As the sun set on February 16th, the R/V Star Keys pulled into Wellington Harbour, marking the end of the 2025 SAPPHIRE field season. The crew and science team returned to shore after a packed, productive, and successful three weeks at sea studying the impacts of environmental change on blue whales and krill in the South Taranaki Bight, Aotearoa New Zealand.
A blue whale comes up for air in the South Taranaki Bight.
In stark contrast to the 2024 field season, which featured dense and seemingly endless layers of gelatinous salps in the water and no krill or blue whales in the South Taranaki Bight, the 2025 field season was filled with blue whales and krill. In our three weeks aboard our research vessel Star Keys this year, we observed 66 blue whales, most of which were lunge feeding at the surface on dense patches of krill. We also collected krill for on-board respiration experiments and to be frozen to measure their lengths, weights, and caloric content. We recovered two hydrophones that recorded blue whale calls for the past year, and replaced them with two more. We collected identification photos, skin and blubber tissue samples for genetic and hormone analysis, and flew drones over almost all whales we encountered to measure body condition and morphology. We conducted water column profiles to measure the oceanography of the region, and mapped the prey field as we surveyed using a scientific echosounder.
Map of our survey effort (gray tracklines), blue whale sightings (red circles), and hydrophone locations (purple stars).
Around the world, we are currently bearing witness to environmental change. Our survey last year in 2024 was a reminder of the challenges these blue whales face to survive and thrive in an increasingly unpredictable ocean. This year was a poignant example of the vibrant marine life that exists here in the South Taranaki Bight when ocean conditions align more closely with what is expected, and of the incredible resilience of these animals as they navigate changing waters. These contrasting conditions over multiple years are key to our understanding as we study the impacts of climate change on krill and blue whales through the SAPPHIRE project.
Drone image of a blue whale coming to the surface.
The fieldwork we do to collect these data is motivated by scientific questions, management needs, and fascination with this ecosystem. But ultimately, what makes fieldwork possible and memorable is the people. We are deeply grateful for the many partners on the SAPPHIRE project. The 2025 science team was made up of Leigh Torres, Dawn Barlow, KC Bierlich, Kim Bernard (Oregon State University), Mike Ogle, and Ros Cole (Department of Conservation). The outstanding crew of the R/V Star Keys (Western Work Boats), Josh Fowden, Dave Futter, and Jordy Maiden-Drum, kept us safe, sailing, fed, and happy for three intense weeks. We are also grateful for our shore support, including our colleagues at Cornell University’s Yang Center for Conservation Bioacoustics, NIWA, the Marine Mammal Institute at Oregon State University, and the University of Auckland. Importantly, we deeply appreciate our many stakeholders who help us share, learn, and make our findings meaningful, including the Department of Conservation, the people of Aotearoa, and iwi across our study region, especially Ngāruahine who hosted us at the Rangatapu Marae for a profound hui with a powerful pōwhiri and critical wānanga of knowledge sharing.
Drone image of a blue whale mom and calf pair.
Now the next phase of the work begins. We have many terabytes of data to process, analyze, interpret, and share. We will certainly have our hands full. But while we are at our computers back in Oregon, we will be holding the memories of this field season close: The brilliant turquoise glow of a blue whale just below the surface, the sound of the deep exhalation as the whale comes up for air, and the awe of looking into a blue whale’s eye as it engulfs a dense swarm of krill; The golden sunset lighting and moon rise over Cape Farewell, and Mount Taranaki towering over the blue waters of the South Taranaki Bight; The giddy exclamations or silent awe of those of us privileged to spend time in these waters observing these animals, and the visions that linger just behind our eyelids as we fell into an exhausted sleep. We will see what the next year holds for the SAPPHIRE team and the blue whales and krill of the South Taranaki Bight.
Did you enjoy this blog? Want to learn more about marine life, research, and conservation? Subscribe to our blog and get a weekly alert when we make a new post! Just add your name into the subscribe box below!
By Rachel Kaplan, PhD candidate, Oregon State University College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences and Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Sciences, Geospatial Ecology of Marine Megafauna Lab
What does a whale look for at mealtime? Is it a lot of food, its quality, or the type of food? An improved understanding of what makes krill swarms, an important prey item, appetizing for humpback whales can help us anticipate where and when we will see them in our ocean backyard, the Northern California Current (NCC) foraging grounds. In a new paper, we found that humpback whale presence in the NCC is tied to several different metrics of krill swarm quality and quantity, particularly species composition (what types of krill are in the swarm), energetic density (the caloric richness of the average mouthful), and biomass (how much krill is in the swarm). Interestingly, relationships between humpback whales and these krill swarm quality metrics are variable in time and space, dependent on whether the whale is foraging on or off the continental shelf and if it is early or late in the foraging season.
This study required a special, fine-scale dataset of simultaneous observations of krill and whales at sea. While GEMM Lab members conducted marine mammal surveys, we simultaneously observed the prey that whales had access to, using active acoustics (essentially a fancy fish finder) to profile the water column and net tows to collect krill. When we put all these data streams together, we found that increases in biomass, energetic density, and the amount of a particular species, Thysanoessa spinifera, in a krill swarm were positively related to humpback whale presence. These results suggest that humpback whales balance multiple prey quality factors to select feeding areas that offer both plentiful and high-quality krill.
Figure 1. Top photo: Marine mammal observers Clara Bird (left) and Dawn Barlow (right) collect humpback whale distribution data. Bottom photo: At the same time, Talia Davis (left) and Rachel Kaplan (right) collect krill samples.
Species composition
Euphausia pacifica and T. spinifera are the two most common krill species in the NCC region, and other research has shown that many krill foragers, including blue whales, seabirds, and fish, preferentially consume T. spinifera. Although this pickiness is well-warranted – individual T. spinifera tend to be larger than E. pacifica and much higher in calories during the late foraging season – targeting this juicy prey item could place humpback whales in competition with these other species, which may make it harder for them to find a square meal. Nevertheless, we found positive relationships between the proportion of T. spinifera in a krill swarm and humpback whale presence, suggesting humpback whales do in fact preferentially prey upon T. spinifera, particularly during the late foraging season (about July-November).
Energetic density
Humpback whales’ preference for T. spinifera during the late foraging season may be due to its higher caloric content. Although the two krill species offer a similar number of calories early in the foraging season,we found that the energetic density of T. spinifera was elevated during the late foraging season, after productive upwelling conditions have revved up the food web over several months. Krill swarm energetic density had a positive effect on humpback whale occurrence, particularly in the late season when T. spinifera and E. pacifica have significantly different caloric contents. Interestingly, this positive relationship was not present onshore during the early season, when the two krill species have similar caloric contents.
Figure 2. In terms of caloric content, Thysanoessa spinifera krill like this one are the winners in the NCC region! They pack on the milligrams through the productive summer season, making them advantageous prey for hungry whales.
Humpback whales also target forage fish on the continental shelf that have higher energetic densities than krill, indicating that whales may selectively forage on fish – even though it is more energetically expensive to capture them. Variation in seasonal and spatial relationships with krill swarm energetic density may explain why humpback whales prey-switch, selecting prey based on availability and quality. As flexible foragers, humpback whales can consistently target higher-quality swarms that offer more energy per lunge.
Biomass
Biomass, or the total amount of krill in a swarm, was the single best predictor of humpback whale presence that we tested. This result emphasizes the importance of large krill swarms in explaining where humpback whales forage. We found that krill swarm biomass tended to be higher offshore, where swarms were also located deeper in the water column. During the late season offshore, krill quality (elevated due to higher late season caloric contents) together with quantity (higher offshore biomass) may make these offshore swarms the most favorable for foraging whales, despite being deeper.
Figure 3. When humpback whales “fluke,” as seen in this picture, it may indicate the beginning of a foraging dive to capture prey.
Future food webs
Environmental conditions are changing in the NCC, with events like marine heatwaves and strong El Niño events shifting food webs. E. pacifica and T. spinifera may respond to climate change differently based on their life history strategies. Distributional shifts, such as the disappearance of T. spinifera from the NCC during the 2014–2015 “Blob” marine heatwave that transformed the northeast Pacific Ocean, could diminish or entirely remove this key prey item. As a result of such climate and environmental changes, humpback whales may encounter lower quality prey and/or shifts in prey distribution that could make it harder for them to find a meal. In changing oceans, better understanding krill prey quality for humpback whales will shape improved tools for conservation management.
References
Chenoweth, E., Boswell, K., Friedlaender, A., McPhee, M., Burrows, J., Heintz, R., and Straley, J. 2021. Confronting assumptions about prey selection by lunge‐feeding whales using a process‐based model. Funct. Ecol., 35.
Croll, D., Marinovic, B., Benson, S., Chavez, F., Black, N., Ternullo, R., and Tershy, B. 2005. From wind to whales: trophic links in a coastal upwelling system. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 289: 117–130.
Derville, S., Buell, T. V., Corbett, K. C., Hayslip, C., and Torres, L. G. 2023. Exposure of whales to entanglement risk in Dungeness crab fishing gear in Oregon, USA, reveals distinctive spatio-temporal and climatic patterns. Biol. Conserv., 281: 109989.
Fiedler, P. C., Reilly, S. B., Hewitt, R. P., Demer, D., Philbrick, V. A., Smith, S., Armstrong, W., et al. 1998. Blue whale habitat and prey in the California Channel Islands. Deep Sea Res. Part II, 45: 1781–1801.
Fisher, J. L., Menkel, J., Copeman, L., Shaw, C. T., Feinberg, L. R., and Peterson, W. T. 2020. Comparison of condition metrics and lipid content between Euphausia pacifica and Thysanoessa spinifera in the northern California Current, USA. Prog. Oceanogr., 188.
Murdoch, W. W. 1969. Switching in General Predators: Experiments on Predator Specificity and Stability of Prey Populations. Ecol. Monog., 39: 335–354.
Nickels, C. F., Sala, L. M., and Ohman, M. D. 2018. The morphology of euphausiid mandibles used to assess selective predation by blue whales in the southern sector of the California Current System. J. Crustacean Biol., 38: 563–573.
Price, S. E., Savoca, M. S., Kumar, M., Czapanskiy, M. F., McDermott, D., Litvin, S. Y., Cade, D. E., et al. 2024. Energy densities of key prey species in the California Current Ecosystem. Front. Mar. Sci., 10: 1345525.
Robertson, R. R., and Bjorkstedt, E. P. 2020. Climate-driven variability in Euphausia pacifica size distributions off northern California. Prog. Oceanogr., 188.
Santora, J. A., Mantua, N. J., Schroeder, I. D., Field, J. C., Hazen, E. L., Bograd, S. J., Sydeman, W. J., et al. 2020. Habitat compression and ecosystem shifts as potential links between marine heatwave and record whale entanglements. Nat Commun, 11: 536.
Spitz, J., Trites, A. W., Becquet, V., Brind’Amour, A., Cherel, Y., Galois, R., and Ridoux, V. 2012. Cost of Living Dictates what Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises Eat: The Importance of Prey Quality on Predator Foraging Strategies. PLoS ONE, 7: e50096.
Tanasichuk, R. 1998a. Interannual variations in the population biology and productivity of Thysanoessa spinifera in Barkley Sound, Canada, with special reference to the 1992 and 1993 warm ocean years. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., 173: 181–195.
Videsen, S. K. A., Simon, M., Christiansen, F., Friedlaender, A., Goldbogen, J., Malte, H., Segre, P., et al. 2023. Cheap gulp foraging of a giga-predator enables efficient exploitation of sparse prey. Sci. Adv., 9: eade3889.
Weber, E. D., Auth, T. D., Baumann-Pickering, S., Baumgartner, T. R., Bjorkstedt, E. P., Bograd, S. J., Burke, B. J., et al. 2021. State of the California Current 2019–2020: Back to the Future With Marine Heatwaves? Front. Mar. Sci., 8.
