4.2 Article

Summertime foraging ecology of North Atlantic right whales

期刊

MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES
卷 264, 期 -, 页码 123-135

出版社

INTER-RESEARCH
DOI: 10.3354/meps264123

关键词

right whale; Eubalaena glacialis; Calanus finmarchicus; diving behavior; energetics; aggregation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

North Atlantic right whales were instrumented with suction-cup mounted, time-depth recorders (TDR) during the summers of 2000 and 2001 to examine their diving and foraging behavior. Simultaneous observations of temperature, salinity and the vertical distribution of their principal prey, Calanus finmarchicus stage 5 copepodites (C5), were obtained along each whale's track with a conductivity-temperature-depth instrument (CTD) and an optical plankton counter (OPC). Right whale feeding dives were characterized by rapid descent from the surface to a particular depth between 80 and 175 m, remarkable fidelity to that depth for 5 to 14 min and then rapid ascent back to the surface. The average depth of dive was strongly and positively correlated with both the average depth of peak C. finmarchicus C5 abundance and the average depth of the bottom mixed layer's upper surface. Significantly longer surface intervals were observed for reproductively active females and their calves when compared to other individuals, indicating that this critical segment of the population may be at increased risk of ship strikes owing to their diving behavior. Ingestion rates calculated from TDR and OPC data exceeded estimated daily metabolic requirements for most of the tagged right whales; however, short deployment durations and uncertainty in metabolic rates Make it impossible to judge whether individual right whales were obtaining sufficient energy to meet the metabolic costs of reproduction. Improvements in attachment durations and the development of novel methods to estimate the metabolic rates of large whales in situ are required to determine whether right whale reproduction is limited by insufficient food resources.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据