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.

When multiple predators foraging together have different individual consumption rates than predators foraging in isolation, they exhibit non-independent multiple predator effects on prey. I examined multiple predator effects in a system consisting of invasive green crabs (Carcinus maenas L.), native rock crabs (Cancer irroratus Say) and benthic macrofauna prey. First, I examined multiple predator effects when green crabs and rock crabs forage on soft-shell clams (Mya arenaria L.) in different habitat types (sand, sand with artificial seagrass) and assessed the behavioural mechanisms responsible for the observed predation effects. Independent multiple predator effects on prey were detected for most conspecific and heterospecific pairs in both habitat types. In general, crab foraging behaviours were not affected by the presence of another predator. Interactions between predators did not influence foraging behaviours because encounters were infrequent, short in duration and predominantly non-aggressive. A non-independent multiple predator effect on prey (marginally significant) was observed when green crabs foraged with rock crabs in artificial seagrass. This effect, however, could not be explained by the observed crab behaviours. Second, I investigated multiple predator effects when green crabs and rock crabs forage on a soft-sediment macrofauna community. Because crabs did not have significant predation effects on the community throughout the experiment, I did not evaluate multiple predator effects on prey. It is possible that crab predation was not important in regulating the macrofauna community, in which case multiple predator effects were non-existent. Predation may have been suppressed due to a combination of factors, including interactions between predators, harsh environmental conditions or a sub-optimal prey field. Alternatively, my ability to detect significant predation effects may have been hindered because of prey movement in and out of cages or low statistical power. Overall, results from this thesis demonstrate that multiple predator effects on prey may differ with habitat and highlights the importance of conducting behavioural observations to better understand interactions between predators and the resulting consequences for prey. Multiple predator effects on a soft-sediment community should be re-evaluated to assess the importance of these crab species in regulating benthic macrofauna under natural conditions.