Northern environments are often characterised by large seasonal and annual fluctuations in food abundance. In this thesis, I examined how arctic foxes (</i>Alopex lagopus</i>) used seasonally superabundant foods (geese and their eggs) and how access to these foods influenced population dynamics of arctic foxes. I addressed this against a backdrop of variation in lemming and vole abundance (small mammals hereafter) the main foods of arctic foxes throughout most of their range. Field work was done at the large goose colony at Karrak Lake and surrounding areas in the Queen Maud Gulf Bird Sanctuary in Nunavut, Canada, in the spring and summers of 2000 to 2004. <p> Behavioural observations of individually-marked arctic foxes showed that they took and cached 2,000-3,000 eggs per fox each year and that the rate at which they took eggs was largely unrelated to individual attributes of foxes (e.g. sex, size, and breeding status) and nesting distribution of geese. Further, the rate at which foxes took eggs varied considerably within individuals in that foxes were efficient at taking eggs at times and inefficient at other times. This may have resulted from foxes switching between foraging actively and taking eggs opportunistically while performing other demands such as territorial behaviours. <p>Comparison of stable isotope ratios (13C and 15N) of fox tissues and those of their foods showed that the contribution of cached eggs to arctic fox diets was inversely related to collared lemming (<i>Dicrostonyx torquatus</i>) abundance. In fact, the contribution of cached eggs to overall fox diets increased from <28% in years when collared lemmings were abundant to 30-74% in years when collared lemmings were scarce. Furthermore, arctic foxes used cached eggs well into the following spring (almost 1 year after eggs were acquired) a pattern which differs from that of carnivores generally storing foods for only a few days before consumption. <p>A field-study of experimental caches showed that survival rate of these caches was related to age of cache sites in the first year of the study (e.g. 0.80 and 0.56 per 18-day period for caches from new and 1 month old cache sites, respectively) and departure by geese after hatch in the second year of the study (e.g. 0.98 and 0.74 per 18-day period during and after goose nesting, respectively). Food abundance and deterioration of cache sites (e.g. loss of soil cover and partial exposure of caches) were, thus, important factors affecting cache loss at Karrak Lake. Further, annual variation in the importance of these factors suggests that strategies to prevent cache loss are not fixed in time but vary with existing conditions. Evolution of caching behaviours by arctic foxes may, thus, have been shaped by multiple selective pressures. <p>Comparisons of reproductive output and abundance of arctic foxes inside and outside the goose colony at Karrak Lake showed that (i) breeding density and fox abundance were 2-3 times higher inside the colony than they were outside the colony and (ii) litter size, breeding density, and annual variation in fox abundance followed that of small mammal abundance. Small mammal abundance was, thus, the main governor of population dynamics of arctic foxes whereas geese and their eggs elevated fox abundance and breeding density above that which small mammals could support. These results highlight both the influence of seasonal and annual variation on population dynamics of consumers and the linkage between arctic environments and wintering areas by geese thousands of kilometres to the south.

Northern environments are often characterised by large seasonal and annual fluctuations in food abundance. In this thesis, I examined how arctic foxes (</i>Alopex lagopus</i>) used seasonally superabundant foods (geese and their eggs) and how access to these foods influenced population dynamics of arctic foxes. I addressed this against a backdrop of variation in lemming and vole abundance (small mammals hereafter) the main foods of arctic foxes throughout most of their range. Field work was done at the large goose colony at Karrak Lake and surrounding areas in the Queen Maud Gulf Bird Sanctuary in Nunavut, Canada, in the spring and summers of 2000 to 2004. <p> Behavioural observations of individually-marked arctic foxes showed that they took and cached 2,000-3,000 eggs per fox each year and that the rate at which they took eggs was largely unrelated to individual attributes of foxes (e.g. sex, size, and breeding status) and nesting distribution of geese. Further, the rate at which foxes took eggs varied considerably within individuals in that foxes were efficient at taking eggs at times and inefficient at other times. This may have resulted from foxes switching between foraging actively and taking eggs opportunistically while performing other demands such as territorial behaviours. <p>Comparison of stable isotope ratios (13C and 15N) of fox tissues and those of their foods showed that the contribution of cached eggs to arctic fox diets was inversely related to collared lemming (<i>Dicrostonyx torquatus</i>) abundance. In fact, the contribution of cached eggs to overall fox diets increased from <28% in years when collared lemmings were abundant to 30-74% in years when collared lemmings were scarce. Furthermore, arctic foxes used cached eggs well into the following spring (almost 1 year after eggs were acquired) a pattern which differs from that of carnivores generally storing foods for only a few days before consumption. <p>A field-study of experimental caches showed that survival rate of these caches was related to age of cache sites in the first year of the study (e.g. 0.80 and 0.56 per 18-day period for caches from new and 1 month old cache sites, respectively) and departure by geese after hatch in the second year of the study (e.g. 0.98 and 0.74 per 18-day period during and after goose nesting, respectively). Food abundance and deterioration of cache sites (e.g. loss of soil cover and partial exposure of caches) were, thus, important factors affecting cache loss at Karrak Lake. Further, annual variation in the importance of these factors suggests that strategies to prevent cache loss are not fixed in time but vary with existing conditions. Evolution of caching behaviours by arctic foxes may, thus, have been shaped by multiple selective pressures. <p>Comparisons of reproductive output and abundance of arctic foxes inside and outside the goose colony at Karrak Lake showed that (i) breeding density and fox abundance were 2-3 times higher inside the colony than they were outside the colony and (ii) litter size, breeding density, and annual variation in fox abundance followed that of small mammal abundance. Small mammal abundance was, thus, the main governor of population dynamics of arctic foxes whereas geese and their eggs elevated fox abundance and breeding density above that which small mammals could support. These results highlight both the influence of seasonal and annual variation on population dynamics of consumers and the linkage between arctic environments and wintering areas by geese thousands of kilometres to the south.

Corvids are important seed and nut dispersers in North America. To date, the caching and recovery behaviors of four North American Corvids have been documented, n10st notably Clark1s Nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana). Blue Jays (Cyanocitta cristata) are important dispersers of Quercus, Fagus, and Castanea nuts in eastern North America and their caching behavior in the wild has been well documented. Recovery of caches by the same individual Blue Jay that created the caches has not been demonstrated. In order to do this, I conducted a laboratory study in which I examined caching and recovery behaviors. I 'compared the performance of caching birds with noncaching birds and with a random foraging model. Blue Jays do return to their own caches with success rates higher than predicted by random searching and they also probe fewer sites than predicted by random. They also recover caches at success rates higher than non-caching birds searching for the same caches as well as probe fewer sites than the non-caching birds. There is a difference in probing patterns for recovered caches between caching birds and non-caching birds that suggests the use of spatial memory by caching birds and a difference in foraging strategies between the two groups. Cache recovery order does not exhibit either a primacy or recency effect and cache recovery order does not appear to correlate to nearest neighbor distance models. / Master of Science