Evidence of two subaggregations of humpback whales on the Kodiak,Alaska, feeding ground revealed from stable isotope analysis

Knowledge of humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) foraging on feeding grounds is becoming increasingly important as the growing North Pacific population recovers from commercial whaling and consumes more prey, including economically important fishes. We explored spatial and temporal (interannual, within‐season) variability in summer foraging by humpback whales along the eastern side of the Kodiak Archipelago as described by stable carbon (δ¹³C) and nitrogen (δ¹⁵N) isotope ratios of humpback whale skin (n = 118; 2004–2013). The trophic level (TL) of individual whales was calculated using basal food web δ¹⁵N values collected within the study area. We found evidence for the existence of two subaggregations of humpback whales (“North,” “South”) on the feeding ground that fed at different TLs throughout the study period. Linear mixed models suggest that within an average year, Kodiak humpback whales forage at a consistent TL during the feeding season. TL estimates support mixed consumption of fish and zooplankton species in the “North” (mean ± SE; 3.3 ± 0.1) and predominant foraging on zooplankton in the “South” (3.0 ± 0.1). This trend appears to reflect spatial differences in prey availability, and thus, our results suggest North Pacific humpback whales may segregate on feeding aggregations and target discrete prey species.     

Trophic niche partitioning and diet composition of sympatric fin (Balaenoptera physalus) and humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the Gulf of Alaska revealed through stable isotope analysis

Fin and humpback whales are large consumers that are often sympatric, effectively sharing or partitioning their use of habitat and prey resources. Stable carbon and nitrogen isotopes in the skin of fin and humpback whales from two regions in the western Gulf of Alaska, Kodiak, and Shumagin Islands, were analyzed to test the hypothesis that these sympatric baleen whales exhibit trophic niche partitioning within these regions. Standard ellipse areas, estimated using Bayesian inference, suggested that niche partitioning between species is occurring in the Kodiak region but not in the Shumagin Islands. Isotopic mixing models based on stable isotopes from whales and local prey samples, were used to estimate possible diet solutions for whales in the Kodiak region. Comparison of isotopic niches and diet models support niche partitioning, with fin whales foraging primarily on zooplankton and humpback whales foraging on zooplankton and small forage fish. The results of this study show that niche partitioning between sympatric species can vary by region and may be the result of prey availability, prey preferences, or both.     

Investigation of foraging habits and prey selection by humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) using acoustic tags and concurrent fish surveys

Tags containing acoustic time-depth transmitters (ATDT) were attached to four humpback whales near Kodiak, Alaska. Tags allowed for whale dive depths to be recorded in real time. Acoustic and mid-water trawl surveys were conducted concurrent with tagging efforts within the study area to quantify available fish resources and describe potential prey selection by humpback whales. Recorded dives were grouped through visual assessment and t -tests. Dives that indicated likely foraging occurred at a mean maximum depth of 106.2 m with 62% of dives occurring between 92 m and 120 m. Acoustic backscatter from fish surveys was attributed to potential humpback prey based on known target strength values and 10 net tows. Capelin comprised 84% of the total potential prey abundance in the region followed by age 0 (12%) and juvenile pollock (2%), and eulachon (<1%). Although horizontally segregated in the region, both capelin and age 0 pollock were distributed at depths exceeding 92 m with maximum abundance between 107 m and 120 m. The four-tagged humpbacks were found to forage in areas with greatest capelin densities but bypassed areas of high age 0 pollock abundance. The location and diving behavior of tagged whales suggested that whales were favoring capelin over pollock as a prey source.     

The diving behavior of blue and fin whales: is dive duration shorter than expected based on oxygen stores?

Many diving seabirds and marine mammals have been found to regularly exceed their theoretical aerobic dive limit (TADL). No animals have been found to dive for durations that are consistently shorter than their TADL. We attached time-depth recorders to 7 blue whales and 15 fin whales (family Balaenopteridae). The diving behavior of both species was similar, and we distinguished between foraging and traveling dives. Foraging dives in both species were deeper, longer in duration and distinguished by a series of vertical excursions where lunge feeding presumably occurred. Foraging blue whales lunged 2.4 (+/-1.13) times per dive, with a maximum of six times and average vertical excursion of 30.2 (+/-10.04) m. Foraging fin whales lunged 1.7 (+/-0.88) times per dive, with a maximum of eight times and average vertical excursion of 21.2 (+/-4.35) m. The maximum rate of ascent of lunges was higher than the maximum rate of descent in both species, indicating that feeding lunges occurred on ascent. Foraging dives were deeper and longer than non-feeding dives in both species. On average, blue whales dived to 140.0 (+/-46.01) m and 7.8 (+/-1.89) min when foraging, and 67.6 (+/-51.46) m and 4.9 (+/-2.53) min when not foraging. Fin whales dived to 97.9 (+/-32.59) m and 6.3 (+/-1.53) min when foraging and to 59.3 (+/-29.67) m and 4.2 (+/-1.67) min when not foraging. The longest dives recorded for both species, 14.7 min for blue whales and 16.9 min for fin whales, were considerably shorter than the TADL of 31.2 and 28.6 min, respectively. An allometric comparison of seven families diving to an average depth of 80-150 m showed a significant relationship between body mass and dive duration once Balaenopteridae whales, with a mean dive duration of 6.8 min, were excluded from the analysis. Thus, the short dive durations of blue whales and fin whales cannot be explained by the shallow distribution of their prey. We propose instead that short duration diving in large whales results from either: (1) dispersal behavior of prey; or (2) a high energetic cost of foraging.     

Prey preferences of sympatric fin (Balaenoptera physalus) and humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae) whales revealed by stable isotope mixing models

Over‐exploitation of top predators and fish stocks has altered ecosystems towards less productive systems with fewer trophic levels. In the Celtic Sea (CS), discards and bycatch levels have prompted concern about some fisheries, while fin and humpback whales are recovering from centuries of over‐exploitation. A lack of empirical evidence on the preferred diet of some predators such as whales in the CS has hindered the implementation of effective conservation measures using an ecosystem‐based approach to fisheries management. Using a Bayesian framework (SIAR), stable carbon (δ¹³C) and nitrogen (δ¹⁵N) isotope mixing models were used to assign proportionate diet solutions to fin and humpback whales (skin biopsies) and putative prey items: herring (Clupea harengus), sprat (Sprattus sprattus), and krill (Meganyctiphanes norvegica and Nyctiphanes couchii) in the CS. Krill was the single most important prey item in the diet of fin whales, but one of the least important for humpback whales (albeit based on a small sample of humpback whale samples). Age 0 sprat and herring comprised a large proportion of the diet of both species, followed by older sprat (age 1–2) and older herring (age 2–4). An ecosystem based approach to fisheries management will be required in the CS if we seek effective conservation of both fin and humpback whales, and sustainable fisheries.     

Foraging ecology and niche overlap in pygmy (Kogia breviceps) and dwarf (Kogia sima) sperm whales from waters of the U.S. mid‐Atlantic coast

A complementary approach of stomach content and stable isotope analyses was used to characterize the foraging ecology and evaluate niche overlap between pygmy (Kogia breviceps) and dwarf (K. sima) sperm whales stranded on the U.S. mid‐Atlantic coast between 1998 and 2011. Food habits analysis demonstrated both species were primarily teuthophagous, with 35 species of cephalopods, and 2 species of mesopelagic fishes represented in their overall diets. Pianka's Index of niche overlap suggested high overlap between whale diets (O_n = 0.92), with squids from the families Histioteuthidae, Cranchidae, and Ommastrephidae serving as primary prey. Pygmy sperm whales consumed slightly larger prey sizes (mean mantle length [ML] = 10.8 cm) than dwarf sperm whales (mean ML = 7.8 cm). Mean prey sizes consumed by pygmy sperm whales increased with growth, but showed no trend in dwarf sperm whales. Significant differences were not detected in δ¹⁵N and δ¹³C values of muscle tissues from pygmy (10.8‰ ± 0.5‰, ?17.1‰ ± 0.6‰), and dwarf sperm whales (10.7‰ ± 0.5‰, ?17.0‰ ± 0.4‰), respectively. Isotopic niche widths also did not differ significantly and dietary overlap was high between the two species. Results suggest the feeding ecologies of the pygmy and dwarf sperm whales are similar and both species occupy equivalent trophic niches in the region.     

Humpback whales interfering when mammal‐eating killer whales attack other species: Mobbing behavior and interspecific altruism?

Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) are known to interfere with attacking killer whales (Orcinus orca). To investigate why, we reviewed accounts of 115 interactions between them. Humpbacks initiated the majority of interactions (57% vs. 43%; n = 72), although the killer whales were almost exclusively mammal‐eating forms (MEKWs, 95%) vs. fish‐eaters (5%; n = 108). When MEKWs approached humpbacks (n = 27), they attacked 85% of the time and targeted only calves. When humpbacks approached killer whales (n = 41), 93% were MEKWs, and ≥87% of them were attacking or feeding on prey at the time. When humpbacks interacted with attacking MEKWs, 11% of the prey were humpbacks and 89% comprised 10 other species, including three cetaceans, six pinnipeds, and one teleost fish. Approaching humpbacks often harassed attacking MEKWs (≥55% of 56 interactions), regardless of the prey species, which we argue was mobbing behavior. Humpback mobbing sometimes allowed MEKW prey, including nonhumpbacks, to escape. We suggest that humpbacks initially responded to vocalizations of attacking MEKWs without knowing the prey species targeted. Although reciprocity or kin selection might explain communal defense of conspecific calves, there was no apparent benefit to humpbacks continuing to interfere when other species were being attacked. Interspecific altruism, even if unintentional, could not be ruled out.     

The development of an intermediate‐duration tag to characterize the diving behavior of large whales

The development of high‐resolution archival tag technologies has revolutionized our understanding of diving behavior in marine taxa such as sharks, turtles, and seals during their wide‐ranging movements. However, similar applications for large whales have lagged behind due to the difficulty of keeping tags on the animals for extended periods of time. Here, we present a novel configuration of a transdermally attached biologging device called the Advanced Dive Behavior (ADB) tag. The ADB tag contains sensors that record hydrostatic pressure, three‐axis accelerometers, magnetometers, water temperature, and light level, all sampled at 1 Hz. The ADB tag also collects Fastloc GPS locations and can send dive summary data through Service Argos, while staying attached to a whale for typical periods of 3–7 weeks before releasing for recovery and subsequent data download. ADB tags were deployed on sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus; N = 46), blue whales (Balaenoptera musculus; N = 8), and fin whales (B. physalus; N = 5) from 2007 to 2015, resulting in attachment durations from 0 to 49.6 days, and recording 31 to 2,539 GPS locations and 27 to 2,918 dives per deployment. Archived dive profiles matched well with published dive shapes of each species from short‐term records. For blue and fin whales, feeding lunges were detected using peaks in accelerometer data and matched corresponding vertical excursions in the depth record. In sperm whales, rapid orientation changes in the accelerometer data, often during the bottom phase of dives, were likely related to prey pursuit, representing a relative measure of foraging effort. Sperm whales were documented repeatedly diving to, and likely foraging along, the seafloor. Data from the temperature sensor described the vertical structure of the water column in all three species, extending from the surface to depths >1,600 m. In addition to providing information needed to construct multiweek time budgets, the ADB tag is well suited to studying the effects of anthropogenic sound on whales by allowing for pre‐ and post‐exposure monitoring of the whale's dive behavior. This tag begins to bridge the gap between existing long‐duration but low‐data throughput tags, and short‐duration, high‐resolution data loggers.     

Behaviour and kinematics of continuous ram filtration in bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus)

Balaenid whales perform long breath-hold foraging dives despite a high drag from their ram filtration of zooplankton. To maximize the volume of prey acquired in a dive with limited oxygen supplies, balaenids must either filter feed only occasionally when prey density is particularly high, or they must swim at slow speeds while filtering to reduce drag and oxygen consumption. Using digital tags with three-axis accelerometers, we studied bowhead whales feeding off West Greenland and present here, to our knowledge, the first detailed data on the kinematics and swimming behaviour of a balaenid whale filter feeding at depth. Bowhead whales employ a continuous fluking gait throughout the bottom phase of foraging dives, moving at very slow speeds (less than 1 m s⁻¹), allowing them to filter feed continuously at depth. Despite the slow speeds, the large mouth aperture provides a water filtration rate of approximately 3 m³ s⁻¹, amounting to some 2000 tonnes of water and prey filtered per dive. We conclude that a food niche of dense, slow-moving zooplankton prey has led balaenids to evolve locomotor and filtering systems adapted to work against a high drag at swimming speeds of less than 0.07 body length s⁻¹ using a continuous fluking gait very different from that of nekton-feeding, aquatic predators.     

Immature euphausiids do not appear to be prey for humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) during spring and summer in Southeast Alaska

Humpbacks whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) have shown a remarkable recovery in the North Pacific, raising concerns regarding their impact on marine communities. In Southeast Alaska, humpbacks feed heavily on euphausiids; however, it remains unclear whether they target immature individuals despite evidence that they do so elsewhere. I evaluate the hypothesis that humpbacks target immature euphausiids in late spring‐summer in Southeast Alaska. Plankton samples were collected at random sites (n = 44) and near whales (n = 53) between 8 June and 9 September 2008 in Frederick Sound and Stephens Passage. The proportion of samples containing immature euphausiids, and immature euphausiid abundance within those samples, were compared between the two sample types. Similar analyses were conducted for adult euphausiids (prey) and calanoid copepods (nonprey) for comparison. I found no statistical difference between the whale and random samples with respect to the occurrence or numerical density of immature euphausiids, which is consistent with the hypothesis that whales did not target them in 2008. Smaller size, insufficient numerical densities and lower energy density of immature euphausiids are suggested as possible reasons. These findings can assist in resolving regional humpback abundance and distribution patterns, and can contribute to an understanding of the trophic interactions characterizing the local ecosystem.     

Behavioral context of echolocation and prey-handling sounds produced by killer whales (Orcinus orca) during pursuit and capture of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.)

Availability of preferred salmonid prey and a sufficiently quiet acoustic environment in which to forage are critical to the survival of resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) in the northeastern Pacific. Although piscivorous killer whales rely on echolocation to locate and track prey, the relationship between echolocation, movement, and prey capture during foraging by wild individuals is poorly understood. We used acoustic biologging tags to relate echolocation behavior to prey pursuit and capture during successful feeding dives by fish-eating killer whales in coastal British Columbia, Canada. The significantly higher incidence and rate of echolocation prior to fish captures compared to afterward confirms its importance in prey detection and tracking. Extremely rapid click sequences (buzzes) were produced before or concurrent with captures of salmon at depths typically exceeding 50 m, and were likely used by killer whales for close-range prey targeting, as in other odontocetes. Distinctive crunching and tearing sounds indicative of prey-handling behavior occurred at relatively shallow depths following fish captures, matching concurrent observations that whales surfaced with fish prior to consumption and often shared prey. Buzzes and prey-handling sounds are potentially useful acoustic signals for estimating foraging efficiency and determining if resident killer whales are meeting their energetic requirements.     

Fine‐scale spatial differences in humpback whale diet composition near Kodiak,Alaska

On the North Pacific feeding grounds, humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) are recovering from commercial whaling at a rapid rate (6.8%). The potential effect that this recovery will have on trophic dynamics involving these predators is currently unknown. To better elucidate complex trophic dynamics, variability in diet composition of apex predators on their respective feeding grounds needs to be understood. Thus, we explored the diet composition of two defined subaggregations of humpback whales of the Kodiak Archipelago population (“North,” “South”) using stable carbon (δ¹³C) and nitrogen (δ¹⁵N) isotope ratios of humpback whale skin and regional prey samples in Bayesian dietary mixing models. Humpback whales in the “North” region consumed proportionally more fish, dominated by capelin (Mallotus villosus), whereas, whales in the “South” region consumed predominantly krill. The difference in diet composition appears to reflect regional differences in prey availability. Thus, regional variability in diet composition by humpback whales may have disproportionate impacts on prey resources of sympatric predators depending on available prey biomass. As a result, we suggest fine‐scale studies of apex predator diets are needed to better model trophic dynamics with accuracy.     

Whale killers: Prevalence and ecological implications of killer whale predation on humpback whale calves off Western Australia

Reports of killer whales (Orcinus orca) preying on large whales have been relatively rare, and the ecological significance of these attacks is controversial. Here we report on numerous observations of killer whales preying on neonate humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) off Western Australia (WA) based on reports we compiled and our own observations. Attacking killer whales included at least 19 individuals from three stable social groupings in a highly connected local population; 22 separate attacks with known outcomes resulted in at least 14 (64%) kills of humpback calves. We satellite‐tagged an adult female killer whale and followed her group on the water for 20.3 h over six separate days. During that time, they attacked eight humpback calves, and from the seven known outcomes, at least three calves (43%) were killed. Overall, our observations suggest that humpback calves are a predictable, plentiful, and readily taken prey source for killer whales and scavenging sharks off WA for at least 5 mo/yr. Humpback “escorts” vigorously assisted mothers in protecting their calves from attacking killer whales (and a white shark, Carcharodon carcharias). This expands the purported role of escorts in humpback whale social interactions, although it is not clear how this behavior is adaptive for the escorts.     

CATCHES OF HUMPBACK AND OTHER WHALES FROM SHORE STATIONS AT MOSS LANDING AND TRINIDAD, CALIFORNIA, 1919–1926

Logbook data from California shore whaling stations at Moss Landing (1919–1922 and 1924) and Trinidad (1920 and 1922–1926) are analyzed. The logs for the two stations record the taking of 2,111 whales, including 1,871 humpbacks, 177 fin whales, 26 sei whales, 3 blue whales, 12 sperm whales, 7 gray whales, 1 right whale, 1 Baird's beaked whale, and 13 whales of unspecified type (probably humpbacks). Most whales were taken from spring to autumn, but catches were made in all months of some years. The sex ratios of humpback, fin, and sei whales (the three species with sufficient sample sizes to test) did not differ from parity. Primary prey, determined from stomach contents, included sardines and euphausiids for both humpback and fin whales, and 'plankton' (probably euphausiids) for sei whales. The prevalence of pregnancy was 0.46 among mature female humpbacks and 0.43 among mature female fin whales, although these values are reported with caution. Information on length distribution for all species is summarized. Analysis of the catch data for this and other areas supports the current view that humpback whales along the west coast of the continental United States comprise a single feeding stock and also suggests that the present population is well below pre-exploitation levels.     

Shallow food for deep divers: Dynamic foraging behavior of male sperm whales in a high latitude habitat

Groups of female and immature sperm whales live at low latitudes and show a stereotypical diving and foraging behavior with dives lasting about 45 min to depths of between 400 and 1200 m. In comparison, physically mature male sperm whales migrate to high latitudes where little is known about their foraging behavior and ecology. Here we use acoustic recording tags to study the diving and acoustic behavior of male sperm whales foraging off northern Norway. Sixty-five hours of tag data provide detailed information about the movements and sound repertoire of four male sperm whales performing 83 dives lasting between 6 and 60 min. Dives ranged in depth between 14 and 1860 m, with a median depth of 175 m, and 92% of the surfacings lasted less than 15 min. The four whales clicked for an average 91% (SD = 10) of the dive duration, where the first usual click was produced at depths ranging between 4 and 218 m and the last usual click at depths ranging between 1 and 1114 m. Echolocation buzzes, which are used as an indication of prey capture attempts, were emitted at depths between 17 and 1860 m, during both the descent and ascent phase of deep dives. The foraging behavior varied markedly with depth, with the timing and duration of prey capture attempts during shallow dives suggesting that the whales target more sparsely distributed prey. In contrast, deep dives involve frequent prey capture attempts and seem to target more dense food layers. The evidence of exploitation of different food layers, including epipelagic prey, is consistent with the hypothesis that male sperm whales may migrate to high latitudes to access a productive, multi-layered foraging habitat.     

Factors driving the variability in diving and movement behavior of migrating humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae): Implications for anthropogenic disturbance studies

Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) undertake one of the longest migrations of any animal and while on a broad‐scale this journey appears direct, on a fine‐scale, behaviors associated with socializing and breeding are regularly observed. However, little is known about which social and environmental factors influence behavior during this time. Here we examined the effect of multiple factors on the movement (speed and course) and diving behavior (dive and surfacing duration) of humpback whales during migration off the eastern coast of Australia. Focal data (202 h) were collected on 94 different whale groups with simultaneous social and environmental context data. The environmental factors water depth and wind speed were found to be important predictors of dive and movement behavior, whereas social factors were less influential at this site. Groups tended to dive for longer with increased water depth but traveled more slowly in increasing wind speeds. These baseline studies are crucial when examining the effect of anthropogenic disturbance. Determining which natural factors significantly affect behavior ensures any observed behavioral changes are correctly attributed to the disturbance and are not a result of other factors. In addition, any responses observed can be put into biological context and their relative magnitude determined.     

Resource partitioning facilitates coexistence in sympatric cetaceans in the California Current

Resource partitioning is an important process driving habitat use and foraging strategies in sympatric species that potentially compete. Differences in foraging behavior are hypothesized to contribute to species coexistence by facilitating resource partitioning, but little is known on the multiple mechanisms for partitioning that may occur simultaneously. Studies are further limited in the marine environment, where the spatial and temporal distribution of resources is highly dynamic and subsequently difficult to quantify. We investigated potential pathways by which foraging behavior may facilitate resource partitioning in two of the largest co‐occurring and closely related species on Earth, blue (Balaenoptera musculus) and humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae) whales. We integrated multiple long‐term datasets (line‐transect surveys, whale‐watching records, net sampling, stable isotope analysis, and remote‐sensing of oceanographic parameters) to compare the diet, phenology, and distribution of the two species during their foraging periods in the highly productive waters of Monterey Bay, California, USA within the California Current Ecosystem. Our long‐term study reveals that blue and humpback whales likely facilitate sympatry by partitioning their foraging along three axes: trophic, temporal, and spatial. Blue whales were specialists foraging on krill, predictably targeting a seasonal peak in krill abundance, were present in the bay for an average of 4.7 months, and were spatially restricted at the continental shelf break. In contrast, humpback whales were generalists apparently feeding on a mixed diet of krill and fishes depending on relative abundances, were present in the bay for a more extended period (average of 6.6 months), and had a broader spatial distribution at the shelf break and inshore. Ultimately, competition for common resources can lead to behavioral, morphological, and physiological character displacement between sympatric species. Understanding the mechanisms for species coexistence is both fundamental to maintaining biodiverse ecosystems, and provides insight into the evolutionary drivers of morphological differences in closely related species.     

Distributional patterns of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) along the Newfoundland East Coast reflect their main prey,capelin (Mallotus villosus)

On the Newfoundland foraging ground, humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) primarily consume capelin (Mallotus villosus), which experienced a population collapse in the early 1990s, associated with altered timing of spawning and spawning migration. We examined whether humpback whale movement and distribution match these prey changes. Combining tour company whale sighting reports and photographs, citizen science reports of capelin spawning and scientific monitoring, whales were found to move northward along the east coast and whale aggregation presence within bays was associated with spawning capelin presence, being later in northerly bays. Whale aggregations arrived 8–20 days later than spawning capelin in northern bays, however, suggesting inconsistent tendencies to track high abundance spawning capelin aggregations during migration. Repeated scientific surveys during July–August 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014–2017, within a biological hotspot associated with capelin spawning sites in Notre Dame Bay, revealed that whale presence was influenced by the date of capelin spawning rather than capelin abundance metrics (i.e., biomass, number of shoals, shoal density, shoal area). A photo-identification catalog compiled during July–August, 2003–2017, revealed a 22% return rate of whales to the hotspot. Overall, findings suggest that capelin spawning sites are important foraging areas for humpback whales in coastal Newfoundland under these altered prey conditions.