Foraging of the Gray Whale along the West Coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia

Murison, Laurie D.; Murie, Debra J.; Morin, Karen R.; Curiel, Jeannette da Silva

doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-092372-7.50025-x

Cited by 21 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) uses benthic suction feeding, turning on its side and skimming the bottom while rapidly depressing and retracting the tongue to stir sediments and suck in prey, primarily molluscs and gammaridean amphipods, that are winnowed from a single mouthful of muddy water with stiff, short, coarse baleen (Murison et al, 1984;Nerini, 1984;Oliver and Slattery, 1985;Nelson and Johnson, 1987). Although Eschrichtius occasionally scrapes prey from strands of kelp or skims fish and squid in open water (even gulping like rorquals; Sund, 1975), it is the only mysticete to ingest food with strong, internally generated suction pressures, as was first documented in a young captive observed to suck in fish and squid with expansion of gular grooves and subsequent oral water expulsion (Ray and Schevill, 1974).…”

Section: Discussion Filter Feedingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptations of the cetacean hyolingual apparatus for aquatic feeding and thermoregulation

Werth

2007

The Anatomical Record

169

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Foraging methods vary considerably among semiaquatic and fully aquatic mammals. Semiaquatic animals often find food in water yet consume it on land, but as truly obligate aquatic mammals, cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) must acquire and ingest food underwater. It is hypothesized that differences in foraging methods are reflected in cetacean hyolingual apparatus anatomy. This study compares the musculoskeletal anatomy of the hyolingual apparatus in 91 cetacean specimens, including 8 mysticetes (baleen whales) in two species and 91 odontocetes (toothed whales) in 11 species. Results reveal specific adaptations for aquatic life. Intrinsic fibers are sparser and extrinsic musculature comprises a significantly greater proportion of the cetacean tongue relative to terrestrial mammals and other aquatic mammals such as pinnipeds and sirenians. Relative sizes and connections of cetacean tongue muscles to the hyoid apparatus relate to differences in feeding methods used by cetaceans, specifically filtering, suction, and raptorial prehension. In odontocetes and eschrichtiids (gray whales), increased tongue musculature and enlarged hyoids allow grasping and/or lingual depression to generate intraoral suction for prey ingestion. In balaenopterids (rorqual whales), loose and flaccid tongues enable great distention of the oral cavity for prey engulfing. In balaenids (right and bowhead whales), large but stiffer tongues direct intraoral water flow for continuous filtration feeding. Balaenid and eschrichtiid (and possibly balaenopterid) mysticete tongues possess vascular retial adaptations for thermoregulation and large amounts of submucosal adipose tissue for nutritional storage. All cetacean tongues also function in prey transport and swallowing. These hyolingual musculoskeletal differences are unique cetacean anatomical adaptations for foraging entirely in an aquatic environment. Anat Rec 290: 546-568, 2007. 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.Key words: Cetacea; Mysticeti; Odontoceti; tongue; hyoid; anatomy; histology; feeding; swallowingAlthough tetrapod vertebrates are primarily terrestrial, several lineages have independently and secondarily reverted to a partially or entirely aquatic existence in freshwater and marine habitats, with obvious ecological, behavioral, and morphological consequences. Numerous mammals of various orders inhabit or regularly visit freshwater habitats, but with few exceptions (e.g., the duck-billed platypus, Ornithorhynchus anatinus), and aside from rare differences in diet and foraging behavior, feeding in aquatic monotremes, marsupials, insectivorans, rodents, and ungulates does not differ notably from that of their terrestrial relatives. Such animals may find

show abstract

Section: Discussion Filter Feedingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptations of the cetacean hyolingual apparatus for aquatic feeding and thermoregulation

Werth

2007

The Anatomical Record

169

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This species is predominantly a high-Arctic migrant which takes advantage of rich benthic amphipod beds. Numerous observations of gray whales along their migration route between Baja, Mexico and the western Arctic seas report opportunistic foraging along the west coast of North America (Howell & Huey 1930, Walker 1949, Pike 1962, Pike & MacAskie 1969, Rice & Wolman 1971, Hudnall 1983, Norris et al 1983, Oliver et al 1983, Murison et al 1984, Nerini 1984, Sumich 1984, Guerrero 1989, Calambokidis et al 1991, Weitkamp et al 1992, Duffus 1996.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Foraging patterns of gray whales in central Clayoquot Sound, British Columbia, Canada

Dunham¹,

Duffus²

2001

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Both sexes and all size or age-classes live in the nearbenthic habitat, although they may be spatially separated into schools within the swarms (Clutter 1967;Fossa 1985;1986). Mysid swarms are also common around kelp forests and other rocky habitats in many temperate environments and, like the Alaskan swarms, are dominated by one or two species (Wellington and Anderson 1978;Murison et al 1984;Oliver et al 1984). The Alaskan mysid swarms were more widespread and frequently encountered than any other type of crustacean swarm.…”

Section: The Finction Of Swarmingmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…, Neiman 1963 ;Anton 1974;Stoker 1978Stoker , 1981Nelson et al 1981;Oliver et al 1984;Nerini and Oliver 1983;Nerini 1984;Oliver and Slattery 1985), there is little information on the benthic invertebrates living on or just above the sea floor. These epifaunal or hyperbenthic animals may be frequent prey of gray whales along the migration route south of the Bering Sea (Wellington and Anderson 1978;Murison et al 1984;Oliver et al 1984) as well as along the Alaska Peninsula (Gill and Hall 1983), before the whales reach the primary infaunal prey communities in southern Chukchi and, especially, the northern Bering seas (Rice and Wolman 1971). This paper describes hyperbenthic swarms of crustaceans found in the Bering and Chukchi seas, arguing that at present gray whales feed on swarms around and outside the primary infaunal feeding ground and that in the past, at low sea levels, whales fed on swarms more often because the primary area was above sea level.…”

Section: Printed In Canada I Imprim6 Au Canadamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Swarming benthic crustaceans in the Bering and Chukchi seas and their relation to geographic patterns in gray whale feeding

Kim¹,

Oliver²

1989

Can. J. Zool.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Swarming benthic crustaceans were widespread in the Chukchi and Bering seas. Swarms differed in their geographic extent, local biomass, and life stages of swarming individuals and thus in their availability to feeding gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus). Immature amphipods apparently swarmed for dispersal, whereas cumaceans probably swarmed for mating. All life stages of the hyperbenthic mysids occurred above the sea floor. Although the geographic spread of mysid swarms and shrimp communities was much greater than for the amphipod and cumacean swarms, the latter swarmed in denser patches to produce higher local biomass. Crustacean swarms are important in describing the geographic patterns of gray whale feeding from the Chukchi Sea to Baja California, including the primary, secondary, and tertiary feeding grounds. The primary feeding ground is in the southern Chukchi Sea and especially the northern Bering Sea, where gray whales suck infaunal amphipods from fine sand, producing an extensive record of feeding excavations. The primary feeding ground is divided into a relatively deep zone (> 20 m), where tube-dwelling ampeliscid amphipods are the major prey, and a shallow zone (< 20 m), where burrowing pontoporeid amphipods dominate. The secondary feeding ground is in the southern Bering Sea along the eastern Alaska Peninsula and adjacent Alaskan mainland where shrimp and mysids are the major prey. The tertiary feeding ground is at the periphery of the primary and secondary feeding grounds in Alaskan waters and south of the Bering Sea where there is a general decrease in the availability of prey and their use by gray whales from Canada to Baja California. The tertiary prey communities include swarms of amphipods, cumaceans, and mysids as well as infaunal polychaete worms, but mysids are used the most by whales. The primary gray whale feeding ground was much smaller during low sea levels when the extensive Beringian Platform was exposed to air. This shallow shelf is a unique habitat that presently harbors the largest ampeliscid amphipod community in the world. At low sea level, swarming crustaceans like those sampled in the present study may have been equally or more important to gray whales than infaunal prey. These historical changes in prey availability may account for the catholic diet of the gray whale.

show abstract

Foraging of the Gray Whale along the West Coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia

Cited by 21 publications

References 8 publications

Adaptations of the cetacean hyolingual apparatus for aquatic feeding and thermoregulation

Adaptations of the cetacean hyolingual apparatus for aquatic feeding and thermoregulation

Foraging patterns of gray whales in central Clayoquot Sound, British Columbia, Canada

Swarming benthic crustaceans in the Bering and Chukchi seas and their relation to geographic patterns in gray whale feeding

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About