Search

Aim: Identify hotspots and areas of high species richness for Arctic marine mammals. Location: Circumpolar Arctic. Methods: A total of 2115 biologging devices were deployed on marine mammals from 13 species in the Arctic from 2005 to 2019. Getis-Ord Gi* hotspots were calculated based on the number of individuals in grid cells for each species and for phyloge-netic groups (nine pinnipeds, three cetaceans, all species) and areas with high spe-cies richness were identified for summer (Jun-Nov), winter (Dec-May) and the entire year. Seasonal habitat differences among species’ hotspots were investigated using Principal Component Analysis. Results: Hotspots and areas with high species richness occurred within the Arctic continental-shelf seas and within the marginal ice zone, particularly in the “Arctic gateways” of the north Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Summer hotspots were generally found further north than winter hotspots, but there were exceptions to this pattern, including bowhead whales in the Greenland-Barents Seas and species with coastal distributions in Svalbard, Norway and East Greenland. Areas with high species rich-ness generally overlapped high-density hotspots. Large regional and seasonal dif-ferences in habitat features of hotspots were found among species but also within species from different regions. Gap analysis (discrepancy between hotspots and IUCN ranges) identified species and regions where more research is required. Main conclusions: This study identified important areas (and habitat types) for Arctic marine mammals using available biotelemetry data. The results herein serve as a benchmark to measure future distributional shifts. Expanded monitoring and teleme-try studies are needed on Arctic species to understand the impacts of climate change and concomitant ecosystem changes (synergistic effects of multiple stressors). While efforts should be made to fill knowledge gaps, including regional gaps and more com-plete sex and age coverage, hotspots identified herein can inform management ef-forts to mitigate the impacts of human activities and ecological changes, including creation of protected areas.

Environmental change and increasing levels of human activity are threats to marine mammals in the Arctic. Identifying marine mammal hotspots and areas of high species richness are essential to help guide management and conservation efforts. Herein, space use based on biotelemetric tracking devices deployed on 13 species (ringed seal Pusa hispida, bearded seal Erignathus barbatus, harbour seal Phoca vitulina, walrus Odobenus rosmarus, harp seal Pagophilus groenlandicus, hooded seal Cystophora cristata, polar bear Ursus maritimus, bowhead whale Balaena mysticetus, narwhal Monodon monoceros, white whale Delphinapterus leucas, blue whale Balaenoptera musculus, fin whale Balaenoptera physalus and humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae; total = 585 individuals) in the Greenland and northern Barents Seas between 2005 and 2018 is reported. Getis-Ord Gi* hotspots were calculated for each species as well as all species combined, and areas of high species richness were identified for summer/autumn (Jun-Dec), winter/spring (Jan-May) and the entire year. The marginal ice zone (MIZ) of the Greenland Sea and northern Barents Sea, the waters surrounding the Svalbard Archipelago and a few Northeast Greenland coastal sites were identified as key marine mammal hotspots and areas of high species richness in this region. Individual hotspots identified areas important for most of the tagged animals, such as common resting, nursing, moulting and foraging areas. Location hotspots identified areas heavily used by segments of the tagged populations, including denning areas for polar bears and foraging areas. The hotspots identified herein are also important habitats for seabirds and fishes, and thus conservation and management measures targeting these regions would benefit multiple groups of Arctic animals.

Arctic marine mammals (AMMs) are icons of climate change, largely because of their close association with sea ice. However, neither a circumpolar assessment of AMM status nor a standardized metric of sea ice habitat change is available. We summarized available data on abundance and trend for each AMM species and recognized subpopulation. We also examined species diversity, the extent of human use, and temporal trends in sea ice habitat for 12 regions of the Arctic by calculating the dates of spring sea ice retreat and fall sea ice advance from satellite data (1979–2013). Estimates of AMM abundance varied greatly in quality, and few studies were long enough for trend analysis. Of the AMM subpopulations, 78% (61 of 78) are legally harvested for subsistence purposes. Changes in sea ice phenology have been profound. In all regions except the Bering Sea, the duration of the summer (i.e., reduced ice) period increased by 5–10 weeks and by >20 weeks in the Barents Sea between 1979 and 2013. In light of generally poor data, the importance of human use, and forecasted environmental changes in the 21st century, we recommend the following for effective AMM conservation: maintain and improve comanagement by local, federal, and international partners; recognize spatial and temporal variability in AMM subpopulation response to climate change; implement monitoring programs with clear goals; mitigate cumulative impacts of increased human activity; and recognize the limits of current protected species legislation.

We describe the acoustic behaviour of piscivorous killer whales in Norwegian and Icelandic waters. Whales were assigned to one of three activities (feeding, travelling or other), and sound recordings were made in their proximity with a single hydrophone and a digital audiotape (DAT) recorder. A quantitative analysis of the production of pulsed calls, whistles and echolocation clicks in the three activities revealed that there was a significant effect of activity on the production of these sound types. Both killer whales in Icelandic and Norwegian waters produced high rates of clicks and calls during feeding and low rates of click, calls and whistles during travelling. The differences can be used as acoustical markers and provides new possibilities for acoustic monitoring of killer whales in these areas. Based on the similarity between their prey choice, hunting strategies, phenotype and acoustic behaviour, we suggest that the killer whales in Icelandic and Norwegian waters belong to the same ecotype: Scandinavian herring-eating killer whales. Udgivelsesdato: 18 April 2007

Icelandic and Norwegian killer whales feed on herring, after debilitating them with underwater tail slaps. We analysed sound recordings of Icelandic and Norwegian killer whales engaged in feeding and other behaviour. We describe a pulsed call made by Icelandic killer whales shortly before underwater tail slaps, which had an atypical low frequency (average peak frequency: 683 ±131 Hz), long duration (3.0 ±1.1 s) and high intensity (source level 169–192 dB pp re 1 μPa @ 1 m). The low-frequency emphasis of this call was below the most sensitive hearing range of killer whales, suggesting that the call may not be optimal for interspecific communication. However, herring could easily perceive the killer whale call since the frequency content is similar to the resonant frequency of their swim bladder as well as to the most sensitive frequency band of hearing in this species. Previous studies have shown that sound may cause schooling herring to cluster. A high density of herring in a school would increas...

SUMMARYNorwegian killer whales debilitate prey by slapping their tails into herring schools. These underwater tail slaps produce a thud-like sound. It is unclear whether this sound is caused by cavitation and/or physical contact between herring and whale tail. Also the forces causing debilitation of the fish are not understood. Here we present an acoustic analysis of underwater tail slaps using a multi-channel wide (150 kHz) band recording system. Underwater tail slaps produced by Norwegian killer whales generated sounds consisting of multiple pulses with source levels of 186±5.4 dB (pp)re.1 μPa at 1 m (±1 s.d., N=4). The –3 dB and 97% energy bandwidths were 36.8±22.5 kHz and 130.5±17.5 kHz(±1 s.d., N=13), respectively, with a centre frequency of 46.1±22.3 kHz. The similarities between the acoustic properties of underwater tail slaps recorded from killer whales in Norway, and thud-like sounds recorded from killer whales in Iceland suggest that Norwegian and Icelandic killer whales use similar hunting techniques. The acoustic characteristics of sounds produced by underwater tail slaps were similar to the ones from other cavitation sound sources described in the literature, both in term of temporal and frequency features as well as in source level. We suggest that multiple factors generated by the tail slaps like particle fluctuations, turbulence, pressure changes and physical impact cause debilitation of herring.

Killer whales (Orcinus orca) feeding on herring (Clupea harengus) were observed both from the surface and underwater. We refer to one of the feeding techniques used by killer whales as the carousel method, whereby whales cooperatively herded herring into a tight ball close to the surface. During herding and feeding, whales swam around and under a school of herring, performing much lobtailing and porpoising. When the herring were gathered into a tight ball whales often swam with the white underside of their body towards the fish and emitted large bubbles close to the surface. While feeding, whales spent more time circling around the ball of fish than eating. Ball formation is a known defence mechanism used by schooling fish, and the effort by killer whales appeared to be directed towards keeping the ball very dense and close to the surface. The whales stunned their prey by slapping the edge of the school with the underside of their flukes and then ate the stunned fish one by one. The tail slaps created a loud banging sound which could have been either a by-product or an aid to stunning the prey.