Sea otter interactions with mariculture oyster farms

IF 1.9 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 ECOLOGY
Emily Reynolds, Brenda Konar, Lara Horstmann
{"title":"Sea otter interactions with mariculture oyster farms","authors":"Emily Reynolds,&nbsp;Brenda Konar,&nbsp;Lara Horstmann","doi":"10.1002/jwmg.70055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>While oyster farms and sea otters (<i>Enhydra lutris</i>) coexist in some locations, sustaining these farms and growing interest in their expansion necessitate a comprehensive evaluation of potential interactions. We assessed sea otter interactions with oyster farms through behavioral observations of otters in oyster farms, adjacent non-farm areas (controls), or bays with no farming activity (references) in southcentral Alaska in 2022–2023. Behavioral observations, conducted through scan surveys, captured sea otter activities (e.g., resting, grooming, swimming, and foraging). Targeted foraging observations tracked foraging success and prey (species and count). We hypothesized that sea otters preferentially used oyster farms for foraging and resting activities compared to non-farm areas. Contrary to our hypothesis, sea otter activities showed no significant difference in foraging or resting behaviors between oyster farms and controls. Similarly, foraging behavior, including success and prey diversity, did not differ among areas. The dominant prey items in our study included clams (e.g., butter clam [<i>Saxidomus gigantea</i>]), crabs (e.g., helmet crab [<i>Telmessus cheiragonus</i>], red rock crab [<i>Cancer productus</i>]), and mussels (e.g., Pacific blue mussel [<i>Mytilus trossulus</i>]). Notably, there were no observations of farmed oysters being consumed by sea otters. There was strong evidence of differences in the average number of prey consumed per sea otter per dive between the control and reference areas, with the control area averaging 2.6 prey items per dive (SD = 3.6) compared to 4.8 prey items per dive (SD = 7.3) in the reference area. These differences may be attributed to variations in prey biomass and environmental conditions. Our observations indicate that there are no discernible differences in overall sea otter activity or foraging behavior in the presence of oyster farms.</p>","PeriodicalId":17504,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Wildlife Management","volume":"89 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jwmg.70055","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Wildlife Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jwmg.70055","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While oyster farms and sea otters (Enhydra lutris) coexist in some locations, sustaining these farms and growing interest in their expansion necessitate a comprehensive evaluation of potential interactions. We assessed sea otter interactions with oyster farms through behavioral observations of otters in oyster farms, adjacent non-farm areas (controls), or bays with no farming activity (references) in southcentral Alaska in 2022–2023. Behavioral observations, conducted through scan surveys, captured sea otter activities (e.g., resting, grooming, swimming, and foraging). Targeted foraging observations tracked foraging success and prey (species and count). We hypothesized that sea otters preferentially used oyster farms for foraging and resting activities compared to non-farm areas. Contrary to our hypothesis, sea otter activities showed no significant difference in foraging or resting behaviors between oyster farms and controls. Similarly, foraging behavior, including success and prey diversity, did not differ among areas. The dominant prey items in our study included clams (e.g., butter clam [Saxidomus gigantea]), crabs (e.g., helmet crab [Telmessus cheiragonus], red rock crab [Cancer productus]), and mussels (e.g., Pacific blue mussel [Mytilus trossulus]). Notably, there were no observations of farmed oysters being consumed by sea otters. There was strong evidence of differences in the average number of prey consumed per sea otter per dive between the control and reference areas, with the control area averaging 2.6 prey items per dive (SD = 3.6) compared to 4.8 prey items per dive (SD = 7.3) in the reference area. These differences may be attributed to variations in prey biomass and environmental conditions. Our observations indicate that there are no discernible differences in overall sea otter activity or foraging behavior in the presence of oyster farms.

Abstract Image

海獭与海水养殖牡蛎养殖场的互动
虽然牡蛎养殖场和海獭(Enhydra lutris)在一些地方共存,但维持这些养殖场和对其扩张的兴趣日益增长,需要对潜在的相互作用进行全面评估。我们通过对2022-2023年阿拉斯加中南部牡蛎养殖场、邻近非养殖区(对照)或无养殖活动海湾(参考)的水獭行为观察,评估了海獭与牡蛎养殖场的相互作用。通过扫描调查进行行为观察,捕捉海獭的活动(例如,休息,梳理,游泳和觅食)。有针对性的觅食观察跟踪了觅食成功和猎物(种类和数量)。我们假设与非农业地区相比,海獭优先使用牡蛎养殖场进行觅食和休息活动。与我们的假设相反,海獭的活动在牡蛎养殖场和对照组之间的觅食或休息行为没有显著差异。同样,觅食行为,包括成功和猎物的多样性,在不同地区没有差异。我们研究的主要猎物包括蛤蜊(如奶油蛤[Saxidomus gigantea]),螃蟹(如盔蟹[Telmessus cheiragonus],红岩蟹[Cancer productus])和贻贝(如太平洋蓝贻贝[Mytilus trossulus])。值得注意的是,没有观察到养殖的牡蛎被海獭吃掉。有强有力的证据表明,在对照区和参考区,每只海獭每次潜水平均消耗的猎物数量存在差异,对照区平均每次潜水消耗2.6个猎物(SD = 3.6),而参考区平均每次潜水消耗4.8个猎物(SD = 7.3)。这些差异可能归因于猎物生物量和环境条件的变化。我们的观察表明,在牡蛎养殖场存在的情况下,海獭的总体活动或觅食行为没有明显的差异。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Wildlife Management
Journal of Wildlife Management 环境科学-动物学
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
13.00%
发文量
188
审稿时长
9-24 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Wildlife Management publishes manuscripts containing information from original research that contributes to basic wildlife science. Suitable topics include investigations into the biology and ecology of wildlife and their habitats that has direct or indirect implications for wildlife management and conservation. This includes basic information on wildlife habitat use, reproduction, genetics, demographics, viability, predator-prey relationships, space-use, movements, behavior, and physiology; but within the context of contemporary management and conservation issues such that the knowledge may ultimately be useful to wildlife practitioners. Also considered are theoretical and conceptual aspects of wildlife science, including development of new approaches to quantitative analyses, modeling of wildlife populations and habitats, and other topics that are germane to advancing wildlife science. Limited reviews or meta analyses will be considered if they provide a meaningful new synthesis or perspective on an appropriate subject. Direct evaluation of management practices or policies should be sent to the Wildlife Society Bulletin, as should papers reporting new tools or techniques. However, papers that report new tools or techniques, or effects of management practices, within the context of a broader study investigating basic wildlife biology and ecology will be considered by The Journal of Wildlife Management. Book reviews of relevant topics in basic wildlife research and biology.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信