattlin RH (1981) Pup growth of the New Zealand fur seal Arctocephalus forsteri on the Open Bay islands. New Zealand J Zool 193(Mar):305–314
McDonald BI, Goebel ME, Crocker DE, Costa DP (2012) Biological and environmental drivers of energy allocation in a dependent mammal, the Antarctic fur seal pup. Physiol Biochem Zool 85(2):134–147. https://doi.org/10.1086/664948
McHuron EA, Robinson PW, Simmons SE, Kuhn CE, Fowler M, Costa DP (2016) Foraging strategies of a generalist marine predator inhabiting a dynamic environment. Oecologia 182(4):995–1005. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-016-3732-0
McHuron EA, Costa DP, Schwarz L, Mangel M (2017a) State-dependent behavioural theory for assessing the fitness consequences of anthropogenic disturbance on capital and income breeders. Methods Ecol Evol 8(5):552–560. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.12701
McHuron EA, Mangel M, Schwarz LK, Costa DP (2017b) Energy and prey requirements of California Sea lions under variable environmental conditions. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 567:235–247. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps12041
McHuron EA, Block BA, Costa DP (2018a) Movements and dive behavior of juvenile California Sea lions from Ano Nuevo Island. Mar Mamm Sci 34(1):238–249. https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.12449
McHuron EA, Hazen E, Costa DP (2018b) Constrained by consistency? Repeatability of foraging behavior at multiple timescales for a generalist marine predator. Mar Biol 165(8). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-018-3382-3
McHuron EA, Sterling JT, Costa DP, Goebel ME (2019) Factors affecting energy expenditure in a declining fur seal population. Conserv Physiol 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/conphys/coz103
Melin SR, Orr AJ, Harris JD, Laake JL, DeLong RL (2012) California Sea lions: an indicator for integrated ecosystem assessment of the California current system. California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations Reports 53:140–152
Mestas-Nunez AM, Miller AJ (2006) Interdecadal variability and climate change in the eastern tropical Pacific: a review. Prog Oceanogr 69(2–4):267–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2006.03.011
Milette LL, Trites AW (2003) Maternal attendance patterns of Steller Sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) from stable and declining populations in Alaska. Can J Zool 81(2):340–348. https://doi.org/10.1139/z03-008
Montes C, Cardona A, Jaramillo C, Pardo A, Silva JC, Valencia V, Ayala C, Perez-Angel LC, Rodriguez-Parra LA, Ramirez V, Nino H (2015) Middle Miocene closure of the central American seaway. Science 348(6231):226–229. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa2815
Murphy EJ, Trathan PN, Watkins JL, Reid K, Meredith MP, Forcada J, Thorpe SE, Johnston NM, Rothery P (2007) Climatically driven fluctuations in Southern Ocean ecosystems. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 274(1629):3057–3067. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2007.1180
Ochoa-Acuña H (1995) Ecological and physiological factors that influence pup birth weight and postnatal growth of Juan Fernandez fur seals, Arctocephalus philippii. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Oftedal OT, Iverson SJ, Boness DJ (1987) Milk and energy intakes of suckling California Sea lion Zalophus californianus pups in relation to sex, growth, and predicted maintenance requirements. Physiol Zool 60(5):560–575. https://doi.org/10.1086/physzool.60.5.30156130
Ono AK, Boness JD (1996) Sexual dimorphism in sea lion pups: differential maternal investment, or sex-specific differences in energy allocation? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 38(1):31–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002650050214
Ono KA, Boness DJ, Oftedal OT (1987) The effect of a natural environmental disturbance on maternal investment and pup behavior in the California Sea lion. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 21(2):109–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/Bf02395438
Orians GH, Pearson NE (1977) On the theory of central place foraging. In: Horn DJ, Stairs GR, Mitchel RD (eds) Analysis of ecological systems, 3rd edn. Biosciences Colloquuim, Ohio State University Press, Columbus, OH, pp 155–177
Osman LP, Hucke-Gaete R, Moreno CA, Torres D (2004) Feeding ecology of Antarctic fur seals at Cape Shirreff, South Shetlands, Antarctica. Polar Biol 27(2):92–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-003-0555-3
Payne MR (1979) Growth in the Antarctic fur seal Arctocephalus gazella. J Zool 187(Jan):1–20
Pennington JT, Mahoney KL, Kuwahara VS, Kolber DD, Calienes R, Chavez FP (2006) Primary production in the eastern tropical Pacific: a review. Prog Oceanogr 69(2–4):285–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2006.03.012
Pirotta E, Booth CG, Costa DP, Fleishman E, Kraus SD, Lusseau D, Moretti D, New LF, Schick RS, Schwarz LK, Simmons SE, Thomas L, Tyack PL, Weise MJ, Wells RS, Harwood J (2018) Understanding the population consequences of disturbance. Ecol Evol 8(19):9934–9946. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4458
Pitcher KW, Rehberg MJ, Pendleton GW, Raum-Suryan KL, Gelatt TS, Swain UG, Sigler MF (2005) Ontogeny of dive performance in pup and juvenile Steller Sea lions in Alaska. Can J Zool 83(9):1214–1231. https://doi.org/10.1139/Z05-098
Ponganis PJ (2016) Diving physiology of marine mammals and seabirds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Rehberg MJ, Andrews RD, Swain UG, Calkins DG (2009) Foraging behavior of adult female Steller Sea lions during the breeding season in Southeast Alaska. Mar Mamm Sci 25(3):588–604. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2008.00278.x
Repenning CA (1976) Adaptive evolution of sea lions and walruses. Syst Zool 25(4):375–390. https://doi.org/10.2307/2412512
Richmond JP, Burns JM, Rea LD (2006) Ontogeny of total body oxygen stores and aerobic dive potential in Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus). J Comp Physiol B:176(6):535–545
Riet-Sapriza FG, Costa DP, Franco-Trecu V, Marín Y, Chocca J, González B, Beathyate G, Louise Chilvers B, Hückstadt LA (2013) Foraging behavior of lactating south American sea lions (Otaria flavescens) and spatial–temporal resource overlap with the Uruguayan fisheries. Deep Sea Res II Top Stud Oceanogr 88–89:106–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2012.09.005
Rodionov SN, Overland JE, Bond NA (2005) Spatial and temporal variability of the Aleutian climate. Fish Oceanogr 14(s1):3–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2419.2005.00363.x
Rosen DAS, Trites AW (2004) Satiation and compensation for short-term changes in food quality and availability in young Steller Sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus). Can J Zool 82(7):1061–1069. https://doi.org/10.1139/z04-082
Salton M, Kirkwood R, Slip D, Harcourt R (2019) Mechanisms for sex-based segregation in foraging behaviour by a polygynous marine carnivore. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 624:213–226. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps13036
Schmitz OJ, Lavigne DM (1984) Intrinsic rate of increase, body size, and specific metabolic rate in marine mammals. Oecologia 62(3):305–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00384261
Schulz TM, Bowen WD (2004) Pinniped lactation strategies: evaluation of data on maternal and offspring life history traits. Mar Mamm Sci 20(1):86–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2004.tb01142.x
Schulz TM, Bowen WD (2005) The evolution of lactation strategies in pinnipeds: a phylogenetic analysis. Ecol Monogr 75(2):159–177. https://doi.org/10.1890/04-0319
Shero MR, Andrews RD, Lestyk KC, Burns JM (2012) Development of the aerobic dive limit and muscular efficiency in northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus). J Comp Physiol B 182(3):425–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00360-011-0619-6
Sielfeld W, Barraza J, Amado N (2018) Local feeding patterns of the south American sea lion Otaria byronia: case of Punta Patache, northern Chile. Rev Biol Mar Oceanogr 53(3):307–319. https://doi.org/10.22370/rbmo.2018.53.3.1356
Sinclair EH, Antonelis GA, Robson BW, Ream RR, Loughlin TR (1996) Northern fur seal, Callorhinus ursinus, predation on juvenile walleye ollock, Theragra chalcogramma. Fish Bull Tech Rep 126:167–178
Soto KH, Trites AW, Arias-Schreiber M (2006) Changes in diet and maternal attendance of south American sea lions indicate changes in the marine environment and prey abundance. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 312:277–290. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps312277
Staniland IJ, Gales N, Warren NL, Robinson SL, Goldsworthy SD, Casper RM (2010) Geographical variation in the behaviour of a central place forager: Antarctic fur seals foraging in contrasting environments. Mar Biol 157(11):2383–2396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-010-1503-8
Stephens PA, Boyd IL, McNamara JM, Houston AI (2009) Capital breeding and income breeding: their meaning, measurement, and worth. Ecology 90(8):2057–2067. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-1369.1
Stephens PA, Houston AI, Harding KC, Boyd IL, McNamara JM (2014) Capital and income breeding: the role of food supply. Ecology 95(4):882–896. https://doi.org/10.1890/13-1434.1
Trillmich F (1986) Maternal investment and sex allocation in the Galapagos fur seal, Arctocephalus galapagoensis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 19(3):157–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00300855
Trillmich F (1990) The behavioral ecology of maternal effort in Fur seals and sea lions. Behaviour 114(1–4):3–20. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853990x00022
Trillmich F (2015) Zalophus wollebaeki. The IUCN red list of threatened species 2015: e.T41668A45230540. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T41668A45230540.en. Accessed 05 Jan 2020
Trillmich F, Kooyman GL (2001) Field metabolic rate of lactating female Galapagos fur seals (Arctocephalus galapagoenis): the influence of offspring age and environment. Comp Biochem Physiol Part A 129(4):741–749. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1095-6433(01)00343-9
Trillmich F, Limberger D (1985) Drastic effects of El Niño on Galapagos pinnipeds. Oecologia 67(1):19–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00378445
Trillmich F, Ono KA (1991) Pinnipeds and El Nino: responses to enviornmental stress, vol 88. Ecological studies, 1st edn. Springer, New York
Trillmich F, Weissing FJ (2006) Lactation patterns of pinnipeds are not explained by optimization of maternal energy delivery rates. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60(2):137–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-005-0150-4
Trillmich F, Ono KA, Costa DP, DeLong RL, Feldkamp SD, Francis JM, Gentry RL, Heath CB, LeBoeuf BJ, Majluf P (1991) The effects of El Niño on Pinniped populations in the eastern Pacific. In: Trillmich F, Ono K (eds) Effects of El Niño on Pinnipeds. Springer, Berlin, pp 247–270
Valenzuela-Toro A, Pyenson ND (2019) What do we know about the fossil record of pinnipeds? A historiographical investigation. R Soc Open Sci 6(11). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.191394
Valenzuela-Toro AM, Gutstein CS, Varas-Malca RM, Suarez ME, Pyenson ND (2013) Pinniped turnover in the South Pacific Ocean: new evidence from the Plio-Pleistocene of the Atacama Desert, Chile. J Vertebr Paleontol 33(1):216–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724634.2012.710282
Vermeij GJ, Dudley R (2000) Why are there so few evolutionary transitions between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems? Biol J Linn Soc 70(4):541–554. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2000.tb00216.x
Villegas-Amtmann S, Costa DP (2010) Oxygen stores plasticity linked to foraging behaviour and pregnancy in a diving predator, the Galapagos Sea lion. Funct Ecol 24(4):785–795. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2009.01685.x
Villegas-Amtmann S, Costa DP, Tremblay Y, Salazar S, Aurioles-Gamboa D (2008) Multiple foraging strategies in a marine apex predator, the Galapagos Sea lion Zalophus wollebaeki. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 363:299–309. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps07457
Villegas-Amtmann S, Simmons SE, Kuhn CE, Hückstädt LA, Costa DP (2011) Latitudinal range influences the seasonal variation in the foraging behavior of marine top predators. PLoS One 6(8):e23166. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023166
Villegas-Amtmann S, Atkinson S, Paras-Garcia A, Costa DP (2012) Seasonal variation in blood and muscle oxygen stores attributed to diving behavior, environmental temperature and pregnancy in a marine predator, the California Sea lion. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 162(4):413–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2012.04.019
Villegas-Amtmann S, Jeglinski JW, Costa DP, Robinson PW, Trillmich F (2013) Individual foraging strategies reveal niche overlap between endangered galapagos pinnipeds. PLoS One 8(8):e70748. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0070748
Villegas-Amtmann S, McDonald BI, Paez-Rosas D, Aurioles-Gamboa D, Costa DP (2017) Adapted to change: low energy requirements in a low and unpredictable productivity environment, the case of the Galapagos Sea lion. Deep Sea Res Part II 140:94–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2016.05.015
Volpov BL, Rosen DAS, Hoskins AJ, Lourie HJ, Dorville N, Baylis AMM, Wheatley KE, Marshall G, Abernathy K, Semmens J, Hindell MA, Arnould JPY (2016) Dive characteristics can predict foraging success in Australian fur seals (Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus) as validated by animalborne video. Biol Open 5(3):262–271. https://doi.org/10.1242/bio.016659
Weise MJ, Costa DP (2007) Total body oxygen stores and physiological diving capacity of California Sea lions as a function of sex and age. J Exp Biol 210(2):278–289. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.02643
White LD, Garrison RE, Barron JA (1992) Miocene intensification of upwelling along the California margin as recorded in siliceous facies of the Monterey formation and offshore DSDP sites. Geol Soc Lond Spec Publ 64(1):429–442. https://doi.org/10.1144/gsl.Sp.1992.064.01.28
Wickens P, York AE (1997) Comparative population dynamics of fur seals. Mar Mamm Sci 13(2):241–292. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.1997.tb00631.x
Williams TM, Yeates L (2004) The energetics of foraging in large mammals: a comparison of marine and terrestrial predators. Int Congr Ser 1275:351–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ics.2004.08.069
Williams TM, Haun J, Davis RW, Fuiman LA, Kohin S (2001) A killer appetite: metabolic consequences of carnivory in marine mammals. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 129(4):785–796. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1095-6433(01)00347-6
Williams TM, Fuiman LA, Horning M, Davis RW (2004) The cost of foraging by a marine predator, the Weddell seal Leptonychotes weddellii: pricing by the stroke. J Exp Biol 207(6):973–982. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.00822
Williams TM, Rutishauser M, Long B, Fink T, Gafney J, Mostman-Liwanag H, Casper D (2007) Seasonal variability in otariid energetics: implications for the effects of predators on localized prey resources. Physiol Biochem Zool 80(4):433–443. https://doi.org/10.1086/518346
Wright J, Bolstad GH, Araya-Ajoy YG, Dingemanse NJ (2018) Life-history evolution under fluctuating density-dependent selection and the adaptive alignment of pace-of-life syndromes. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 94(1):230–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12451
Wyss AR (1994) The evolution of body size in phocids: some ontogenetic and phylogenetic observations. In: Contributions in marine mammal paleontology honoring Frank C. Whitmore, vol 29. University of California, Santa Barbara, pp 69–75
Young BL, Rosen DA, Hindle AG, Haulena M, Trites AW (2011) Dive behaviour impacts the ability of heart rate to predict oxygen consumption in Steller Sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) foraging at depth. J Exp Biol 214(Pt 13):2267–2275. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.047340
Zeppelin T, Pelland N, Sterling J, Brost B, Melin S, Johnson D, Lea MA, Ream R (2019) Migratory strategies of juvenile northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus): bridging the gap between pups and adults. Sci Rep 9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-50230-z
Acknowledgements
We thank the many collaborators, students and colleagues who over the years have shaped our thinking on reproductive patterns, energetics and life history patterns. These individuals have freely shared their ideas, thoughts and data. DPC thanks Mary I Zavanelli whose support over his career made his work possible, he only wishes she was here to read this. We thank Arina Favilla for comments on drafts of this paper. The writing of this chapter was supported by the Office of Naval Research N00014-18-1-2822, the E&P Sound and Marine Life Joint Industry Project of the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (JIP2207–23); and the NSF Polar Programs and Environments award 1644256 to D. Costa. A. Valenzuela-Toro was funded by ANID PCHA/Becas Chile, Doctoral Fellowship; Grant No. 2016-72170286.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Costa, D.P., Valenzuela-Toro, A.M. (2021). When Physiology and Ecology Meet: The Interdependency Between Foraging Ecology and Reproduction in Otariids. In: Campagna, C., Harcourt, R. (eds) Ethology and Behavioral Ecology of Otariids and the Odobenid. Ethology and Behavioral Ecology of Marine Mammals. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59184-7_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59184-7_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-59183-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-59184-7
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)