Assessment of gray whale feeding grounds and sea floor interaction in the northeastern Bering Sea

1983 ◽  
Author(s):  
C.H. Nelson ◽  
K.R. Johnson ◽  
John H. Barber
1984 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
John S. Oliver ◽  
Peter N. Slattery ◽  
Mark A. Silberstein ◽  
Edmund F. O'Connor

Gray whales fed on dense populations of ampeliscid amphipods while summering along the west coast of Vancouver Island. These amphipod crustacean communities are ecological analogs of the primary feeding grounds of gray whales in the northern Bering Sea. The same major genera of amphipods dominated the Alaskan and Canadian feeding grounds, including Ampelisca, Photis, Protomedeia, Anonyx, and Orchomene, and comprised 67 to 90% of the number of infaunal crustaceans at the two locations. This is the first documented report of gray whale feeding on benthic infauna south of the Bering Sea. Feeding gray whales observed in Pachena Bay produced an extensive record of feeding excavations in bottom sediments. Excavation patterns suggest that: (i) whales used suction to extract infaunal prey and sediments; (ii) a maximum of six excavations was made in one feeding dive; (iii) excavation size was related to whale size; (iv) small and large whales fed in different parts of the bay; and (v) whales effectively located and worked the densest patches of benthic prey. We estimate that a 6-m whale consumed 116 kg of infaunal prey per 12-h day, and that a 12-m whale consumed 552 kg per 12-h day. Scavenging lysianassid amphipods were attracted to feeding disturbances within seconds and preyed on injured and dislodged infauna. Individual feeding excavations were large, deep valleys in a tube-mat plateau. In addition to the lysianassids, many other infauna undoubtedly colonize these highly modified habitats, resulting in important effects on the structure of benthic communities.


1989 ◽  
Vol 67 (6) ◽  
pp. 1531-1542 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stacy L. Kim ◽  
John S. Oliver

Swarming benthic crustaceans were widespread in the Chukchi and Bering seas. Swarms differed in their geographic extent, local biomass, and life stages of swarming individuals and thus in their availability to feeding gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus). Immature amphipods apparently swarmed for dispersal, whereas cumaceans probably swarmed for mating. All life stages of the hyperbenthic mysids occurred above the sea floor. Although the geographic spread of mysid swarms and shrimp communities was much greater than for the amphipod and cumacean swarms, the latter swarmed in denser patches to produce higher local biomass. Crustacean swarms are important in describing the geographic patterns of gray whale feeding from the Chukchi Sea to Baja California, including the primary, secondary, and tertiary feeding grounds. The primary feeding ground is in the southern Chukchi Sea and especially the northern Bering Sea, where gray whales suck infaunal amphipods from fine sand, producing an extensive record of feeding excavations. The primary feeding ground is divided into a relatively deep zone (> 20 m), where tube-dwelling ampeliscid amphipods are the major prey, and a shallow zone (< 20 m), where burrowing pontoporeid amphipods dominate. The secondary feeding ground is in the southern Bering Sea along the eastern Alaska Peninsula and adjacent Alaskan mainland where shrimp and mysids are the major prey. The tertiary feeding ground is at the periphery of the primary and secondary feeding grounds in Alaskan waters and south of the Bering Sea where there is a general decrease in the availability of prey and their use by gray whales from Canada to Baja California. The tertiary prey communities include swarms of amphipods, cumaceans, and mysids as well as infaunal polychaete worms, but mysids are used the most by whales. The primary gray whale feeding ground was much smaller during low sea levels when the extensive Beringian Platform was exposed to air. This shallow shelf is a unique habitat that presently harbors the largest ampeliscid amphipod community in the world. At low sea level, swarming crustaceans like those sampled in the present study may have been equally or more important to gray whales than infaunal prey. These historical changes in prey availability may account for the catholic diet of the gray whale.


Ecology ◽  
1985 ◽  
Vol 66 (6) ◽  
pp. 1965-1975 ◽  
Author(s):  
John S. Oliver ◽  
Peter N. Slattery
Keyword(s):  

2010 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 644-651 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda L. Bradford ◽  
David W. Weller ◽  
Alexander M. Burdin ◽  
Robert L. Brownell Jr.
Keyword(s):  

Geophysics ◽  
1983 ◽  
Vol 48 (5) ◽  
pp. 590-605 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger D. Hammond ◽  
John R. Gaither

Seismic data collected within basins along the outer Bering Sea Shelf often exhibit a distinct change in seismic character between 1.0 and 2.0 sec two‐way time. This change appears on seismic sections as a reflector or as an increase or decrease in amplitude. The feature is of regional extent. This change in seismic character is a manifestation of what has been called in other basins a bottom simulating reflector (BSR). BSRs are reflectors that (1) are subparallel with sea floor topography, (2) are discordant with stratigraphy where the sea floor dictates, and (3) do not demonstrate all the characteristics of a multiple. Two causes of BSRs are generally accepted. One involves an ice‐like mixture of water and gas, called “gas hydrate,” in which gas molecules are trapped within a framework of water molecules. The other cause involves the diagenetic alteration of biogenic opal‐A to opal‐CT in diatomaceous sediments. BSRs were penetrated at three locations in the Bering Sea in water depths greater than 1800 m on leg 19 of the Deep Sea Drilling Program (DSDP). The BSRs at these locations were attributed to the diagenetic alteration of opal‐A. This same diagenesis of opal‐A to opal‐CT is interpreted to be the cause of seismic character changes noted in basins on the Bering Sea Shelf. Pitfalls in seismic interpretation may be encountered where this reflector intersects other reflectors at an observable angle. The BSR may look like a sequence boundary or a direct hydrocarbon indicator. Recognition of the presence of this seismic character change is of two‐fold importance to explorationists: (1) it aids the understanding of the geology of the Bering Sea Shelf, and (2) it helps avoid seismic interpretational pitfalls.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Hildebrand ◽  
Kim S. Bernard ◽  
Leigh G. Torres

Predators must consume enough prey to support costly events, such as reproduction. Meeting high energetic requirements is particularly challenging for migrating baleen whales as their feeding seasons are typically restricted to a limited temporal window and marine prey are notoriously patchy. We assessed the energetic value of the six most common nearshore zooplankton species collected within the Oregon, United States range of the Pacific Coast Feeding Group (PCFG) gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) feeding grounds, and compared these results to the energetic value of the predominant amphipod species fed on by Eastern North Pacific (ENP) gray whales in the Arctic. Energetic values of Oregon zooplankton differed significantly between species (Kruskal–Wallis χ2 = 123.38, df = 5, p &lt; 0.0001), with Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) megalopae displaying the highest mean caloric content of all tested species (4.21 ± 1.27 kJ g– 1). This value, as well as the mean energetic value of the mysid Neomysis rayii (2.42 ± 1.06 kJ g– 1), are higher than the mean caloric content of Ampelisca macrocephala, the predominant Arctic amphipod. Extrapolations of these results to daily energetic requirements of gray whales indicate that lactating and pregnant gray whales feeding in the PCFG range would require between 0.7–1.03 and 0.22–0.33 metric tons of prey less per day if they fed on Dungeness crab megalopae or N. rayii, respectively, than a whale feeding on A. macrocephala in the Arctic. Yet, these results do not account for differences in availability of these prey species to foraging gray whales. We therefore suggest that other factors, such as prey density, energetic costs of feeding, or natal philopatry and foraging site fidelity play a role in the differences in population sizes between the PCFG and ENP gray whales. Climate change is implicated in causing reduced body condition and increased mortality of both PCFG and ENP gray whales due to decreased prey availability and abundance. Therefore, improved understanding of prey dynamics in response to environmental variability in both regions is critical.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document