| Literature DB >> 27069651 |
Sam McClatchie1, John Field2, Andrew R Thompson1, Tim Gerrodette3, Mark Lowry3, Paul C Fiedler3, William Watson1, Karen M Nieto4, Russell D Vetter1.
Abstract
California sea lions increased from approximately 50 000 to 340 000 animals in the last 40 years, and their pups are starving and stranding on beaches in southern California, raising questions about the adequacy of their food supply. We investigated whether the declining sea lion pup weight at San Miguel rookery was associated with changes in abundance and quality of sardine, anchovy, rockfish and market squid forage. In the last decade off central California, where breeding female sea lions from San Miguel rookery feed, sardine and anchovy greatly decreased in biomass, whereas market squid and rockfish abundance increased. Pup weights fell as forage food quality declined associated with changes in the relative abundances of forage species. A model explained 67% of the variance in pup weights using forage from central and southern California and 81% of the variance in pup weights using forage from the female sea lion foraging range. A shift from high to poor quality forage for breeding females results in food limitation of the pups, ultimately flooding animal rescue centres with starving sea lion pups. Our study is unusual in using a long-term, fishery-independent dataset to directly address an important consequence of forage decline on the productivity of a large marine predator. Whether forage declines are environmentally driven, are due to a combination of environmental drivers and fishing removals, or are due to density-dependent interactions between forage and sea lions is uncertain. However, declining forage abundance and quality was coherent over a large area (32.5-38° N) for a decade, suggesting that trends in forage are environmentally driven.Entities:
Keywords: California Current System; food limitation; forage; sea lions
Year: 2016 PMID: 27069651 PMCID: PMC4821262 DOI: 10.1098/rsos.150628
Source DB: PubMed Journal: R Soc Open Sci ISSN: 2054-5703 Impact factor: 2.963
Figure 1.Forage sample locations and sea lion foraging range. Map of the Rockfish Recruitment and Ecosystem Assessment Survey stations off southern and central California that have been sampled continuously since 2004. Stations from Point Reyes, just north of San Francisco, to Monterey are denoted ‘central’. Stations in box I from San Diego to Monterey are denoted ‘southern’. Foraging range of six tagged breeding females in 1 year from San Miguel Island [14] in June–July are shown by the blue line. Contours at 200 and 1000 m delineate shelf and slope regions. CTD refers to locations where conductivity–temperature–depth profiles were taken.
Figure 2.Trends in relative forage abundance. Time series from 2004 to 2014 of relative abundance of forage fish from the fishery-independent Rockfish Recruitment Ecosystem Assessment Survey (RREAS) conducted in summer off southern and central California. Relative abundance of species important in the California sea lion diet off (a) north central California, (b) south central California and southern California (see box in figure 1 for trawl station locations). (c) Relative forage abundance from the foraging range of breeding female sea lions from San Miguel Island rookery (see foraging range in figure 1). Smooths fitted using Locally Weighted Smoother, LOWESS [21].
Nutritional value of forage. Nutritional value of selected forage fish and squid flesh derived from fillets for human consumption (NOAA Fishwatch). Species-specific data were limited for rockfish, which are consequently presented at the generic level (Sebastes spp.).
| taxa | cal g−1 | total fat g−1 |
|---|---|---|
| Pacific sardine ( | 2.17 | 0.124 |
| northern anchovy ( | 1.31 | 0.048 |
| rockfish | 0.94 | 0.016 |
| market squid ( | 0.92 | 0.014 |
| Pacific hake ( | 0.90 | 0.013 |
Results of four models seeking to explain variation in pup weight from 2004 to 2011 using forage sampled in the female sea lion foraging range (figure 1). Models are ordered by their relative plausibility. ΔAIC is the difference in AICc score between each model and the most plausible model. Cum. weight refers to the cumulative weight of the models, LL is the log likelihood score and R2 is the multiple R2-value for each model.
| AIC | AIC | cum. weight | LL | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| prey+sex | 4 | 61.90 | 0 | 0.86 | 0.86 | −25.13 | 0.81 |
| prey+sex+prey×sex | 5 | 65.55 | 3.65 | 0.14 | 1 | −24.78 | 0.82 |
| prey | 3 | 73.35 | 11.45 | 0 | 1 | −32.68 | 0.52 |
| sex | 3 | 79.36 | 17.46 | 0 | 1 | −35.68 | 0.30 |
Model-average results for each independent variable in the four candidate models. β is the slope of each term and CI stands for confidence interval.
| variable | lower 95% CI | upper 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| sex | 2.91 | 1.65 | 4.18 |
| prey | −3.59 | −4.78 | −2.41 |
| sex×prey | −0.90 | −3.31 | 1.50 |
Figure 3.Predicted and observed trends of sea lion pup weight. Time series of observed male (dark blue), predicted male (light blue), observed female (dark red) and predicted female (hot pink) sea lion pup weights from San Miguel Island rookery obtained from Melin et al. [9] compared with the model predictions from the most plausible models (weight∼sex+prey) developed with data from 2004 to 2011. Dashed lines are 95% confidence intervals for the predicted values. Out of sample predictions and prediction limits are shown for 2012–2014, and compared with sea lion pup weight data for 2012 and 2013 obtained from Melin et al. [9] and for 2014 from Leasing et al. [20]. Note that the 2014 out of sample predictions overlap almost exactly with the measured pup weights published in Leasing et al. [20].