1. Persistence of prey hot spots in southeast Alaska Scott M. Gende National Park Service, Glacier Bay Field Station, 3100 National Park, Juneau, Alaska, USA; Scott_Gende@nps.gov Michael Sigler National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Auke Bay Laboratory, Juneau, Alaska, USA; Mike.Sigler@noaa.gov

3. 1. 1. Are there high aggregations of pelagic fish prey in space and time? 2. 2.Do these hot spots persist through time? 3. 3.What is the response of predators to these aggregations? Questions:

4. ~40 km study area

5. Methods: 1. Hydroacoustic surveys for pelagic prey conducted June 2001-May 2004 2. Periodic midwater trawls to sample prey energy and confirm echo sound 3. Concurrent observations of top predators including Steller sea lions and humpback whales 4. Transformed data from estimates of biomass to energy densities integrated across the water column 5. Blocked data into tenths of a latitudinal minute such that each block constituted approximately 1.83 km)

6. Methods: 1. Hydroacoustic surveys for pelagic prey conducted June 2001-May 2004 2. Periodic midwater trawls to sample prey energy and confirm echo sound 3. Concurrent observations of top predators including Steller sea lions and humpback whales 4. Transformed data from estimates of biomass to energy densities integrated across the water column 5. Blocked data into tenths of a latitudinal minute such that each block constituted approximately 1.83 km)

7. Methods: 1. Hydroacoustic surveys for pelagic prey conducted June 2001-May 2004 2. Periodic midwater trawls to sample prey energy and confirm echo sound 3. Concurrent observations of top predators including Steller sea lions and humpback whales 4. Transformed data from estimates of biomass to energy densities integrated across the water column 5. Blocked data into tenths of a latitudinal minute such that each block constituted approximately 1.83 km)

8. Methods: 1. Hydroacoustic surveys for pelagic prey conducted June 2001-May 2004 2. Periodic midwater trawls to sample prey energy and confirm echo sound 3. Concurrent observations of top predators including Steller sea lions and humpback whales 4. Blocked data into tenths of a latitudinal minute such that each block constituted approximately 1.83 km) 5. Transformed data from estimates of biomass to energy densities integrated across the water column

9. Methods: 1. Hydroacoustic surveys for pelagic prey conducted June 2001-May 2004 2. Periodic midwater trawls to sample prey energy and confirm echo sound 3. Concurrent observations of top predators including Steller sea lions and humpback whales 5. Transformed data from estimates of biomass to energy densities integrated across the water column kJ x 10 6 /km 2 4. Blocked data into tenths of a latitudinal minute such that each block constituted approximately 1.83 km)

10. Results:

11. On average prey energy density is not equal across months Millions kJ/kg 2 20012004

12. Cold winter months (Nov-Feb) are hot Millions kJ/kg 2 20012004

14. Seasonal haul-out > 20000 10000-20000 5000-10000 1000-5000 Distribution of pelagic prey energy November 2003 1-1000

15. Seasonal haul-out > 20000 10000-20000 5000-10000 1000-5000 Distribution of pelagic prey energy December 2003 1-1000

16. Seasonal haul-out > 20000 10000-20000 5000-10000 1000-5000 Distribution of pelagic prey energy January 2004 1-1000

17. Seasonal haul-out > 20000 10000-20000 5000-10000 1000-5000 Distribution of pelagic prey energy February 2004 1-1000

18. Seasonal haul-out > 20000 10000-20000 5000-10000 1000-5000 Distribution of pelagic prey energy March 2004 1-1000

19. Seasonal haul-out > 20000 10000-20000 5000-10000 1000-5000 Distribution of pelagic prey energy April 2004 1-1000

20. Seasonal haul-out > 20000 10000-20000 5000-10000 1000-5000 Distribution of pelagic prey energy May 2004 1-1000

21. Seasonal haul-out Distribution of pelagic prey energy November 2003

22. Seasonal haul-out 80-100% 60-80% 40-60% 20-40% Proportion of observed Steller sea lions November 2003 0-20%

23. Seasonal haul-out 80-100% 60-80% 40-60% 20-40% 0-20% Proportion of observed Steller sea lions December 2003

24. Seasonal haul-out 80-100% 60-80% 40-60% 20-40% 0-20% Proportion of observed Steller sea lions January 2004

25. Seasonal haul-out 80-100% 60-80% 40-60% 20-40% 0-20% Proportion of observed Steller sea lions February 2004

26. R 2 = 0.38 Avg. energy density of each block % of months sea lions found foraging within that block Strong relationship between the average energy density of each block (winter) and the distribution of Steller sea lions

27. Seasonal haul-out >70% 60-70% Hot spot persistence: the probability of encountering a hot spot across all winter months 50-60%

28. Seasonal haul-out >70% 60-70% Hot spots do not persist during the non-winter months 50-60% 20-30%

29. Seasonal haul-out Proportion of winter surveys when sea lions seen foraging >40% 30-40% 20-30%

30. % of months when spot is hot R 2 = 0.02 No relationship between hot spot location and foraging sea lions during the non-winter months Non-winter % of months sea lions found foraging within that block

31. % of months when block is hot% of months sea lions found foraging at the spot R 2 = 0.02 R 2 = 0.41 Sea lions consistently utilized the prey hot spots during the winter (Nov-Feb) Non-winter Winter

32. 1. Are prey aggregated in time and space? Overwintering herring schools result in high prey aggregations Nov-Feb and occur in consistent locations.Overwintering herring schools result in high prey aggregations Nov-Feb and occur in consistent locations. 2. Do these prey hot spots persist? Some hot spot areas persisted through time; the probability of encountering a high concentration of prey exceeded 70% for some areasSome hot spot areas persisted through time; the probability of encountering a high concentration of prey exceeded 70% for some areas 3.Do predators respond to this persistence? Strong relationship (during the winter) between sea lion distribution and distribution of prey. However, it appears that sea lions response is greatest in areas with highest prey persistence rather than highest prey densityStrong relationship (during the winter) between sea lion distribution and distribution of prey. However, it appears that sea lions response is greatest in areas with highest prey persistence rather than highest prey density

33. So what?

34. Abundance of prey j in the environment Encounter rate with prey j Attack rates on prey j Capture rates on prey j Consumption rates on prey j NjNj λjλj ajaj cjcj KjKj λ j /N j a j / λ j c j /a j K j /c j Relative Encounter rate Attack probability Capture success Consumption probability Foraging Efficiency (Intake/Effort)

35. T1T1T1T1 T2T2T2T2 T3T3T3T3 T4T4T4T4 High density, low persistence of prey patches x xxx

36. T1T1T1T1 T2T2T2T2 T3T3T3T3 T4T4T4T4 x xxx

37. T1T1T1T1 T2T2T2T2 T3T3T3T3 T4T4T4T4 x xxx = mid efficiency I E

38. T1T1T1T1 T2T2T2T2 T3T3T3T3 T4T4T4T4 High density, low persistence of prey patches x xxx = mid efficiency Low density, low persistence of prey patches x xxx I E

39. T1T1T1T1 T2T2T2T2 T3T3T3T3 T4T4T4T4 High density, low persistence of prey patches Low density, low persistence of prey patches x xxx x xxx = mid efficiency I E

40. T1T1T1T1 T2T2T2T2 T3T3T3T3 T4T4T4T4 High density, low persistence of prey patches Low density, low persistence of prey patches x xxx x xxx = mid efficiency = low efficiency I E I E

41. T1T1T1T1 T2T2T2T2 T3T3T3T3 T4T4T4T4 High density, low persistence of prey patches Low density, low persistence of prey patches x xxx x xxx = mid efficiency = low efficiency I E I E x xxx Low density, high persistence of prey patches

42. T1T1T1T1 T2T2T2T2 T3T3T3T3 T4T4T4T4 High density, low persistence of prey patches Low density, low persistence of prey patches x xxx x xxx = mid efficiency = low efficiency I E I E x xxx Low density, high persistence of prey patches

43. T1T1T1T1 T2T2T2T2 T3T3T3T3 T4T4T4T4 High density, low persistence of prey patches Low density, low persistence of prey patches x xxx x xxx = mid efficiency = low efficiency I E I E x xxx Low density, high persistence of prey patches = high efficiency I E

44. Density may not be the only characteristic of prey aggregations that are important to predators; persistence may be just as important, particularly for those that do not have the ability to search large areas efficiently.