DOCSLIB.ORG

Gray Whales in the North Pacific: History, Biology, and Current Research

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Gray Whales in the North Pacific: History, Biology, and Current Research Gray Whales in the North Pacific: History, biology, and current research Aimée Lang Marine Mammal and Turtle Division Southwest Fisheries Science Center 13 October 2015 Photo courtesy of San Diego Natural History Museum Whalers W. Perryman Photo credit: Wayne Perryman, SWFSC Overview: • Taxonomic history • Physical description • Gray whale biology and life history • How we study gray whales and what we’ve learned! Taxonomic history: • First described based on subfossil remains from the coast of Sweden (Lilljeborg 1861) • “Eschrichtius” – named after a Danish zoologist (Dr. Daniel Eschricht) who was the first to suggest the remains might be from a new genus and family • “robustus” – Latin for strong Relationship to other baleen whales: • Fossil record is generally sparse but suggests higher diversity in the past • Today the gray whale is the only living species in its genus and family • Although traditionally considered morphologically distinct from the rorqual whales, molecular analyses indicate that gray whales are closely related to balaenopterid whales Sasaki et al. 2005, mitogenome analysis Physical characteristics: • Heart-shaped blow • Mottled gray and white coloration • Dorsal hump followed by series of 6 to 12 “knuckles” • Yellowish white baleen • Fewest baleen plates of any mysticete (130-180 plates on each side of mouth) • 2-5 throat grooves Size: • Adult body 11 to 15 m and weigh 45,000 kg • Females are larger than males • Calves 4.6 to 4.9 m at birth and weigh 700-900 kg Gray whale barnacles (Cryptolepas rhachianecti): • Considered “obligate commensals” – Attach to whales as larvae – Filter-feeders – Rely on whale’s movements through water to find plankton • A single whale typically carries 100s of lbs of barnacles • Generally thought to be host- specific – But have been found on captive belugas and bottlenose dolphins in San Diego Bay – One record of this barnacle on a stranded killer whale “Whale lice” • Crustaceans of the family Cyamidae • Not host-specific (found on other whale species, especially those that tend to inhabit shallower water) • Three species found on gray whales • Parasitic - eat skin and dead tissue • Found on healthy whales but may be much more abundant on whales in poor health Gray Whale Feeding and Diet: • Gray whales often feed in the mud on the seafloor “Benthic feeding” Gray Whale Feeding and Diet: • In the Arctic, the primary prey are benthic amphipods ~ 3 cm long! Gray Whale Feeding and Diet: • But gray whales are flexible foragers: – They feed both in benthos and in water column – They eat a variety of species, including benthic and mobile amphipods, cumaceans, mysids, crab larvae and herring eggs Mysid Cumacean Gray Whale Reproduction: • Sexual maturity between 6 to 12 years of age • Mean date of conception mid- December • Gestation period 13 months • Mean calving date mid-January • Healthy females can reproduce at intervals of two years • Calves weaned at 6-8 months (about mid-August in the Arctic feeding area) Gray Whale Migration • Migrate annually 15,000 - 20,000 km round trip • Takes about 2 months each way • Southward migration begins mid-November and is segregated by age, sex and reproductive condition: – (a) Pregnant females about to have their calves – (b) Non-pregnant females and mature males – (c) immature whales of both sexes • Northward migration begins about mid-February and occurs in two phases: – Phase I = (a) adult males and females without calves, (b) immature whales – Phase II = mothers with calves Gray Whale Distribution: • Gray whales went extinct in North Atlantic in 1700s • Currently gray whales are found only in the North Pacific, where two populations are recognized • Eastern population • Western population Distribution of the Eastern population: • Most of the eastern gray whales feed during summer and fall in ~19,000 animals Arctic ~200 animals • A small number of whales show “Pacific Coast fidelity to southern feeding Feeding Group” ground between Northern CA and southeastern AK • Overwinter in the lagoons and coastal waters of Baja Mexico during winter/spring • This is where most of the calves are born Status of the Eastern population: • Commercial whaling on the eastern population was prohibited in the 1940s 30000 • The population currently contains 25000 ~19,000 animals 20000 • In 1994 the eastern population was 15000 removed from the List of Endangered Abundance 10000 and Threatened Wildlife as it was no 5000 longer considered endangered or 0 threatened under the ESA. 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 Year Durban et al. (accepted) Status of the Western population: • Most of what is known is derived from long-term studies of whales feeding off Sakhalin Island, Russia ~19,000 Sakhalin Island, animals • The western population was Russia ~200 probably always smaller than the animals eastern population • But commercial whaling on the western population continued through at least the 1960s ??? • At one point, some scientists thought that the western population was extinct • We now know it exists but in small numbers (~150 animals today) • The western population was listed as Critically Endangered in 2000 by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature Gray Whale Threats • Entanglements in fishing gear • Environmental degradation, exposure to contaminants • Noise (e.g. seismic surveys) related to offshore oil and gas • Ship strikes and associated disturbance • Arctic environmental changes – warming water and loss of sea ice? How do we study gray whales? 1. Counts 2. Satellite tags 3. Photographs 4. Genetic sampling Counts to monitor calf production (northbound migration) Piedras Blancas, CA Calf production: Wayne Perryman Southwest Fisheries Science Center • Conducted from the Piedras Blancas Light House station since 1994 (21st anniversary this past year!) • Counts of northbound whales • Mothers with calves pass very close to shore and after adult and juvenile phase Unofficial 2015 estimate Calf production: ~1420 calves Estimates of Northbound Calves 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 Calf Estimate 600 400 200 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Survey Year Correlation with sea ice in Arctic: LOTS OF ICE IN SPRING MEANS FEWER CALVES THE FOLLOWING YEAR! 2.5 Ice Cover 2 Calf Est 1.5 1 0.5 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 -0.5 -1 -1.5 -2 Mechanism: Ice extent in spring of previous year Ice Extent Ice Low Extent High High # of calves the following spring! Low # of calves the following spring! But….. The pattern may be changing???? 2.5 Ice Cover 2 Calf Est 1.5 LowLow # of# of calves calves the the followingfollowing spring! spring! 1 0.5 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 -0.5 -1 -1.5 -2 In the spring of 2012, the sea ice extent was the greatest it had been during our time series. However, the number of calves that were counted going past PB was relatively high. Learning about predation on gray whales using satellite tags (on killer whales!): John Durban Southwest Fisheries Science Center Predation on gray whales by killer whales: Subadult male Bigg’s killer whale attacking a juvenile gray whale; Most of the predation is on calves with some small juveniles taken Satellite tag on a killer whale: Killer whale tracks: • Estimated ~150 transient killer whales are waiting on gray whale mothers and calves as they cross into the Bering Sea on northward migration • May return to finish carcass later • Most killer whales remain at entrance to Bering Sea but some follow the mother-calf pairs further north • Can be a significant impact on calf production Photo-Identification and Biopsy Sampling off Sakhalin Island, Russia ID 055 Photo-identification of gray whales: What have we learned about the gray whales off Sakhalin from photos? • Small population size (~150 animals) • Most animals return year after year, including some animals first identified as calves • Very few reproductive females Dave Weller • Relatively slow rate of population increase SWFSC • Relatively low calf survival Biopsy sampling: Photo collected under SWFSC Permit #14097 What have we learned from genetics? • There are genetic differences between gray whales that feed off Sakhalin and eastern gray whales • Many of the whales that feed off Sakhalin learn to use the feeding ground from their mothers • First hint that some whales that feed off Sakhalin travel to the coast of North America during winter Distribution: ~19,000 animals ~200 animals ~150 animals N=2 Two animals sampled off Sakhalin Island were genetically identical to two animals that were sampled while migrating north in ??? the Santa Barbara Channel in 1995 Satellite tagging studies (Mate et al. 2015) SI OdL Varvara: 22,511 km roundtrip!!! Flex: 10 Dec 2010 – 05 Feb 2011 Varvara SE Varvara SE: 24 Nov 2011 – 02 Feb 2012 Varvara NW Varvara NW: 2 Feb 2012 – 14 May2012 Calving area CSL Agent: 25 Nov 2011 – 31 Dec 2011 Distribution: ~19,000 animals ~200 animals ~150 animals N=6 We now know that at least 22 of the ~150 N=2 gray whales off Sakhalin have traveled to the N=14 west coast of North America! ??? But some gray whales remain in the western Pacific year-round: • 22 records of gray whales Pacific coast of Japan - January 2007 off Japan since 1990 – At least two of these records were photographs of whales that were first identified as calves off of Sakhalin Pacific coast of China - November 2011 • 2 records of gray whales off China since 1996 Conservation implications: • Some whales (“true” western gray whales) do remain in the western North Pacific year-round • But this number may be very small • We need to know more about where gray whales are during winter and spring in the western North Pacific (e.g. Japan, China) What’s next? A large whale survey (CLaWS) is currently being Collaborative Large Whale Survey: conducted between northern CA and Kodiak 9 July – 9 November, 2015 Island, AK Dave Weller, Chief Scientist Objectives: 1) Collect photo-id data and genetic samples from the Pacific Coast Feeding Groupof gray whales, especially in areas where we have little information 2) Search for right whales in the Gulf of Alaska 3) Collect photo-id data and biopsy samples from other species of large whales (e.g., fin whales, sperm whales, blue whales, etc.) Highlights so far….
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Checklist of Turtle and Whale Barnacles
    Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 2013, 93(1), 143–182. # Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 2012 doi:10.1017/S0025315412000847 A checklist of turtle and whale barnacles (Cirripedia: Thoracica: Coronuloidea) ryota hayashi1,2 1International Coastal Research Center, Atmosphere and Ocean Research Institute, The University of Tokyo, 5-1-5, Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa-shi, Chiba 277-8564 Japan, 2Marine Biology and Ecology Research Program, Extremobiosphere Research Center, Japan Agency for Marine–Earth Science and Technology A checklist of published records of coronuloid barnacles (Cirripedia: Thoracica: Coronuloidea) attached to marine vertebrates is presented, with 44 species (including 15 fossil species) belonging to 14 genera (including 3 fossil genera) and 3 families recorded. Also included is information on their geographical distribution and the hosts with which they occur. Keywords: checklist, turtle barnacles, whale barnacles, Chelonibiidae, Emersoniidae, Coronulidae, Platylepadidae, host and distribution Submitted 10 May 2012; accepted 16 May 2012; first published online 10 August 2012 INTRODUCTION Superorder THORACICA Darwin, 1854 Order SESSILIA Lamarck, 1818 In this paper, a checklist of barnacles of the superfamily Suborder BALANOMORPHA Pilsbry, 1916 Coronuloidea occurring on marine animals is presented. Superfamily CORONULOIDEA Newman & Ross, 1976 The systematic arrangement used herein follows Newman Family CHELONIBIIDAE Pilsbry, 1916 (1996) rather than Ross & Frick (2011) for reasons taken up in Hayashi (2012) in some detail. The present author Genus Chelonibia Leach, 1817 deems the subfamilies of the Cheonibiidae (Chelonibiinae, Chelonibia caretta (Spengler, 1790) Emersoniinae and Protochelonibiinae) proposed by Harzhauser et al. (2011), as well as those included of Ross & Lepas caretta Spengler, 1790: 185, plate 6, figure 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Molecular Species Delimitation and Biogeography of Canadian Marine Planktonic Crustaceans
    Molecular Species Delimitation and Biogeography of Canadian Marine Planktonic Crustaceans by Robert George Young A Thesis presented to The University of Guelph In partial fulfilment of requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Integrative Biology Guelph, Ontario, Canada © Robert George Young, March, 2016 ABSTRACT MOLECULAR SPECIES DELIMITATION AND BIOGEOGRAPHY OF CANADIAN MARINE PLANKTONIC CRUSTACEANS Robert George Young Advisors: University of Guelph, 2016 Dr. Sarah Adamowicz Dr. Cathryn Abbott Zooplankton are a major component of the marine environment in both diversity and biomass and are a crucial source of nutrients for organisms at higher trophic levels. Unfortunately, marine zooplankton biodiversity is not well known because of difficult morphological identifications and lack of taxonomic experts for many groups. In addition, the large taxonomic diversity present in plankton and low sampling coverage pose challenges in obtaining a better understanding of true zooplankton diversity. Molecular identification tools, like DNA barcoding, have been successfully used to identify marine planktonic specimens to a species. However, the behaviour of methods for specimen identification and species delimitation remain untested for taxonomically diverse and widely-distributed marine zooplanktonic groups. Using Canadian marine planktonic crustacean collections, I generated a multi-gene data set including COI-5P and 18S-V4 molecular markers of morphologically-identified Copepoda and Thecostraca (Multicrustacea: Hexanauplia) species. I used this data set to assess generalities in the genetic divergence patterns and to determine if a barcode gap exists separating interspecific and intraspecific molecular divergences, which can reliably delimit specimens into species. I then used this information to evaluate the North Pacific, Arctic, and North Atlantic biogeography of marine Calanoida (Hexanauplia: Copepoda) plankton.
    [Show full text]
  • (Opinion 2362) by the International Commissi
    Carnets Geol. 18 (2) E-ISSN 1634-0744 DOI 10.4267/2042/65747 Fossil whale barnacles from the lower Pleistocene of Sicily shed light on the coeval Mediterranean cetacean fauna Alberto COLLARETA 1, 2 Gianni INSACCO 3, 4 Agatino REITANO 3, 5 Rita CATANZARITI 6 Mark BOSSELAERS 7 Marco MONTES 8 Giovanni BIANUCCI 1, 9 Abstract: We report on three shells of whale barnacle (Cirripedia: Coronulidae) collected from Pleisto- cene shallow-marine deposits exposed at Cinisi (northwestern Sicily, southern Italy). These specimens are identified as belonging to the extinct species Coronula bifida BRONN, 1831. Calcareous nannoplank- ton analysis of the sediment hosting the coronulid remains places the time of deposition between 1.93 and 1.71 Ma (i.e., at the Gelasian-Calabrian transition), an interval during which another deposit rich in whale barnacles exposed in southeastern Apulia (southern Italy) formed. Since Coronula LAMARCK, 1802, is currently found inhabiting the skin of humpback whales [Cetacea: Balaenopteridae: Megapte- ra novaeangliae (BOROWSKI, 1781)], and considering that the detachment of extant coronulids from their hosts' skin has been mainly observed in occurrence of cetacean breeding/calving areas, the material here studied supports the existence of a baleen whale migration route between the central Mediterranean Sea (the putative reproductive ground) and the North Atlantic (the putative feeding ground) around 1.8 Ma, when several portions of present-day southern Italy were still submerged. The early Pleistocene utilization of the epeiric seas of southern Italy as breeding/calving areas by migrating mysticetes appears to be linked to the severe climatic degradation that has been recognized at the Gelasian-Calabrian transition and that is marked in the fossil record of the Mediterranean Basin by the appearance of "northern guests" such as Arctica islandica (LINNAEUS, 1767) (Bivalvia: Veneroida).
    [Show full text]
  • 06 Kane FB106(4)
    Prevalence of the commensal barnacle Xenobalanus globicipitis on cetacean species in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, and a review of global occurrence Item Type article Authors Kane, Emily A.; Olson, Paula A.; Gerrodette, Tim; Fiedler, Paul C. Download date 24/09/2021 07:02:11 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/1834/25470 395 Abstract—Distribution and preva- Prevalence of the commensal barnacle lence of the phoretic barnacle Xenobal- anus on cetacean species are reported Xenobalanus globicipitis on cetacean species for 22 cetaceans in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (21 million km2). Four in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, cetacean species are newly reported and a review of global occurrence hosts for Xenobalanus: Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera edeni), long-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus capen- Emily A. Kane (contact author)1, 2 sis), humpback whale (Megaptera Paula A. Olson 2 novaeangliae), and spinner dolphin 2 (Stenella longirostris). Sightings of Tim Gerrodette Xenobalanus in pelagic waters are Paul C. Fiedler2 reported for the first time, and con- Email address for E. A. Kane: [email protected] centrations were located within three productive zones: near the Baja Cali- 1 Southampton College fornia peninsula, the Costa Rica Dome 239 Montauk Highway and waters extending west along the Southampton, New York 11968 10°N Thermocline Ridge, and near 2 National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA Peru and the Galapagos Archipelago. Southwest Fisheries Science Center Greatest prevalence was observed on 8604 La Jolla Shores Dr. blue whales (Balaenoptera musculus) La Jolla, California 92037 indicating that slow swim speeds are Present address for contact author (E. A.
    [Show full text]
  • Living on the Edge: Settlement Patterns by the Symbiotic Barnacle Xenobalanus Globicipitis on Small Cetaceans Juan M
    The University of Southern Mississippi The Aquila Digital Community Faculty Publications 6-17-2015 Living on the Edge: Settlement Patterns by the Symbiotic Barnacle Xenobalanus globicipitis on Small Cetaceans Juan M. Carillo Robin M. Overstreet Juan A. Raga Francisco J. Aznar Follow this and additional works at: https://aquila.usm.edu/fac_pubs Part of the Marine Biology Commons RESEARCH ARTICLE Living on the Edge: Settlement Patterns by the Symbiotic Barnacle Xenobalanus globicipitis on Small Cetaceans Juan M. Carrillo1☯, Robin M. Overstreet1‡, Juan A. Raga2‡, Francisco J. Aznar2☯* 1 Department of Coastal Sciences, University of Southern Mississippi, Ocean Springs, Mississippi, United States of America, 2 Cavanilles Institute of Biodiversity and Evolutionary Biology, Science Park, University of Valencia, Paterna, Valencia, Spain a11111 ☯ These authors contributed equally to this work. ‡ These authors also contributed equally to this work. * [email protected] Abstract OPEN ACCESS The highly specialized coronulid barnacle Xenobalanus globicipitis attaches exclusively on Citation: Carrillo JM, Overstreet RM, Raga JA, Aznar cetaceans worldwide, but little is known about the factors that drive the microhabitat pat- FJ (2015) Living on the Edge: Settlement Patterns by terns on its hosts. We investigate this issue based on data on occurrence, abundance, dis- the Symbiotic Barnacle Xenobalanus globicipitis on tribution, orientation, and size of X. globicipitis collected from 242 striped dolphins (Stenella Small Cetaceans. PLoS ONE 10(6): e0127367. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0127367 coeruleoalba) that were stranded along the Mediterranean coast of Spain. Barnacles exclu- sively infested the fins, particularly along the trailing edge. Occurrence, abundance, and Academic Editor: Daniel Rittschof, Duke University Marine Laboratory, UNITED STATES density of X.
    [Show full text]
  • San Diego Natural History Museum Whalers Museum Whalers Handbook Jmorris
    San Diego Natural History Museum Whalers Museum Whalers Handbook jmorris Revised 2016 by Uli Burgin This page intentionally blank SECTION 1: VOLUNTEER BASICS 1 SECTION 2: MARINE MAMMALS AND THEIR ADAPTATIONS 5 SECTION 3: INTRODUCTION TO CETACEANS 10 INTRODUCTION TO THE GRAY WHALE 15 SECTION 5: RORQUALS 23 SECTION 6: ODONTOCETES (TOOTHED WHALES) 31 SECTION 7: PINNIPEDS—SEA LIONS AND SEALS 41 SECTION 8: OTHER MARINE LIFE YOU MAY SEE 45 SECTION 9: BIRDING ON THE HORNBLOWER 49 SECTION 10: SAN DIEGO BAY 55 SECTION 11: DOING THE PRESENTATION 63 SECTION 12: FACTS YOU SHOULD KNOW 69 SECTION 13: VOLGISTICS AND SIGHTINGS LOG 75 SECTION 14: ON BOARD THE HORNBLOWER, CRUISE INFO AND MORE 79 SECTION 15: REFERENCES 83 This page intentionally blank Section 1: Volunteer Basics Welcome! We are pleased to have you as a volunteer Museum Whaler for the San Diego Natural History Museum. As a Museum Whaler you are carrying on a long tradition of whale watching here in southern California. Our first trips were offered to the public in 1957. These trips were led by pioneer whale watching naturalist Ray Gilmore, an employee of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and a research associate of the San Diego Natural History Museum. Ray’s whale-watching trips became well known over the years and integrated science and education with a lot of fun. We are sure that Ray would be very pleased with the San Diego Natural History Museum’s continued involvement in offering fun and educational whale watching experiences to the public through our connection with Hornblower Cruises and Events.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Killer Whale Status Report
    DRAFT Washington State Status Report for the Killer Whale Prepared by Gary J. Wiles Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Wildlife Program 600 Capitol Way North Olympia, WA 98501-1091 November 2003 Nov ’03 i Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife This is the Draft Status Report for the Killer Whale. Submit written comments on this report and the reclassification proposal by February 3, 2004 to: Harriet Allen, Wildlife Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington 98501-1091. The Department intends to present the results of this status review to the Fish and Wildlife Commission for action at the April 9-10, 2004 meeting in Spokane, Washington. This report should be cited as: Wiles, G. J. 2003. Draft Washington state status report for the killer whale. Washington Department Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 117 pp. Cover illustration by Darrell Pruett Nov ’03 ii Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................VII LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................VIII ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................IX EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................X INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Proceedings Book
    2017 30TH PROCEEDINGS OF NAVDF April 26-29, 2017 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 2 (orfenicol, terbinane, mometasone furoate) Otic Solution Antibacterial, antifungal, and anti-inammatory For Otic Use in Dogs Only The following information is a summary of the complete product information and is not comprehensive. Please refer to the approved product label for complete product information prior to use. CAUTION: Federal (U.S.A.) law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian. PRODUCT DESCRIPTION: CLARO® contains 16.6 mg/mL orfenicol, 14.8 mg/mL terbinane (equivalent to 16.6 mg/mL terbinane hydrochloride) and 2.2 mg/mL mometasone furoate. Inactive ingredients include puried water, propylene carbonate, propylene glycol, ethyl alcohol, and polyethylene glycol. INDICATIONS: CLARO® is indicated for the treatment of otitis externa in dogs associated with susceptible strains of yeast (Malassezia pachydermatis) and bacteria (Staphylococcus pseudintermedius). DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION: CLARO® should be administered by veterinary personnel. Administration is one dose (1 dropperette) per aected ear. The duration of eect should last 30 days. Clean and dry the external ear canal before administering the product. Verify the tympanic membrane is intact prior to administration. Cleaning the ear after dosing may aect product eectiveness. Refer to product label for complete directions for use. CONTRAINDICATIONS: Do not use in dogs with known tympanic membrane perforation (see PRECAUTIONS). CLARO® is contraindicated in dogs with known or suspected hypersensitivity to orfenicol, terbinane hydrochloride, or mometasone furoate, the inactive ingredients listed above, or similar drugs, or any ingredient in these medicines. WARNINGS: Human Warnings: Not for use in humans.
    [Show full text]
  • A Synopsis of the Literature on the Turtle Barnacles (Cirripedia: Balanomorpha: Coronuloidea) 1758-2007
    EPIBIONT RESEARCH COOPERATIVE SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 1 (ERC-SP1) A SYNOPSIS OF THE LITERATURE ON THE TURTLE BARNACLES (CIRRIPEDIA: BALANOMORPHA: CORONULOIDEA) 1758-2007 COMPILED BY: THE EPIBIONT RESEARCH COOPERATIVE ©2007 CURRENT MEMBERS OF THE EPIBIONT RESEARCH COOPERATIVE ARNOLD ROSS (founder)† GEORGE H. BALAZS Scripps Institution of Oceanography NOAA, NMFS Marine Biology Research Division Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center LaJolla, California 92093-0202 USA 2570 Dole Street †deceased Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 USA [email protected] MICHAEL G. FRICK Assistant Director/Research Coordinator THEODORA PINOU Caretta Research Project Assistant Professor 9 Sandy Creek Court Secondary Science Education Savannah, Georgia 31406 USA Coordinator [email protected] Department of Biological & 912 308-8072 Environmental Sciences Western Connecticut State University JOHN D. ZARDUS 181 White Street Assistant Professor Danbury, Connecticut 06810 USA The Citadel [email protected] Department of Biology 203 837-8793 171 Moultrie Street Charleston, South Carolina 29407 USA ERIC A. LAZO-WASEM [email protected] Division of Invertebrate Zoology 843 953-7511 Peabody Museum of Natural History Yale University JOSEPH B. PFALLER P.O. Box 208118 Florida State University New Haven, Connecticut 06520 USA Department of Biological Sciences [email protected] Conradi Building Tallahassee, Florida 32306 USA CHRIS LENER [email protected] Lower School Science Specialist 850 644-6214 Wooster School 91 Miry Brook Road LUCIANA ALONSO Danbury, Connecticut 06810 USA Universidad de Buenos Aires/Karumbé [email protected] H. Quintana 3502 203 830-3996 Olivos, Buenos Aires 1636 Argentina [email protected] KRISTINA L. WILLIAMS 0054-11-4790-1113 Director Caretta Research Project P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Gray Whale Eschrichtius Robustus
    Marine Mammal Encyclopedia 3rd Edition Published by Academic Press, Inc. MAY 2016 Gray Whale Eschrichtius robustus STEVEN L. SWARTZ and MARY LOU JONES Laguna San Ignacio Ecosystem Science Program, Darnestown, Maryland, USA Keywords: morphology, taxonomy, distribution, abundance, ecology, behavior, physiology, life history, bycatch, whaling, entanglement, conservation status I. Characteristics and Taxonomy The gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus, Lilljeborg 1861) is the only living species in the family Eschrichtiidae (Ellerman and Morrison-Scott, 1951) (= Rhachianectidae; Weber, 1904). The genus name honors Danish zoologist Daniel Eschricht; robustus means strong or oaken in Latin. The behavioral ecology of the gray whale is unique among mysticetes: it is the most coastal; makes the longest migration; calves near and in warm bays, lagoons, and coastal areas; and is an intermittent suction feeder (unique in cetaceans) that regularly forages on benthos (organisms living within, at, or near to the sea floor), but may also feed opportunistically on plankton and nekton by gulping and skimming. Molecular and morphological evidence suggests a close phylogenetic relationship with rorquals (Family Balaenopteridae), and the gray whale is included in the Super Family Balaenopteroidea (Balaenopteridae + Eschrichtiidae; Demere et al. 2005). Although currently restricted to the North Pacific, gray whale subfossils are found on both sides of the North Atlantic where they inhabited coastal waters in historical times until their expiration in the 17th Century (Mead and Mitchell 1984). Fossil remains of Eschrichtius are known from the late Pleistocene off Georgia, USA (~42-30 ka; Noakes et al. 2013), the middle Pleistocene of southern California, USA (~300-200 ka; Barnes and 1 McLeod 1984), and from the late Pliocene or early Pleistocene of Hokkaido, Japan (Eschrichtius sp., ~3.9-2.6 Ma; Ichishima et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Duration of Pseudo-Stalked Barnacles (Xenobalanus Globicipi- Tis)
    Biodiversity Journal, 2020,11 (4): 1067–1086 https://doi.org/10.31396/Biodiv.Jour.2020.11.4.1067.1086 Duration of pseudo-stalked barnacles (Xenobalanus globicipi- tis) on a New Zealand Pelagic ecotype orca (Orcinus orca), with comments on cookie cutter shark bite marks (Isistius sp.); can they be used as biological tags? Ingrid N. Visser1,2*, Tracy E. Cooper1,3 & Heiko Grimm1,4 1Orca Research Trust, Tutukaka, New Zealand 2https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8613-6598 3https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6713-0502 4https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8205-7411 *Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT This is the first published report of a New Zealand Pelagic ecotype orca (Orcinus orca Lin- naeus, 1758, killer whale, Mammalia Cetacea) as a host for the pseudo-stalked barnacle (Xenobalanus globicipitis Steenstrup, 1852, Crustacea Coronulidae). The barnacles were doc- umented on an adult female and she hosted >79, >3.5 times higher than any other orca world- wide. They were distributed on her dorsal fin (n=3), pectoral fins (n=>36) and tail flukes (n=>40), with a higher density on her right appendages (n=>48) compared to her left (n=>28). We also document, for the first time, the longevity of X. globicipitis hosted on an orca, with a minimum duration of 36 days. We provide a global overview of the distribution of X. glo- bicipitis on orca, based on historic and recent publications. In previous reviews (spanning 111 years of records) X. globicipitis were documented in ten regions, while we add ten more regions, in just 13 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Eastern Africa) Sheds Light on the Evolution of Shell Architecture in Turtle and Whale Barnacles (Cirripedia: Coronuloidea)
    Integrative Zoology 2021; 0: 1–20 doi: 10.1111/1749-4877.12554 ORIGINAL ARTICLE A new chelonibiid from the Miocene of Zanzibar (Eastern Africa) sheds light on the evolution of shell architecture in turtle and whale barnacles (Cirripedia: Coronuloidea) Alberto COLLARETA,1,2 William A. NEWMAN,3† Giulia BOSIO4 and Giovanni COLETTI4 1Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, Università di Pisa, Pisa, Italy, 2Museo di Storia Naturale, Università di Pisa, Calci, Italy, 3MBRD, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California, USA and 4Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Ambiente e della Terra, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, Milano, Italy Abstract The fossil history of turtle and whale barnacles (Coronuloidea: Chelonibiidae, Platylepadidae, Coronulidae and †Emersoniidae) is fragmentary and has only been investigated in part. Morphological inferences and molecular phylogenetic analyses on extant specimens suggest that the roots of whale barnacles (Coronulidae) are to be found among the chelonibiid turtle barnacles, but the hard-part modifications that enabled early coronuloids to attach to the cetacean skin are still largely to be perceived. Here, we reappraise a fossil chelonibiid specimen from the Miocene of insular Tanzania that was previously referred to the living species Chelonibia caretta. This largely forgotten specimen is here described as the holotype of the new species †Chelonibia zanzibarensis. While similar to C. caretta, †C. zanzibarensis exhibits obvious external longitudinal parietal canals occurring in-between external longitudinal parietal septa that abut outwards to form T-shaped flanges, a character so far regarded as proper of the seemingly more derived Coronulidae and Platylepadidae. Along with these features, the presence of a substrate imprint on the shell exterior indicates that †C.
    [Show full text]