5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Population abundance of recovering humpback whales Megaptera novaeangliae and other baleen whales in the Scotia Arc, South Atlantic

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Following the cessation of whaling, South Atlantic populations of humpback Megaptera novaeangliae and some other baleen whale species are recovering, but there has been limited monitoring of their recovery in the Scotia Arc, a former whaling epicentre and a hotspot for Antarctic krill Euphausia superba. To inform the management of krill fisheries, up-to-date assessment of whale biomass and prey consumption is essential. Using a model-based approach, we provide the first estimates of whale abundance and krill consumption for South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and total abundance of humpback whales across their southwestern Atlantic feeding grounds, using data collected in 2019. Humpback whale abundance was estimated at 24543 (coefficient of variation, CV = 0.26; 95% CI = 14863-40528), similar to that measured in Brazil on the main wintering ground for this population. The abundance of baleen whales in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, including those not identified to species level, was estimated at 43824 (CV = 0.15, 95% CI = 33509-59077). Based on the proportion of humpback whales identified during the surveys (83%), the majority of these are likely to be humpback whales. Annual krill consumption by baleen whales was estimated to be in the range 4.8 to 7.2 million tons, representing 7 to 10% of the estimated krill biomass in the region. However, there is a need to better understand feeding rates in baleen whales, and further research into this field should be a priority to improve the accuracy and precision of prey consumption rate estimation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references94

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Responses of Marine Organisms to Climate Change across Oceans

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Dynamics of two populations of the humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae (Borowski)

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Field metabolic rate and body size.

              K Nagy (2005)
              The field metabolic rates (FMRs) of 229 species of terrestrial vertebrates, all measured using the doubly labeled water method in free-living individuals, were evaluated. Daily rates of energy expenditure were as low as 0.23 kJ per day in a small reptile (gecko), to as high as 52 500 kJ per day in a marine mammal (seal). This is a range of nearly six orders of magnitude. More than 70% of the variation in log-transformed data is due to variation in body size (expressed as body mass). Much of the remaining variation is accounted for by thermal physiology, with the endothermic mammals and birds having FMRs that are about 12 and 20 times higher, respectively, than FMRs of equivalent-sized, but ectothermic, reptiles. Variation in log(body mass) within each of these three taxonomic classes accounts for over 94% of the variation in log(FMR), and results from nonlinear regression analyses using untransformed data support this conclusion. However, the range of residual variation in mass-adjusted FMR within classes is still more than sixfold (ratio of highest over lowest). Some of this variation is associated with affiliations with lower taxonomic levels (Infraclass: eutherian vs metatherian mammals; Family: passerine, procellariform and galliform birds vs other birds), some is associated with habitat (especially desert vs nondesert), and some with differences in basic diet preference and foraging mode and season. The scaling slopes for FMR often differ from BMR slopes for the same Class of animals, and most differ from the theoretical slope of 0.75. Differences among slopes and intercepts that were detected using conventional regression analyses were largely confirmed upon reanalysis using Independent Contrasts Analysis to adjust for phylogenetic biases.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Marine Ecology Progress Series
                Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.
                Inter-Research Science Center
                0171-8630
                1616-1599
                October 14 2021
                October 14 2021
                : 676
                : 77-94
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Wildscope, El Cuartón, 11380 Tarifa, Cádiz, Spain
                [2 ]Australian Antarctic Division, Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, Kingston, Tasmania 7050, Australia
                [3 ]SMRU, Scottish Ocean Institute, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife KY16 8LB, UK
                [4 ]Marine Mammal Research Program, Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology, University of Hawai’i at Manoa, HI 96744, USA
                [5 ]Leuchars, St Andrews KY16 0HR, UK
                [6 ]British Antarctic Survey, NERC, High Cross, Cambridge CB3 0ET, UK
                [7 ]Institute of Marine Research, Framsenteret, 9296 Tromsø, Norway
                [8 ]UiT Norges Arktiske Universitet, 9037 Tromsø, Norway
                [9 ]Institute of Marine Research, Nordnes, 5817 Bergen, Norway
                Article
                10.3354/meps13849
                847b511d-f7ac-454a-b1a7-64ce333fe4b6
                © 2021

                https://www.int-res.com/journals/terms-of-use/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article