Geospatial Ecology of Marine Megafauna Laboratory

Migrating south to another foraging ground

By Rachel Kaplan, PhD student, OSU College of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences and Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, & Conservation Sciences, Geospatial Ecology of Marine Megafauna Lab

Krill, a shrimplike crustacean found across our oceans, embodies the term “small but mighty”. Though individuals tend to be small, sometimes weighing in at less than a gram, the numerous species of krill have a global distribution and are estimated to collectively outweigh the entire human population. Much of my graduate research focuses on relationships between foraging whales and krill (Euphausia pacifica and Thysanoessa spinifera) in the Northern California Current (NCC) region. This work hinges on themes that are universal across environments: just as krill are ubiquitous across the global ocean, questions of prey quality, distribution, and ecological relationships with predators are universal.

Next week, I’m headed south to consider these questions in a very different foraging environment: the Western Antarctic Peninsula (WAP). One benefit of being a co-advised student is the incredible opportunity to be exposed to diverse projects and types of research. My graduate co-advisor, Kim Bernard, has studied krill in the WAP region for over a decade, and she is currently leading research into the implications of the shifting polar food web for Antarctic krill (Euphasia superba). Through a series of laboratory experiments and fieldwork, the project, titled “The Omnivore’s Dilemma: The effect of autumn diet on winter physiology and condition of juvenile Antarctic krill”, investigates the impact of climate-driven changes in diet on the health of juvenile krill in autumn and winter, a key time for their survival and recruitment. Winter is a poorly studied season in Antarctica, and this project has already shed light on the physiology, respiration, and growth potential of juvenile krill (Bernard et al., 2022).

**Figure 1:** Antarctic krill are much bigger than those found in the NCC region – they can be as long as your thumb! (Source: Australian Antarctic Program)

Just as in the NCC region, krill are an essential link in Southern Ocean food webs, where they transfer energy from their microscopic prey to the higher trophic levels that eat them, including several species of fish, seals, penguins, and whales (Bernard & Steinberg, 2013; Cavan et al., 2019; Ducklow et al., 2013). These predators depend upon this high-quality prey to fuel their seasonal migrations and to build the energy reserves they need to survive the frigid Antarctic winter (Cade et al., 2022; Schaafsma et al., 2018). But, the quality of krill depends upon the food that it can consume itself, and climate change may alter their diet.

There’s a lot to love about krill, but my fascination with them is directly tied to their value as a food source for predators. I want to know how the caloric content of individuals and the aggregations they form changes spatially along the WAP, and how this might shift under climate-forced food web changes. This work will clarify the climate-driven variability in the quality of krill as prey, and the implications this might have for top predators in the region.

**Figure 2:** The upcoming field season will involve sampling krill along a latitudinal gradient in the WAP region, spanning approximately from the Gerlache Strait in the north to Marguerite Bay in the south (Bernard et al., 2022).

In order to investigate these questions, I’ll be spending the next six months based out of Palmer Station, the smallest of the United States’ research bases in Antarctica, along with Kim and our undergraduate intern Abby. During this upcoming field season, we’ll spend about a month at sea collecting krill samples and active acoustic data using an echosounder, and the rest of the time conducting experiments and sampling in the nearshore. Over the last year, Abby has worked with me to quantify krill caloric content in the NCC, as well as processing samples collected in Antarctica last year. I’m so impressed by everything she’s accomplished, and excited to see her take in this environment, learn a fresh set of experimental and field sampling approaches, and be inspired to ask new questions.

**Figure 3:** Abby preparing NCC krill samples for caloric analysis (Kim Kenny/OSU CEOAS).

For me, heading south will be a bit like coming home. After graduating from college, I spent about nine months living at Palmer Station and working on the microbial ecology component of the long-term ecological research station there. The experience of being immersed in the WAP environment was foundational to my curiosity about ocean ecology and the impacts of climate change. It is also where I met Kim! All in all, this environment fueled my desire to study krill with Kim and spatial ecology with Leigh, and set me on the course I’m on today.

It also feels meaningful to return here again at this point in my educational journey. With new knowledge and questions I have formed while working in the NCC, I am now excited to apply this knowledge and consider similar questions in the WAP. Abby and I will write blogs through the season and post them here, so stay tuned for news from down south!

**Figure 4:** Kim and I (the two farthest right in the front row) prepare for a group costumed polar plunge in 2015. Will we do it again? We’ll keep you posted!

References

Bernard, K. S., & Steinberg, D. K. (2013). Krill biomass and aggregation structure in relation to tidal cycle in a penguin foraging region off the Western Antarctic Peninsula. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 70(4), 834–849. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fst088

Bernard, K. S., Steinke, K. B., & Fontana, J. M. (2022). Winter condition, physiology, and growth potential of juvenile Antarctic krill. Frontiers in Marine Science, 9, 990853. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.990853

Cade, D. E., Kahane-Rapport, S. R., Wallis, B., Goldbogen, J. A., & Friedlaender, A. S. (2022). Evidence for Size-Selective Predation by Antarctic Humpback Whales. Frontiers in Marine Science, 9, 747788. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.747788

Cavan, E. L., Belcher, A., Atkinson, A., Hill, S. L., Kawaguchi, S., McCormack, S., Meyer, B., Nicol, S., Ratnarajah, L., Schmidt, K., Steinberg, D. K., Tarling, G. A., & Boyd, P. W. (2019). The importance of Antarctic krill in biogeochemical cycles. Nat Commun, 10(1), 4742. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12668-7

Ducklow, H., Fraser, W., Meredith, M., Stammerjohn, S., Doney, S., Martinson, D., Sailley, S., Schofield, O., Steinberg, D., Venables, H., & Amsler, C. (2013). West Antarctic Peninsula: An Ice-Dependent Coastal Marine Ecosystem in Transition. Oceanography, 26(3), 190–203. https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2013.62

Schaafsma, F. L., Cherel, Y., Flores, H., van Franeker, J. A., Lea, M.-A., Raymond, B., & van de Putte, A. P. (2018). Review: The energetic value of zooplankton and nekton species of the Southern Ocean. Marine Biology, 165(8), 129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-018-3386-z

SST, EKE, SSH: Wading Through the Alphabet Soup of Oceanographic Parameters related to Deep-Dwelling Odontocetes

By: Marissa Garcia, PhD Student, Cornell University, Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, K. Lisa Yang Center for Conservation Bioacoustics

Predator-Prey Inference: A Tale as Old as Time

It’s a tale as old as time: where there’s prey, there’ll be predators.

As apex predators, cetaceans act as top-down regulators of ecosystem function. While baleen whales act as “ecosystem engineers,” facilitating nutrient cycling in the ocean (Roman et al., 2014), toothed whales, or “odontocetes,” can impart keystone-level effects — that is, they disproportionately control the marine community’s food-web structure (Valls, Coll, & Christensen, 2015). The menus of prey vary widely by species — ranging from mircronekton to fish to squid – and by extension, vary widely across trophic levels.

So, it naturally follows the old adage: where there’s an abundance of prey, there’ll be an abundance of cetaceans. Yet, creating models that accurately depict this predator-prey relationship is, perhaps unsurprisingly, not as straightforward.

Detecting the ‘Predator’ Half of the Equation

Scientists have successfully documented cetacean presence drawing upon a myriad of methods, each bearing its unique advantages and limitations.

Visual surveys — spanning viewpoints from land, boats, and air — can attain precise spatial data and species ID. However, this data can be constrained by “availability bias” — that is, scientists can only observe cetaceans visible at the surface, not those obscured by the ocean’s depths. Species that spend less time near the surface are more likely to elude the observer’s line of sight, thereby being missed in the data. Consequently, visual surveys have historically undersampled deep-diving species. For instance, since its discovery by western science in 1945, the Hubb’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon carlshubbi) has only been observed alive twice by OSU MMI’s very own Bob Pitman, once in 1994 and another time in 2021.

Scientists have also been increasingly conducting acoustic surveys to document cetacean presence. Acoustic recorders can “hear” each cetacean species at different ranges. Baleen whales, which bellow low-frequency calls, can be heard as far as across ocean basins (Munk et al., 1994). Toothed whales whistle, echolocate, and buzz at frequencies so high they’re considered ultrasonic. But it comes at a trade-off: high-frequency sounds have shorter wavelengths, meaning they are heard across smaller ranges. This high variability, which scientists refer to as “detection range,” translates to not always knowing where the vocalizing cetacean that was recorded is: as such, acoustic data can lack the high-resolution spatial precision often achieved by visual surveys. Nevertheless, acoustic data triumphs in temporal extent, sometimes managing to record continuously at six months at a time. Additionally, animals can elude visual detection in poor weather conditions or if they have a cryptic surface expression, but detected in acoustic surveys (e.g., North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) (Ganley, Brault, & Mayo, 2019; Clark et. al, 2010). Thus, acoustic surveys may be especially optimal for recording elusive deep-dwellers that occupy the often rough Oregon waters, such as beaked whales, the focus of my research in collaboration with the GEMM Lab.

**Figure 1:** HALO Project researchers Marissa Garcia (left; Yang Center via Cornell) and Imogen Lucciano (right; OSU MMI) among three Rockhopper acoustic recording units, ahead of deployment off the Oregon coast. Credit: Marissa Garcia.

Detecting the ‘Prey’ Half of the Equation

Prey can be measured by numerous methods. Most directly, prey can be measured “in-situ” — that is, prey is collected directly from the site where the cetaceans are detected or observed. A 2020 study combined fish trawls with a towed hydrophone array to identify which fish species odontocetes along the continental shelf of West Ireland (e.g., pilot whales, sperm whales, and Sowerby’s beaked whales) were feasting; the results found that odontocetes primarily fed upon mesopelagic fish and cephalopods (Breen et al., 2020). While trawls can glean species ID of prey, associating this prey data with depth and biomass can prove challenging.

Alternatively, prey can be detected via active acoustics. Echosounders release an acoustic signal that descends through the water column and then echoes back once it hits a sound-scattering organism. Beaked whales forage within deep scattering layers typically composed of myctophid fish and squid, both of which can echo back echosounder pings (Hazen et al., 2011). Thus, echosounder data can map prey density through the water column. When mapping prey density of beaked whales, Hazen et al. 2011 found a strong positive correlation among prey density, ocean vertical structure, and clicks primarily produced while foraging – suggesting beaked whales forage at depth when encountering large, multi-species aggregations of prey.

**Figure 2:** An example of prey mapping via a Simrad EK60 120 kHz split-beam echosounder. Credit: Rachel Kaplan (OSU MMI) *via* the HALO Project.

Most relevant to the HALO Project, prey is measured using proximate indices, which are more easily quantifiable metrics of ocean conditions, such as collected from ships via CTD casts or via satellite imagery, that are indirectly related to prey abundance. CTD data can provide information related to the water column structure, including depth and strength of the thermocline, depth of the mixed layer, depth of the euphotic zone, and total chlorophyll concentration in the euphotic zone (Redfern et al. 2006). Satellite imagery can characterize the dynamic patterns of the surface later, including sea surface temperature (SST), salinity, surface chlorophyll a, sea surface height (SSH), and sea surface currents (Virgili et al., 2022; Redfern et al., 2006). Ocean model data products can, such as the Regional Ocean Modeling System (ROMS) which models how an oceanic region of interest responds to physical processes, can provide water column variables related to eddy kinetic energy (EKE) and average temperature gradients (Virgili et al., 2022). In the case of my research with the HALO Project, we will be using oceanographic data collected through the Ocean Observatories Initiative to inform odontocete species distribution models.

Connecting the Dots: Linking Deep-Dwelling Top Predators and Prey

While scientists have made significant advances with collecting both cetacean and prey data, connecting the dots between the ecology of deep-dwelling odontocetes and the oceanographic parameters indicative of their prey still remains a challenge.

In the absence of in situ sampling, species distribution models of marine top predators often derive proxies for “prey data” from static bathymetric and dynamic surface water variables (Virgili et al., 2022). However, surface variables may be irrelevant to toothed whale prey inhabiting great depths (Virgili et al., 2022). Within the HALO Project, the deepest Rockhopper acoustic recording unit is recording odontocetes at nearly 3,000 m below the surface, putting into question the relevance of oceanographic parameters collected at the surface.

**Figure 3:** Schematic depicting the variation among different zones in the water column. Conditions at the surface may not represent conditions at depth. Credit: Barbara Ambrose, NOAA via NOAA Ocean Explorer.

In my research, I am setting out to estimate which oceanographic variables are optimal for explaining deep-dwelling odontocete presence. A 2022 study using visual survey data found that surface, subsurface, and static variables best explained beaked whale presence, whereas only surface and deep-water variables – not static – best explained sperm whale presence (Virgili et al., 2022). These results are associated with each species’ distinct foraging ecologies; beaked whales may truly only rely on organisms that live near the seabed, whereas sperm whales also feast upon meso-to-bathypelagic organisms, so they may be more sensitive to changes in water column conditions (Virgili et al., 2022). This study expanded the narrative: deep-water variables can also be key to predicting deep-dwelling odontocete presence. The oceanographic variables must be tailored to the ecology of each species of interest.

In the months ahead, I seek to build on this study by investigating which parameters best predict odontocete presence using an acoustic approach instead — I am looking forward to the results to come!

References

Breen, P., Pirotta, E., Allcock, L., Bennison, A., Boisseau, O., Bouch, P., Hearty, A., Jessopp, M., Kavanagh, A., Taite, M., & Rogan, E. (2020). Insights into the habitat of deep diving odontocetes around a canyon system in the northeast Atlantic ocean from a short multidisciplinary survey. Deep-Sea Research. Part I, Oceanographic Research Papers, 159, 103236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2020.103236

Clark, C.W., Brown, M.W., & Corkeron, P. (2010). Visual and acoustic surveys

for North Atlantic right whales, Eubalaena glacialis, in Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts, 2001–2005: Management implications. Marine Mammal Science, 26(4), 837-854.

Ganley, L.C., Brault, S., & Mayo, C.A. (2019). What we see is not what there is: Estimating North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis local abundance. Endangered Species Research, 38, 101-113.

Hazen, E. L., Nowacek, D. P., St Laurent, L., Halpin, P. N., & Moretti, D. J. (2011). The relationship among oceanography, prey fields, and beaked whale foraging habitat in the Tongue of the Ocean. PloS One, 6(4), e19269–e19269.

Munk, W. H., Spindel, R. C., Baggeroer, A., & Birdsall, T. G. (1994). The Heard Island Feasibility Test. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 96(4), 2330–2342. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.410105

Redfern, J. V., Ferguson, M. C., Becker, E. A., Hyrenbach, K. D., Good, C., Barlow, J., Kaschner, K., Baumgartner, M. F., Forney, K. A., Ballance, L. T., Fauchald, P., Halpin, P., Hamazaki, T., Pershing, A. J., Qian, S. S., Read, A., Reilly, S. B., Torres, L., & Werner, F. (2006). Techniques for cetacean–habitat modeling. Marine Ecology. Progress Series (Halstenbek), 310, 271–295.

Roman, J., Estes, J. A., Morissette, L., Smith, C., Costa, D., McCarthy, J., Nation, J., Nicol, S., Pershing, A., & Smetacek, V. (2014). Whales as marine ecosystem engineers. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 12(7), 377–385.

Valls, A., Coll, M., & Christensen, V. (2015). Keystone species: toward an operational concept for marine biodiversity conservation. Ecological Monographs, 85(1), 29–47.

Virgili, A., Teillard, V., Dorémus, G., Dunn, T. E., Laran, S., Lewis, M., Louzao, M., Martínez-Cedeira, J., Pettex, E., Ruiz, L., Saavedra, C., Santos, M. B., Van Canneyt, O., Vázquez Bonales, J. A., & Ridoux, V. (2022). Deep ocean drivers better explain habitat preferences of sperm whales Physeter macrocephalus than beaked whales in the Bay of Biscay. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 9620–9620.

Dealing with uncertainty in ecology and conservation biology

By Dr. Alejandro A. Fernández Ajó, Postdoctoral Scholar, Marine Mammal Institute – OSU Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, & Conservation Sciences, Geospatial Ecology of Marine Megafauna (GEMM) Lab.

Ecological research focuses on understanding how species and ecosystems interact and function, as well as understanding what drives changes in these interactions and functions over time. Thus, ecology is a critical component of conservation biology. Although uncertainty is present in any research, it is a pervasive characteristic of ecology and conservation biology, often due to our inability to control the complexity of natural systems. Uncertainty poses challenges to decision-making, policy development, and effective conservation strategies, and therefore needs to be understood and addressed when conducting ecological studies and conservation efforts.

There are several sources of uncertainty in ecological research and conservation biology. One of the primary sources arises from incomplete or limited data (epistemic uncertainty). Ecological systems are complex, and obtaining comprehensive data on all relevant variables and scales is often challenging or impossible. Data may be lacking or unavailable for certain species, habitats, or regions, which can hinder the ability to fully understand ecological dynamics and make accurate predictions. Additionally, ecological data may be uncertain or variable due to measurement errors (see blog post), sampling biases, or changes in data collection methods over time (Regan et al. 2002). Furthermore, another source of uncertainty arises from language (linguistic uncertainty). Linguistic uncertainty can result from lack of agreement in the terms and definitions used in the scientific vocabulary (see blog post), which can often result in ambiguous, vague, or context dependent interpretations (Regan et al 2002). These two source-types of uncertainty can create a complex set of challenges.

Uncertainty in ecological research and conservation biology has important implications for decision-making and policy development. When faced with uncertain information, decision-makers may adopt a cautious approach, leading to delayed or ineffective conservation actions. Alternatively, they may make decisions based on incomplete or biased data, which can lead to unintended consequences or wasted resources. Uncertainty can also affect the public’s perception of ecological issues, leading to skepticism, misinformation, or lack of support for conservation initiatives. In addition, uncertainty can also pose challenges in setting conservation priorities. With limited resources, conservation organizations and policymakers must prioritize efforts to protect species or habitats that are at the greatest risk. However, uncertainties in data or predictions can affect the accuracy of risk assessments, leading to potential misallocation of resources. Finally, uncertainty may also arise when assessing the success of conservation interventions, making it difficult to determine the effectiveness of the conservation actions.

Despite the challenges posed by uncertainty, there are ways to address and mitigate its impacts in ecological research and conservation biology. Here are some strategies that the GEMM Lab implements to navigate these nuances in ecological research:

Improving data quality and quantity: Robust data can provide a more accurate understanding of ecological dynamics and facilitate evidence-based decision-making. In this direction, the GEMM Lab develops comprehensive data collection and monitoring efforts that can help reduce uncertainty. The TOPAZ and GRANITE projects, which study gray whale ecology off the Oregon coast, are good examples in this direction due to continuous research efforts since 2015. With these projects we have developed and standardized data collection and analytical methods, improved data accuracy and precision, and are filling knowledge gaps through targeted research.

Emphasizing adaptive management: Adaptive management is an approach that involves learning from ongoing conservation actions and adjusting strategies based on new information (Allen et al. 2015). This approach recognizes that uncertainties are inherent in ecological systems and promotes flexibility in conservation planning. Monitoring and evaluating conservation interventions, and adjusting management strategies, accordingly, can help mitigate the impacts of uncertainty. With OBSIDIAN, OPAL, and HALO projects the GEMM Lab works towards a better understanding of cetaceans’ distribution and its interactions with the oceanographic conditions (e.g., ocean temperature). These research projects can help to forecast the occurrence of whale aggregations and inform management to reduce conflicts when overlapping with human activities. For instance, results from the OPAL project have been incorporated into Dungeness Crab fishing regulations to reduce entanglement risk to whales, and the GEMM Lab is now investigating the effectiveness of these regulations in the SLATE project.

With these projects, along with the many other research efforts conducted by the GEMM lab and the MMI, we are advancing research in marine ecology, through the development and application the best possible science to generate the needed ecological data for effective conservation and management of the marine environment.

Did you enjoy this blog? Want to learn more about marine life, research, and
conservation? Subscribe to our blog and get a weekly message when we post a new
blog. Just add your name and email into the subscribe box below.

Sources:

Regan, H. M., Colyvan, M., & Burgman, M. A. (2002). A taxonomy and treatment of uncertainty for ecology and conservation biology. Ecological applications, 12(2), 618-628.

Allen, C. R., & Garmestani, A. S. (2015). Adaptive management (pp. 1-10). Springer Netherlands.

https://mmi.oregonstate.edu/gemm-lab/research-projects

https://mmi.oregonstate.edu/gemm-lab/halo-holistic-assessment-living-marine-resources-oregon

https://mmi.oregonstate.edu/gemm-lab/obsidian-observing-blue-whale-spatial-ecology-investigate-distribution-aotearoa-new-zealand

https://mmi.oregonstate.edu/gemm-lab/opal-overlap-predictions-about-large-whales-identifying-co-occurrence-between-whales

https://mmi.oregonstate.edu/gemm-lab/granite-gray-whale-response-ambient-noise-informed-technology-ecology

https://mmi.oregonstate.edu/gemm-lab/topaz-theodolite-overlooking-predators-zooplankton-gray-whale-foraging-ecology

The road to candidacy is paved with knowledge

By Lisa Hildebrand, PhD student, OSU Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, & Conservation Sciences, Geospatial Ecology of Marine Megafauna Lab

As I sat down to write this blog, I realized that it is the first post I have written in 2023! This is largely because I have spent the last seven weeks preparing for (and partly taking) my PhD qualifying exams, an academic milestone that involves written and oral exams prepared by each committee member for the student. The point of the qualifying exams is for the student’s committee to determine the student’s understanding of their major field, particularly where and what the limits of that understanding are, and to assess the student’s capability for research. How do you prepare for these exams? Reading. Lots of reading and synthesis of the collective materials assigned by each committee member. My dissertation research covers a broad range of Pacific Coast Feeding Group (PCFG) gray whale ecology, such as space use, oceanography, foraging theory and behavioral responses to anthropogenic activities. Accordingly, my assigned reading lists were equally broad and diverse. For today’s blog, I am going to share some of the papers that have stuck with me and muse about how these topics relate to my study system, the Pacific Coast Feeding Group (PCFG) of gray whales.

Space use & home range

For decades, ecologists have been interested in defining an animal’s use of space through time, often referred to as an animal’s home range. The seminal definition of a home range comes from Burt (1943) who outlined it as “the area traversed by an individual in its normal activities of food gathering, mating, and caring for young.”. I like this definition of a home range because it is biologically grounded and based on an animal’s requirements. However, quantifying an animal’s home range based on this definition is harder than it may sound. In an ideal world, it could be achieved if we were able to collect location data that is continuous (i.e., one location per second), long-term (i.e., at least half the lifespan of an animal) and precise (i.e., correct to the nearest meter) together with behavior for an individual. However, a device that could collect such data, particularly for a baleen whale, does not currently exist. Instead, we must use discontinuous (i.e., one location per hour, day or month) and/or short-term (i.e., <1 year) data with variable precision to calculate animal home ranges. A very common and simple analytical method that is used to calculate an animal’s home range is the minimum convex polygon (MCP). MCP draws the smallest polygon around points with all interior angles less than 180º. While this method is appealing and widely used, it often overestimates the home range by including areas not used by an animal at all (Figure 1).

**Figure 1.** (a) 10 point locations where an individual was observed; (b) the home range as determined by the minimum convex polygon method; (c) the red path shows the movements the animal actually took. Note the large white area in (c) where the animal never went even though it is considered part of the animal’s home range.

This example is just one of many where home range estimators inaccurately describe an animal’s space use. However, this does not mean that we should not attempt to make our best approximations of an animal’s home range using the tools and data we have at our disposal. Powell & Mitchell perfectly summarized this sentiment in their 2012 paper: “Understanding animal’s home ranges will be a messy, irregular, complex process and the results will be difficult to map. We must embrace this messiness as it simply represents the real behaviors of animals in complex and variable environments.”. For my second dissertation chapter, I am investigating individual PCFG gray whale space use patterns by calculating activity centers and ranges. The activity center is simply the geographic center of all points of observation (Hayne, 1949) and the range is the distance from the activity center to the most distant point of observations in either poleward direction. While the actual activity center is probably relatively meaningless to a whale, we hope that by calculating these metrics we can identify different strategies of space use that individuals employ to meet their energetic requirements (Figure 2).

**Figure 2.** Sightings of nine different PCFG individuals across our GRANITE study area. Each circle represents a location where an individual was sighted and circles are color-coded by year. Plotting the raw data of sighting histories of these individuals hints at patterns in space use by different individuals, which I will explore further in my second dissertation chapter.

Non-stationary responses to oceanography

Collecting spatiotemporally overlapping predator-prey datasets at the appropriate scales is notoriously challenging in the marine environment. As a result, marine ecologists often try to find patterns between marine species and oceanographic and/or environmental covariates, as these can sometimes be easier to sample and thus make marine species predictions simpler. This approach has been applied successfully in hundreds, if not thousands, of studies (e.g., Barlow et al., 2020; Derville et al., 2022). Unfortunately, these relationships are not always proving to be stable over time, a phenomenon called non-stationarity. For example, Schmidt et al. (2014) showed that the reproductive successes of Brandt’s cormorants and Cassin’s auklets on southeast Farallon Island were positively correlated with each other from 1975 to 1995 and were associated with negative El Niño-Southern Oscillation. However, around the mid-1990s this relationship broke down and by 2002, the reproductive successes of the two species were significantly negatively correlated (Figure 3). Furthermore, the relationships between reproductive success and most physical oceanographic conditions became highly variable from year to year and were non-stationary. Thus, if the authors continued to use the relationships defined early on in the study (1975-1995) to predict seabird reproductive success relative to ocean conditions from 2002-2012, their predictions would have been completely wrong. After reading this study, I thought a lot about what the oceanographic conditions have been since the GEMM Lab started studying PCFG gray whales vs. the years prior. Leigh launched the GRANITE project in 2016, right at the tail end of the record marine heatwave in the Pacific, known as “the Blob”. While we do not have as long of a dataset as the Schmidt et al. (2014) study, I wonder whether we might find non-stationary responses between PCFG gray whales and environmental and/or oceanographic variables, given how the effects of the Blob lingered for a long time and we may have captured the central Oregon coast environment shifting from ‘weird to normal’. Non-stationarity is something I will at least keep in mind when I am working on my third dissertation chapter which will investigate the environmental and oceanographic drivers of PCFG gray whale space use strategies.

**Figure** 3. Figure and caption taken from Schmidt et al. (2014).

There are so many more studies and musings that I could write about. I keep being told by others who have been through this qualifying exam process that this is the smartest I am ever going to be, and I finally understand what they mean. After spending almost two months in my own little study world, my research, and where it fits within the complex web of ecological knowledge, has snapped into hyperfocus. I can see clearly where past research will guide me and where I am blazing a new trail of things never attempted before. While I still have the oral portion of my exams before me (in fact, it’s tomorrow!), I am already giddy with excitement to switch back to analyzing data and making progress on my dissertation research.

Did you enjoy this blog? Want to learn more about marine life, research, and conservation? Subscribe to our blog and get a weekly message when we post a new blog. Just add your name and email into the subscribe box below.

References

Barlow, D.R., Bernard, K.S., Escobar-Flores, P., Palacios, D.M., Torres, L.G. 2020. Links in the trophic chain: modeling functional relationships between in situ oceanography, krill, and blue whale distribution under different oceanographic regimes. Marine Ecology Progress Series 642: 207−225.

Burt, W.H. 1943. Territoriality and home range concepts as applied to mammals. Journal of Mammalogy 24(3): 346-352. https://doi.org/10.2307/1374834

Derville, S., Barlow, D.R., Hayslip, C., Torres, L.G. 2022. Seasonal, annual, and decadal distribution of three rorqual whale species relative to dynamic ocean conditions off Oregon, USA. Frontiers in Marine Science 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.868566

Hayne, D.W. 1949. Calculation of size of home range. Journal of Mammalogy 30(1): 1-18.

Powell, R.A., Mitchell, M.S. 2012. What is a home range? Journal of Mammalogy 93(4): 948-958. https://doi.org/10.1644/11-MAMM-S-177.1

Schmidt, A.E., Botsford, L.W., Eadie, J.M., Bradley, R.W., Di Lorenzo E., Jahncke, J. 2014. Non-stationary seabird responses reveal shifting ENSO dynamics in the northeast Pacific. Marine Ecology Progress Series 499: 249-258. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps10629

Making the call: deciphering whale calls in the 40 Hz soundscape off the Oregon Coast.

Imogen Lucciano, Graduate student, OSU Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, & Conservation Sciences, Geospatial Ecology of Marine Megafauna Lab.

Fin whale dorsal fin. Photo credit: https://www.worldwildlife.org/photos/fin-whale–8

Work in the GEMM lab is booming in all different directions of whale research, and so taking turns writing for the GEMM lab blog gives all of its members an opportunity to highlight topics that are specific and current to us individually. I am two-thirds of the way done with my MSc thesis program, and I’ve recently begun speaking publicly about my work on the HALO project and fin whale acoustic detection off the Oregon coast. In this blog I’ll highlight a two-part question that I am often asked, “Can you see more than fin whales in the data, and how can you tell the species apart when you are looking at it?”. These questions provide great ponderance and are very significant to what I am trying to accomplish. The answer is that I absolutely can see other whales when I am looking through the acoustic data and in fact I have to be quite meticulous in my efforts to tease them apart at times. Let me explain:

The acoustic data set I am working with tells an important story of the waters off the Oregon coast and will illuminate researchers (and the public) on the presence of all detectable vocal whales and dolphins in the area over the past year, from October 2021 to January of 2023. The advanced technological recording systems, called Rockhoppers, that HALO deploys off the coast of Newport, provide us with continuous sound files for the entire time that they are deployed. (I previously wrote a short blog on Rockhoppers, for those interested in more information.) Then, we analysts (graduate students) on the project work to establish the acoustic presence of our target species within those files.

Based on what experts in the field of cetacean bioacoustics currently understand about fin whales, they produce sounds at a very low frequency for both socializing (presumably their 20 Hz pulse call) and for foraging (presumably their 40 Hz downsweep call) (Sirovic et al. 2013; Romagosa et al. 2021). During my efforts to determine the presence of fin whales, it is relatively easy to identify the 20 Hz pulse call, since this call has been well documented in the literature and is the only cetacean call described that occurs in its frequency range. I look for these calls in spectrogram representations of the acoustic data, which allow me to see the selected frequency range over our data collection period (time; Figure 1).

Figure 1. The two black vertical lines shown in this spectrogram are two 20 Hz fin whale pulse calls I identified in the HALO acoustic data using Raven Pro. Nearly all of the fin whale calls I’ve identified in the HALO data occur in pulses ranging from ~17 Hz to 27 Hz.

Where this process becomes complicated for me is when I look for the 40 Hz fin whale downsweep call, which is known to occur between ~ 75 Hz – 30 Hz (Wiggins & Hildebrand 2020; Romagosa et al. 2021). This call can vary slightly within this frequency range. Interpretation of this call reaches even higher ambiguity when there are blue whales and sei whales acoustically detected in the same time frame in the same area. The acoustic repertoire of both blue and sei whale calls fall in the same frequency range: blue whales producing what is known as “D calls” and sei whales are known to make low-frequency downsweep calls (Figure 2; Sirovic et al. 2013; Romagosa et al. 2020).

Figure 2. From left to right: Fin whale 40 Hz downsweep call (Sirovic et al. 2013); Blue whale D call, Sei whale downsweep call. (Romagosa et al. 2020)

At first glance, the vocalizations from these three whales can be easily confused, and so I am looking for finer details to help tease out the fin whale downsweeps. As shown in Figure 2, there is a difference in the behavior of these calls, with the sei whale call being a shorter call by a matter of 2-3 seconds. The sei whale downsweep calls have not been frequently described in the literature, however those few publications report these calls occurring over 1.4-1.6 seconds (Baumgartner et al. 2008; Espanol-Jimenez et al. 2019) and in each published spectrogram, I have observed this similar boomerang-type looking behavior in the call. Blue whale D calls, on the other hand, are calls produced as social calls while foraging (Szesciorka et al 2020) and known to occur over ~1.8 seconds (Oleson et al. 2007).

Fin whale 40 Hz calls have a duration of about one second and are not known to be produced in a regular sequence (Sirovic et al. 2013), thus I am teasing them out carefully from what can sometimes appear like a diversly grouped choir of low frequency whale song among the HALO data (Figures 3 & 4).

Figure 3. Left hand figure: Red vertical lines occurring from 39 Hz to 22 Hz in the spectrogram are Fin whale 40 Hz call I have identified in the HALO data. Figure 4. Right hand figure shows many vertical lines in the 80 Hz to 20 Hz range that could be interpreted at first glance as different whale species vocalizations, including fin, blue and sei whales.

Although there are some known seasonal patterns of each of these aforementioned whale calls (Sirovic et al. 2013; Szesciorka et al. 2020), many data gaps remain of the temporal patterns of the 40 Hz and 20 Hz calls (i.e., when the calls occur) off the Oregon coast. Therefore, I cannot assume that I will only see 40 Hz calls in any time period. I need to assess the behavior of the calls I detect and tease out the calls I know surely are fin whale 40 Hz downsweeps in each file of the entire acoustic dataset.

Afterthought: The HALO project is new and has only just collected its first year of acoustic data, however the project is intent to continue deploying and collecting Rockhoppers off the Oregon coast for years to come. As this acoustic data set continues to grow it will be used by other researchers, and I (among the first to process and analyze it) feel some pressure to get things done right. As I process these data I will work hard to make the best-informed call identifying fin whales in the 40 Hz range. This focus and feeling of responsibility reassure me that I am in the appropriate career field. I really care about how these data are processed, where the research will go from here, and how it influences human activities in this critical whale habitat.

Photo credit: https://nextlevelsailing.com/how-big-is-a-whale-list-of-whales-by-size/

Did you enjoy this blog? Want to learn more about marine life, research, and conservation? Subscribe to our blog and get a weekly message when we post a new blog. Just add your name and email into the subscribe box below.

References

Baumgartner, M., Van Parijs, S., Wenzel, F., et al. 2008. Low frequency vocalizations attributed to sei whales. Acoustical Society of America, 124 (2): 1339-1349. https://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/JAS001339_59390.pdf.

Espanol-Jimenez, S., Bahamonde, P., Chiang, G., Haussermann, V. 2019. Discovering sounds in

Oleson, E., Calambokidis, J., Burgess, W,. et al. 2007. Behavioral context of call production by eastern North Pacific blue whales. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 330 : 269-284. https://www.int-res.com/articles/meps_oa/m330p269.pdf.

Romagosa, M., Baumgartner, M., Cascao, I., et al. 2020. Baleen whale acoustic presence and behavior at a Mid-Atlantic migratory habitat, the Azores Archipelago. Scientific Reports, 10. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339952595_Baleen_whale_acoustic_presence_and_behaviour_at_a_Mid-Atlantic_migratory_habitat_the_Azores_Archipelago.

Romagosa, M., Perez-Jorge, S., Cascao, I., et al. 2021. Food talk: 40-Hz fin whale calls are associate with prey biomass. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 288 (1954): 20211156. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34229495/.

Sirovic, A., Williams, L., Kerosky, S., Wiggins, S., Hildebrand, J. 2013. Temporal separation of two fin whale call types across the eastern North Pacific. Marine Biology, 160: 47-57.

Szesciorka, A., Ballance, L., Sirovic, A., et al. 2020. Timing is everything: drivers of interannual variability in blue whale migration. Scientific Reports, 10 (7710). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-64855-y. Wiggins, S. & Hildebrand, J. 2020. Fin whale 40 Hz behavior studied with an acoustic tracking array. Marine Mammal Science, 36 (3). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339575220_Fin_whale_40-Hz_calling_behavior_studied_with_an_acoustic_tracking_array.

Spreadsheets, ArcGIS, and Programming! Oh My!

By Morgan O’Rourke-Liggett, Master’s Student, Oregon State University, Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Sciences, Geospatial Ecology of Marine Megafauna Lab

Avid readers of the GEMM Lab blog and other scientists are familiar with the incredible amounts of data collected in the field and the informative figures displayed in our publications and posters. Some of the more time-consuming and tedious work hardly gets talked about because it’s the in-between stage of science and other fields. For this blog, I am highlighting some of the behind-the-scenes work that is the subject of my capstone project within the GRANITE project.

For those unfamiliar with the GRANITE project, this multifaceted and non-invasive research project evaluates how gray whales respond to chronic ambient and acute noise to inform regulatory decisions on noise thresholds (Figure 1). This project generates considerable data, often stored in separate Excel files. While this doesn’t immediately cause an issue, ongoing research projects like GRANITE and other long-term monitoring programs often need to refer to this data. Still, when scattered into separate long Excel files, it can make certain forms of analysis difficult and time-consuming. It requires considerable attention to detail, persistence, and acceptance of monotony. Today’s blog will dive into the not-so-glamorous side of science…data management and standardization!

Figure 1. Infographic for the GRANITE project. Credit: Carrie Ekeroth

Of the plethora of data collected from the GRANITE project, I work with the GPS trackline data from the R/V Ruby, environmental data recorded on the boat, gray whale sightings data, and survey summaries for each field day. These come to me as individual yearly spreadsheets, ranging from thirty entries to several thousand. The first goal with this data is to create a standardized survey effort conditions table. The second goal is to determine the survey distance from the trackline, using the visibility for each segment, and calculate the actual area surveyed for the segment and day. This blog doesn’t go into how the area is calculated. Still, all these steps are the foundation for finding that information so the survey area can be calculated.

The first step requires a quick run-through of the sighting data to ensure all dates are within the designated survey area by examining the sighting code. After the date is a three-letter code representing a different starting location for the survey, such as npo for Newport and dep for Depoe Bay. If any code doesn’t match the designated codes for the survey extent, those are hidden, so they are not used in the new table. From there, filling in the table begins (Figure 2).

Figure 2. A blank survey effort conditions table with each category listed at the top in bold.

Segments for each survey day were determined based on when the trackline data changed from transit to the sighting code (i.e., 190829_1 for August 29^th, 2019, sighting 1). Transit indicated the research vessel was traveling along the coast, and crew members were surveying the area for whales. Each survey day’s GPS trackline and segment information were copied and saved into separate Excel workbook files. A specific R code would convert those files into NAD 1983 UTM Zone 10N northing and easting coordinates.

Those segments are uploaded into an ArcGIS database and mapped using the same UTM projection. The northing and easting points are imported into ArcGIS Pro as XY tables. Using various geoprocessing and editing tools, each segmented trackline for the day is created, and each line is split wherever there was trackline overlap or U shape in the trackline that causes the observation area to overlap. This splitting ensures the visibility buffer accounts for the overlap (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Segment 3 from 7/22/2019 with the visibility of 3 km portrayed as buffers. There are more than one because the trackline was split to account for the overlapping of the survey area. This approach accounts for the fact that this area where all three buffers overlap was surveyed 3 times.

Once the segment lines are created in ArcGIS, the survey area map (Figure 4) is used alongside the ArcGIS display to determine the start and end locations. An essential part of the standardization process is using the annotated locations in Figure 4 instead of the names on the basemap for the location start and endpoints. This consistency with the survey area map is both for tracking the locations through time and for the crew on the research vessel to recognize the locations. The step assists with interpreting the survey notes for conditions at the different segments. The time starts and ends, and the latitude and longitude start and end are taken from the trackline data.

Figure 4. Map of the survey area with annotated locations (Created by L. Torres, GEMM Lab)

The sighting data includes the number of whales sighted, Beaufort Sea State, and swell height for the locations where whales were spotted. The environmental data from the sighting data is used as a guide when filling in the rest of the values along the trackline. When data, such as wind speed, swell height, or survey condition, is not explicitly given, matrices have been developed in collaboration with Dr. Leigh Torres to fill in the gaps in the data. These matrices and protocols for filling in the final conditions log are important tools for standardizing the environmental and condition data.

The final product for the survey conditions table is the output of all the code and matrices (Figure 5). The creation of this table will allow for accurate calculation of survey effort on each day, month, and year of the GRANITE project. This effort data is critical to evaluate trends in whale distribution, habitat use, and exposure to disturbances or threats.

Figure 5. A snippet of the completed 2019 season effort condition log.

The process of completing the table can be a very monotonous task, and there are several chances for the data to get misplaced or missed entirely. Attention to detail is a critical aspect of this project. Standardizing the GRANITE data is essential because it allows for consistency over the years and across platforms. In describing this aspect of my project, I mentioned three different computer programs using the same data. This behind-the-scenes work of creating and maintaining data standardization is critical for all projects, especially long-term research such as the GRANITE project.

Did you enjoy this blog? Want to learn more about marine life, research, and conservation? Subscribe to our blog and get a weekly message when we post a new blog. Just add your name and email into the subscribe box below.

So big, but so small: why the smallest of the largest whales are not smaller

Dr. KC Bierlich, Postdoctoral Scholar, OSU Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, & Conservation Sciences, Geospatial Ecology of Marine Megafauna (GEMM) Lab

Baleen whales are known for their gigantism and encompass a wide range in body sizes extending from blue whales that are the largest animals to live on earth (max length ~30 m) to minke whales (max length ~10 m) that are the smallest of baleen whales (Fig. 1). While all baleen whales are filter feeders, a group called the rorquals use a feeding strategy known as lunge feeding (or intermittent engulfment filtration), which involves engulfing large volumes of prey-laden water at high speeds and then filtering the water out of their mouth using their baleen as a “sieve”. There is positive allometry associated with this feeding technique and body size, meaning that as whales are larger, this feeding strategy becomes more efficient due to increased engulfment of water volume per each lunge feeding event. In other words, a bigger body size equates to a much larger mouthful of food. For example, a minke whale (body length ~7-10 m) will engulf water volume equivalent to ~42% of its body mass, while a blue whale (~21-24 m) engulfs ~135%. Thus, filter feeding enables gigantism through efficient exploitation of large, dense patches of prey. An interesting question then arises: what is the minimum body size at which filter feeding is still efficient? Or in other words, why are the smallest of the baleen whales, minke whales, not smaller? For this blog, I will highlight a study published today in Nature Ecology and Evolution titled “Minke whale feeding rate limitations suggest constraints on the minimum body size for engulfment filtration feeding” led by friend and collaborator of the GEMM Lab Dr. Dave Cade and included myself and other collaborators as co-authors from Stanford University, UC Santa Cruz, Cascadia Research Collective, Duke University, and University of Queensland.

Figure 1. Aerial imagery collected using drones of several baleen whales of various sizes. Each species shown is considered a rorqual whale, except for gray whales. Figure from Segre et al. (2022)

The largest animals of today are marine filter feeders, such as whale sharks, manta rays, and baleen whales, which all share parallel evolutionary histories in which their large body sizes and filter-feeding morphologies are derived from smaller-bodied ancestors that targeted single prey items. Changes in ocean productivity increased the concentrations of smaller prey in the oceans around 5 million years ago, enabling filter feeding as an efficient feeding strategy through capture of abundant aggregations of prey by filtering large volumes of water. It is interesting to note, that within these filter feeding lineages of animals, there are groups of animals that are single-prey foragers with smaller body sizes. For example, the whale shark is the only filter feeder amongst the carpet sharks and the manta ray is much larger than other rays that feed on single prey items. Amongst cetaceans, the smallest single-prey foragers, dolphins (~2-3 m) and porpoises (~1.4-1.9 m), are much smaller than the smallest of the filter feeding cetaceans, minke whales (~7-10 m). These common differences in body sizes and feeding strategies within lineages suggest that there may be minimum body size requirements for this filter feeding strategy to be efficient.

To investigate the limits on minimum body size for filter feeding, our study explored the foraging behavior of Antarctic minke whales, the smallest of the rorqual baleen whales, along the Western Antarctic Peninsula. Our team tagged a total of 23 individuals using non-invasive suction cup tags, like the ones we use for our tagging component in the GEMM Lab’s GRANITE project (see this blog for more details). One of my roles on the project was to obtain aerial imagery of the minke whales using drones to obtain body length measurements (sound familiar?) (Figs. 2-4). Flying drones in Antarctica over minke whales was an amazing experience. The minke whales were often found deep within the bays amongst ice floes and brash ice where they can be very tricky to spot, as they’ll often surface and then quickly disappear, hence their nickname “sneaky minkes”. They also appear “playful” and “athletic” as they are incredibly quick and maneuverable, doing barrel rolls and quick bank turns while they swim. Check out my past blog to read more on accounts of flying over these amazing whales.

Figure 2. Drone image of our team about to place a noninvasive suction cup biologging tag on an Antarctic minke whale. Photo credit: Duke University Marine Robotics and Remote Sensing Lab.

Figure 3. A drone image of a newly tagged and curious Antarctic minke whale approaching our research team. Photo credit: Duke University Marine Robotics and Remote Sensing Lab.

Figure 4. A drone image of a group of Antarctic minke whales swimming through the icy waters along the Antarctic Peninsula. Photo credit: Duke University Marine Robotics and Remote Sensing Lab.

In total, our team collected 437 hours of tag data consisting of day- and night-time foraging behaviors. While the proportion of time spent foraging and the number of lunges per dive (~3-4) was similar between day- and night-time foraging, daytime foraging was much deeper (~72 m) compared to nighttime foraging (~28 m) due to vertical migration of Antarctic krill, their main food source. Overall, nighttime foraging was much more intense than daytime foraging, with an average of 165 lunges per hour during the night compared to 53 lunges per hour during the day. These shallower nighttime dives enabled quicker surface sequences for replenishing oxygen reserves to then return to foraging, whereas the deeper dives during the day required longer surface recovery times before beginning another foraging dive. Thus, nighttime dives are a more efficient and critical component of minke whale foraging.

When it comes to body size, there was no relationship between dive depth and dive duration with body length, except for daytime deep dives, where longer minke whales dove for longer periods than smaller whales. These longer dive times also require longer surface times to replenish oxygen reserves. Longer minke whales can gulp larger amounts of food and thus need longer filtration times to process water from each engulfment. For example, a 9 m minke whale will take 50% longer to filter water through its baleen compared to a 5 m minke whale. In turn, smaller minke whales would need to feed more frequently than larger minke whales in order to maintain efficient foraging. This decreasing efficiency with smaller body size shines light on a broader trend for filter feeders that we refer to in our study as the minimum-size constraint (MSC) hypothesis: “while the maximum size of a filter-feeding body plan will be restricted by physical properties, the minimum size is restricted by the energetic efficiency of filter feeding and the time required to extract sufficient particles from the water” (Cade et al. 2023). When we examined the scaling of maximum feeding rates of minke whales, we found evidence of a minimum size constraint on efficiency at lengths around 5 m. Interestingly, the weaning length of minke whales is reported to be 4.5 – 5.5 m. Before weaning, newborn/yearling minke whales that are smaller than 4.5 – 5.5 m have a different foraging strategy where they are dependent on maternal milk. Thus, it is likely that the body size at weaning is influenced by the minimum size at which this specialized foraging technique of lunge feeding becomes efficient.

This study helps inform the evolutionary pathway for filter feeding whales and suggests that efficient filter feeding and gigantism likely co-evolved within the last 5 million years when ocean conditions changed to support larger prey patches suitable for lunge feeding. It is interesting to think about the MSC hypothesis for other baleen whale species that employ alternative filter feeding techniques, such as gray whales that generally use a form of filter feeding called suction feeding. Gray whales are estimated to have a birth length of ~4.6 m (Agbayani et al., 2020), and the body length of newly weaned calves that we have observed along the Oregon Coast from drone imagery seem to be ~8 – 9 m. Perhaps this is the minimum size of when suction feeding becomes efficient for a gray whale? This is something the GEMM Lab hopes to further explore as we continue to collect foraging data from suction cup tags and behavior and body size measurements from drone imagery.

References

Agbayani, S., Fortune, S. M., & Trites, A. W. (2020). Growth and development of North Pacific gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus). Journal of Mammalogy, 101(3), 742-754.

Cade, D.E., Kahane-Rapport, S.R., Gough, W.T., Bierlich, K.C., Linksy, J.M.J., Johnston, D.W., Goldbogen, J.A., Friedlaender, A.S. (2023). Ultra-high feeding rates of Antarctic minke whales imply a lower limit for body size in engulfment filtration feeders. Nature Ecology and Evolution. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-023-01993-2

Paolo S. Segre, William T. Gough, Edward A. Roualdes, David E. Cade, Max F. Czapanskiy, James Fahlbusch, Shirel R. Kahane-Rapport, William K. Oestreich, Lars Bejder, K. C. Bierlich, Julia A. Burrows, John Calambokidis, Ellen M. Chenoweth, Jacopo di Clemente, John W. Durban, Holly Fearnbach, Frank E. Fish, Ari S. Friedlaender, Peter Hegelund, David W. Johnston, Douglas P. Nowacek, Machiel G. Oudejans, Gwenith S. Penry, Jean Potvin, Malene Simon, Andrew Stanworth, Janice M. Straley, Andrew Szabo, Simone K. A. Videsen, Fleur Visser, Caroline R. Weir, David N. Wiley, Jeremy A. Goldbogen; Scaling of maneuvering performance in baleen whales: larger whales outperform expectations. J Exp Biol 1 March 2022; 225 (5): jeb243224. doi: https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.243224

Learning by teaching

By: Kate Colson, MSc Student, University of British Columbia, Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, Marine Mammal Research Unit

One of the most frequent questions graduate students get asked (besides when you are going to graduate) is what their plans are after university. For me, the answer has always adamantly been continuing to do research, most likely as a government researcher because I don’t want teaching commitments to take away from my ability to conduct research.

However, one of the most fulfilling parts of my degree at University of British Columbia has actually been teaching four terms of a 100-level undergraduate science course focused on developing first-year students’ critical thinking, data interpretation, and science communication skills. My role in the course has been facilitating active learning activities that exercise these skills and reviewing material the students go over in their pre-class work. Through this course, I have experienced the teaching styles of six different professors and practiced my own teaching. As with any skill, there is always room for improvement, so when I had a chance to read a book titled How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching (Ambrose et al. 2010), I took it as an opportunity to further refine my teaching and explore why some practices are more effective than others.

In the book, Ambrose et al. present principles of learning, the research surrounding these principles and examples for incorporating them into a university level course. Some of the principles gave me ideas for strategies to incorporate into my teaching to benefit my students. These described how prior knowledge impacts student learning and how to use goal-oriented practice and give feedback relative to target criteria that the students can apply to the next practice task. For example, I learned to be more conscious about how I explain and clarify course material to make connections with what the students have learned previously, so they can draw on that prior knowledge. Other principles presented by Ambrose et al. were more complex and offered a chance for greater reflection.

Beyond presenting strategies for improving teaching, the book also presented research that supported what I had learned firsthand through teaching. These principles related to the factors that motivate students to learn and why the course climate matters for learning. I have seen how student motivation is impacted by the classroom climate and culture put forth by the teaching team. Perhaps the most frustrating experiences I have had teaching were when one member of the teaching team does not see the importance of fostering a supportive course environment.

For this reason, my favorite assignments have been the Thrive Contract and the Group Contract. Each term, the Thrive Contract is the first major class activity, and the Group Contract is the first group assignment. These assignments serve as a means for everyone to co-create guidelines and expectations and establish a positive classroom culture for the rest of the term. After an exceptionally poor classroom experience my first time teaching, I have highlighted the importance of the Thrive Contract in all subsequent terms. Now, I realize the significance I lent this assignment is supported by the research on the importance for a supportive environment to maximize student motivation and encourage classroom engagement (Figure 1).

Another powerful lesson I have learned through teaching is the importance of clarifying the purpose of an activity to the students. Highlighting a task’s objective is also supported by research to ensure that students ascribe value to the assigned work, increasing their motivation (Figure 1). In my teaching, I have noticed a trend of lower student participation and poorer performance on assignments when a professor does not emphasize the importance of the task. Reviewing the research that shows the value of a supportive course climate has further strengthened my belief in the importance of ensuring that students understand why their teaching team assigns each activity.

**Figure 1. How environment, student efficacy, and value interact to impact motivation.** The above figure shows that motivation is optimized when students see the value in a goal, believe they have the skills to achieve the goal, and are undertaking the goal in a supportive class environment (the bright blue box in the bottom right corner). If this situation were to occur in an unsupportive class environment, defiant behaviour (e.g. “I’ll prove you wrong” attitude) is likely to occur in response to the lack of support, as the student sees the value in the goal and believes in their ability to achieve the goal. Rejecting behaviour (e.g., disengagement) occurs when the student does not associate value to a task and does not believe in their ability to complete the goals regardless of the environment. Evading behaviour (e.g., lack of attention or minimal effort) results when students are confident in their ability to complete a task, but do not see the goal as meaningful in both supportive and unsupportive environment. When a student sees the importance of the goal but are not confident in their ability to complete it, they become hopeless (e.g., have no expectation of success and act helpless) when in an unsupportive environment and fragile (e.g., feign understanding, deny difficulty, or make excuses for poor performance) in a supportive environment. *Diagram adapted from Ambrose et al. (2010) Figure 3.2 incorporating the works of Hansen (1989) & Ford (1992).*

Potentially my favorite part about the structure of Ambrose’s book was that it offered me a chance to reflect not only on teaching, but also on my own learning and cognitive growth since I started my master’s degree. Graduate students are often in a unique position in which we are both students and teachers depending on the context of our surroundings. The ability to zoom out and realize how far I have come in not only teaching others, but also in teaching myself, has been humbling. My reflection on my own learning and growth has been driven by learning about how organizing knowledge affects learning, how mastery is developed and how students become self-directed learners.

One of the main differences between novices and experts in how they organize their knowledge is the depth of that knowledge and the connections made between different pieces of information. Research has shown that experts hold more connections between concepts, which allows for faster and easier retrieval of information that translates into ease in applying skills to different tasks (Bradshaw & Anderson, 1982; Reder & Anderson, 1980; Smith, Adams, & Schorr, 1978). Currently in my degree, I am experiencing this ease when it comes to coding my analysis and connecting my research to the broader implications for the field. By making these deeper connections across various contexts, I am building a more complex knowledge structure, thus progressing towards holding a more expert organization of knowledge.

In the stages of mastery concept proposed by Sprague and Stewart (2000), learners progress from unconscious incompetence where the student doesn’t know what they don’t know, to conscious incompetence where they have become aware of what they need to know (Figure 2). This was where I was when I started my master’s — I knew what objectives I wanted to achieve with my research, but I needed to learn the skills necessary for me to be able to collect the data and analyze it to answer my research questions. The next stage of mastery is conscious competence, in which the ability of the learner to function in their domain has greatly increased, but practicing the necessary skills still requires deliberate thinking and conscious actions (Figure 2). This is the level I feel I have progressed to — I am much more comfortable performing the necessary tasks related to my research and talking about how my work fills existing knowledge gaps in the field. However, it still helps to talk out my proposed plans with true masters in the field. The final stage of mastery, unconscious competence, is where the learner has reached a point where they can practice the skills of their field automatically and instinctively such that they are no longer aware of how they enact their knowledge (Figure 2).

**Figure 2. Stages of mastery showing how the learner consciousness waxes and then wanes as competence is developed.** Unconscious states refer to those where the learner is not aware of what they are doing or what they know, whereas conscious states have awareness of thoughts and actions. Competence refers to the ability of the learner to perform tasks specific to the field they are trying to master. *Diagram adapted from Ambrose et al. (2010) Figure 4.2 incorporating the works of Sprague & Stewart (2000).*

In line with my progression to higher levels of mastery has come the development of metacognitive skills that have helped me become a better self-directed learner. Metacognition is the process of learning how to learn, requiring the learner to monitor and control their learning through various processes (Figure 3). The most exciting part of my metacognitive growth I have noticed is the greater independence I have in my learning. I am much better at assessing what is needed to complete specific tasks and planning my particular approach to successfully achieve that goal (e.g., the construction of a Hidden Markov model from my last blog). By becoming more aware of my own strengths and weaknesses as a learner, I am better able to prepare and give myself the support needed for completing certain tasks (e.g., reaching out to experts to help with my model construction as I knew this was an area of weakness for me). By becoming more aware of how I am monitoring and controlling my learning, I know I am setting myself up for success as a lifelong learner.

**Figure 3. Metacognition requires learner to monitor and control their learning through various processes.** These processes involve the learner assessing the necessary skills needed for a task, evaluating their strengths and weaknesses with regards to the assigned task, and planning a way to approach the task. Once a plan has been made, the learner then must apply the strategies involved from the plan and monitor how those strategies are working to accomplish the assigned task. The learner must then be able to decide if the planned approach and applied strategies are effectively accomplishing the assigned task and adjust as needed with a re-assessment of the task that begins the processing cycle over again. Underlying each of these metacognitive processes are the learner’s belief in their own abilities and their perceptions of their intelligence. For example, students who believe their intelligence cannot be improved and do not have a strong sense of efficacy will be less likely to expend effort in metacognitive processes as they believe the extra effort will not influence the results. This contrasts with students who believe their intelligence will increase with skills development and have a strong belief in their abilities, as these learners will see the value in putting in the effort of trying multiple plans and adjusting strategies. *Diagram adapted from Ambrose et al. (2010) Figure 7.1 incorporating the cycle of adaptive learning proposed by Zimmerman (2001).*

References:

Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bradshaw, G. L., & Anderson, J. R. (1982). Elaborative encoding as an explanation of levels of processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal behaviours, 21,165-174.

Ford, M. E. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions and personal agency beliefs. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Hansen, D. (1989). Lesson evading and dissembling: Ego strategies in the classroom. American Journal of Education, 97, 184-208.

Reder, L. M., & Anderson, J. R. (1980). A partial resolution of the paradox of interference: The role of integrating knowledge. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 447-472.

Smith, E. E., Adams, N., & Schorr, D. (1978). Fact retrieval and the paradox of interference. Cognitive Psychology, 10, 438-464.

Sprague, J., & Stewart, D. (2000). The speaker’s handbook. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement (2nd ed., pp. 1-38). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

New GEMM Lab publication reveals how blue whale feeding and reproductive effort are related to environmental conditions

By Dr. Dawn Barlow, Postdoctoral Scholar, OSU Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Sciences, Geospatial Ecology of Marine Megafauna Lab

Learning by listening

Studying mobile marine animals that are only fleetingly visible from the water’s surface is challenging. However, many species including baleen whales rely on sound as a primary form of communication, producing different vocalizations related to their fundamental needs to feed and reproduce. Therefore, we can learn a lot about these elusive animals by monitoring the patterns of their calls. In the final chapter of my PhD, we set out to study blue whale ecology and life history by listening. I am excited to share our findings, recently published in Ecology and Evolution.

Blue whales produce two distinct types of vocalizations: song is produced by males and is hypothesized to play a role in breeding behavior, and D calls are a hypothesized social call produced by both sexes in association with feeding behavior. We analyzed how these different calls varied seasonally, and how they related to environmental conditions.

This paper is a collaborative study co-authored by Dr. Holger Klinck and Dimitri Ponirakis of the K. Lisa Yang Center for Conservation Bioacoustics, Dr. Trevor Branch of the University of Washington, and GEMM Lab PI Dr. Leigh Torres, and brings together multiple methods and data sources. Our findings shed light on blue whale habitat use patterns, and how climate change may impact both feeding and reproduction for this species of conservation concern.

The South Taranaki Bight: an ideal study system

Baleen whales typically migrate between high-latitude, productive feeding grounds and low-latitude breeding grounds. However, the New Zealand blue whale population is present in the South Taranaki Bight (STB) region year-round, which uniquely enabled us to monitor their behavior, ecology, and life history across seasons and years from a single location. We recorded blue whale vocalizations from Marine Autonomous Recording Units (MARUs) deployed at five locations in the STB for two full years (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Study area map and blue whale call spectrograms. Left panel: map of the study area in the South Taranaki Bight region, with hydrophone (marine autonomous recording unit; MARU) locations denoted by the stars. Gray lines show bathymetry contours at 50 m depth increments, from 0 to 500 m. Location of the study area within New Zealand is indicated by the inset map. Right panels: example spectrograms of the two blue whale call types examined: the New Zealand song recorded on 31 May 2016 (top) and D calls recorded 20 September 2016 (bottom). Figure reproduced from Barlow et al. (2023).

We found that the two vocalization types had different seasonal occurrence patterns (Fig. 2). D calls were associated with upwelling conditions that indicate feeding opportunities, lending evidence for their function as a foraging-related call.

Figure 2. Average annual cycle in the song intensity index (dark blue) and D calls (green) per day of the year, computed across all hydrophone locations and the entire two-year recording period. Figure reproduced from Barlow et al. (2023).

In contrast, blue whale song showed a very clear seasonal peak in the fall and was less obviously correlated with environmental conditions. To investigate the hypothesized function of song as a breeding call, we turned to a perhaps unintuitive source of information: historical whaling records. Whenever a pregnant whale was killed during commercial whaling operations, the length of the fetus was measured. By looking at the seasonal pattern in these fetal lengths, we can presume that births occur around the time of year when fetal lengths are at their longest. The records indicated April-May. By back-calculating the 11-month gestation time for a blue whale, we can presume that mating occurs generally in May-June, which is the exact time of the peak in song intensity from our recordings (Fig. 3).

Figure 3. Annual song intensity and the breeding cycle. Top panel: average yearly cycle in song intensity index, computed across the five hydrophone locations and the entire recording period; dark blue line represents a loess smoothed fit. Bottom panel: fetal length measurements from whaling catch records for Antarctic blue whales (gray, measurements rounded to the nearest foot), pygmy blue whales in the southern hemisphere (blue, measurements rounded to the nearest centimeter). Measurements from blue whales caught within the established range of the New Zealand population are denoted by the dark red triangles. Calving presumably takes place around or shortly after fetal lengths are at their maximum (April–May), which implies that mating likely occurs around May–June, coincident with the peak song intensity. Figure reproduced from Barlow et al. (2023).

With this evidence for D calls as feeding-related calls and song as breeding-related calls, we had a host of new questions, we used this gained knowledge to explore how changing environmental conditions might impact multiple life history processes for New Zealand blue whales

Marine heatwaves impact multiple life history processes

Our study period between January 2016 and February 2018 spanned both typical upwelling conditions and dramatic marine heatwaves in the STB region. While we previously documented that the marine heatwave of 2016 affected blue whale distribution, the population-level impacts on feeding and reproductive effort remained unknown. In our recent study, we found that during marine heatwaves, D calls were dramatically reduced compared to during productive upwelling conditions. During the fall breeding peak, song intensity was likewise dramatically reduced following the marine heatwave. This relationship indicates that following poor feeding conditions, blue whales may invest less effort in reproduction. As marine heatwaves are projected to become more frequent and more intense under global climate change, our findings are perhaps a warning for what is to come as animal populations must contend with changing ocean conditions.

More than a decade of research on New Zealand blue whales

Ten years ago, Leigh first put forward a hypothesis that the STB region was an undocumented blue whale foraging ground based on multiple lines of evidence (Torres 2013). Despite pushback and numerous challenges, Leigh set out to prove her hypothesis through a comprehensive, multi-year data collection effort. I was lucky enough to join the team in 2016, first as a Masters’ student, and then as a PhD student. In the time since Leigh’s hypothesis, we not only documented the New Zealand blue whale population (Barlow et al. 2018), we learned a great deal about what drives blue whale feeding behavior (Torres et al. 2020) and habitat use patterns (Barlow et al. 2020, 2021), and developed forecast models to predict blue whale distribution for dynamic management of the STB (Barlow & Torres 2021). We also documented their unique, year-round presence in the STB, distinct from the migratory or vagrant presence of other blue whale populations (Barlow et al. 2022b). We now understand how marine heatwaves impact both feeding opportunities and reproductive effort (Barlow et al. 2023). We even analyzed blue whale skin condition (Barlow et al. 2019) and acoustic response to earthquakes (Barlow et al. 2022a) along the way. A decade later, it is humbling to reflect on how much we have learned about these whales. This paper is also the final chapter of my PhD, and as I reflect on how I have grown both personally and scientifically since I interviewed with Leigh as a wide-eyed undergraduate student in fall 2015, I am filled with gratitude for the opportunities for learning and growth that Leigh, these whales, and many mentors and collaborators have offered over the years. As is often the case in science, the more questions you ask, the more questions you end up with. We are already dreaming up future studies to further understand the ecology, health, and resilience of this blue whale population. I can only imagine what we might learn in another decade.

Figure 5. A blue whale mother and calf pair come up for air in the South Taranaki Bight. Photo by Dawn Barlow.

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!

References:

Barlow DR, Bernard KS, Escobar-Flores P, Palacios DM, Torres LG (2020) Links in the trophic chain: Modeling functional relationships between in situ oceanography, krill, and blue whale distribution under different oceanographic regimes. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 642:207–225.

Barlow DR, Estrada Jorge M, Klinck H, Torres LG (2022a) Shaken, not stirred: blue whales show no acoustic response to earthquake events. R Soc Open Sci 9:220242.

Barlow DR, Klinck H, Ponirakis D, Branch TA, Torres LG (2023) Environmental conditions and marine heatwaves influence blue whale foraging and reproductive effort. Ecol Evol 13:e9770.

Barlow DR, Klinck H, Ponirakis D, Garvey C, Torres LG (2021) Temporal and spatial lags between wind, coastal upwelling, and blue whale occurrence. Sci Rep 11:1–10.

Barlow DR, Klinck H, Ponirakis D, Holt Colberg M, Torres LG (2022b) Temporal occurrence of three blue whale populations in New Zealand waters from passive acoustic monitoring. J Mammal.

Barlow DR, Pepper AL, Torres LG (2019) Skin deep: An assessment of New Zealand blue whale skin condition. Front Mar Sci 6:757.

Barlow DR, Torres LG (2021) Planning ahead: Dynamic models forecast blue whale distribution with applications for spatial management. J Appl Ecol 58:2493–2504.

Barlow DR, Torres LG, Hodge KB, Steel D, Baker CS, Chandler TE, Bott N, Constantine R, Double MC, Gill P, Glasgow D, Hamner RM, Lilley C, Ogle M, Olson PA, Peters C, Stockin KA, Tessaglia-hymes CT, Klinck H (2018) Documentation of a New Zealand blue whale population based on multiple lines of evidence. Endanger Species Res 36:27–40.

Torres LG (2013) Evidence for an unrecognised blue whale foraging ground in New Zealand. New Zeal J Mar Freshw Res 47:235–248.

Torres LG, Barlow DR, Chandler TE, Burnett JD (2020) Insight into the kinematics of blue whale surface foraging through drone observations and prey data. PeerJ 8:e8906.

Immersive Marine Science: Diving for Data and a New Perspective on Gray Whale Habitat

Allison Dawn, GEMM Lab Master’s student, OSU Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Sciences, Geospatial Ecology of Marine Megafauna Lab

If you have followed the GEMM Lab blog for a while, you have read about the multitude of techniques we use to conduct research. A combination of platforms and technologies help us observe whales: rigid inflatable boats (RHIBs), kayaks, theodolites, cameras, binoculars, high-tech drones, and more. However, not only do we observe from the sky and sea surface, but we also know it is important to monitor whale behavior, habitat, and prey underwater. For this week’s blog, I’d like to highlight the GEMM Lab’s sub-surface efforts as part of the TOPAZ/JASPER project, and share more about the world of scientific diving.

Most terrestrial ecologists have the luxury of strolling through their study systems without having to give thought to their next breath, but marine scientists need creative, streamlined, and most importantly, life-preserving ways to directly observe the ocean environment. Like most inventions, today’s self-contained underwater breathing apparatus (SCUBA) equipment was developed from countless prototypes worldwide, dating as far back as the 1800s. This equipment was improved during World War II, specifically to support combat swimmers (called “frogmen” at the time). After the Franco-German Armistice of 1940, French engineer Émile Gagnan and Naval Lieutenant/Oceanographer Jacques Cousteau teamed up to invent the “Aqua-Lung” (Fig. 1), which allowed divers to autonomously stay underwater for much longer periods of time.

Figure 1: Vintage advertisement for the Aqua-Lung (left) and a diver testing out the equipment (right). Photos sourced from https://us.aqualung.com/en/ourstory.html

Now that the first commercially successful breathing apparatus was available, universities began to purchase these units to aid with scientific exploration. However, after a series of fatal diving accidents, the Scripps Institution of Oceanography felt it was urgent to develop the first scientific diving safety program in 1954, years before recreational diving courses were implemented. With specific tasks at hand, the additional level of distraction makes safety and situational awareness that much more important. Now, scientific dive programs, like the one at OSU, are widespread, and after proper safety precautions and training, researchers have been able to accomplish what was previously implausible: restore coral reefs, obtain genetic information from invasive species, monitor species under polar ice sheets, and so much more (Fig. 2).

Figure 2: Scientific divers at work. Norwegian polar ice diver Michal Tessman collects algae, zooplankton, and phytoplankton samples (left); Florida State doctoral student Nathan Spindel obtains genetic material from urchins (top right); Dr. Colleen Bove of UNC Chapel Hill monitors tropical coral growth (bottom right).

On the south coast of Oregon, the GEMM lab collaborates with Dr. Aaron Galloway, an accomplished scientific diver and one of the lead scientists with the Oregon Kelp Alliance (ORKA), an organization dedicated to kelp forest monitoring, urchin culling, and restoration efforts. He and his team, along with our long-term project partner Dave Lacey of South Coast Tours, help us deploy our in situ underwater cameras each summer (Figs 3 & 4). As you may know, the TOPAZ component of our project aims to link fine-scale gray whale foraging ecology to prey distribution patterns, using inexpensive field methods. The in situ underwater CamDO camera systems are an exciting, recent addition to our long-standing sampling approach.

Figure 3: CamDo lander with attached oceanographic sensors (left); two new OSU scientific divers and Marine Studies Initiative interns, Faith Townsend and Caroline Rice, preparing to dive (right).

We have two durable camera housings that anchor in Mill Rocks and Tichenor Cove. In each housing we insert a GoPro, an extra battery, and a microcontroller programmed to record footage at continuous intervals. With these cameras we capture hundreds of hours of underwater footage of fish, zooplankton, and we hope to one day record gray whale foraging.

Figure 4: Dr. Aaron Galloway and his graduate student Samantha Persad getting ready to complete the final dive of the season in ideal visibility conditions.

Each week during the field season, the divers and I meet early at the dock to board the tour boat Black Pearl for our routine CamDO maintenance excursions. My first role on the early morning journeys is to be a “dive tender” — I help the divers back on board, log their dive times and air pressure, and keep gear organized on the boat. Then, while the divers relax and enjoy a snack, my next role begins. The next few minutes is what we refer to as the “NASCAR pit-stop” of camera maintenance: I replace batteries, swap SD cards, program the camera, ensure that it is secure in the housing, and tuck it into the diver’s bag along with installation tools. All the while, I simultaneously listen for radio calls from our Port Orford interns, sometimes troubleshooting urgent questions while they collect zooplankton and water quality data from the kayak or observe for whales from the cliff.

This multitasking is challenging, but at least I am dry, warm, and have total dexterity of my hands. As I watch the divers descend, in all their neoprene glory, to secure the camera back to its stationary landing, I like to imagine what they are seeing and experiencing. If visibility is good, they will descend into a cerulean blue world filled with rockfish, jellies, mysid swarms, and algae covered reefs (Fig 5.). However, as exciting as sightseeing can be while diving, my own scientific diver training has allowed me to understand the focus, determination, and adaptability even the simplest of tasks require, especially in the chilly waters of the Pacific Northwest.

Figure 5: Under the surface: black rockfish enjoying a swim around the rocky reefs in Tichenor Cove, Port Orford.

I earned my AAUS Scientific Diver certification in 2018 through UNC Chapel Hill, and have since learned just how different cold water is from warm water diving. My first cold water dive was at the Orford Reef exhibit in the Oregon Coast Aquarium. Guided by Kevin Buch, OSU’s Diving and Boat Safety Officer, I gained a new respect for how important it is to train in the conditions you will be working in. For example, cold-water diving requires much more insulation, which in turn changes your buoyancy and dexterity. At first, I struggled to learn my new buoyancy baseline while simultaneously rolling out transect tape with thick neoprene gloves and keeping a curious sturgeon from stealing my mask. At times it felt like I was learning to dive all over again. This winter, I have increased my confidence by taking evening SCUBA proficiency courses to sharpen my skills and logging dives in local conditions.

Figure 6: Obtaining my open water certification on the French Reef in Florida Keys, 2018.

As part of our Advanced Diver weekend course in the beautiful Hood Canal, I had the opportunity to hone my skills in compass navigation, buoyancy, night and deep dives, and search & recovery methods, all in my new cold water gear. While my dive buddy and I were ecstatic to see some amazing flora and fauna (giant pacific octopus, sea pens, nudibranch, pipefish, and more!) we mainly bonded over the shared sense of achievement in safely completing our complex tasks in low-visibility, cold-water conditions.

Figure 7: Giant Pacific Octopus like this can be observed while diving in the Hood Canal, photo credit Bruce Kerwin.

As I complete these trainings, I think of all there is to to be discovered with data collected under the surface of our Port Orford study system: the health of kelp forests, the density and patchiness of mysid shrimp (the crucial prey source for gray whales), habitat complexity, and more. I am curious if there are certain puzzle pieces driving gray whale foraging decisions that may be revealed through expanding our subsurface monitoring efforts as part of the GEMM Lab’s already impressive dataset.

The skill sets required for scientific diving are also useful for outdoor leadership, and truly in all situations: maintaining a cool head under stressful conditions, planning for the unexpected, managing expectations, and communicating well (you can’t really talk with a regulator in your mouth!) — to name just a few. Regardless of exactly how I use my scientific dive training for future research, I am thankful for all this experience has taught me; and, I look forward to integrating these skills further as we head into our 9th year of the JASPER/TOPAZ project.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: