Showing posts with label whales. Show all posts
Showing posts with label whales. Show all posts

Monday, August 19, 2013

Eating and Evolution: Are Prey Preferences Causing the Evolution of Killer Whales?


When I was an undergrad, a lowly freshman who just knew she wanted to study biology, I took an internship at SeaWorld Orlando. I was excited that I got to participate in a real research project doing actual sciency stuff. The project was on the nursing behaviors of captive baby killer whales. Really cool right? Little did I know that actual science is composed of hours upon hours of tedious observation and documentation (2:00pm – melon bumping, 3:00pm – melon bumping, 4:00pm – melon bumping…). Despite that (or, who knows, maybe because of it), it was an neat project that boosted my interest research biology. And I got to watch killer whales for hours every week. So when I came across the paper for today’s post it really reminded me those times.

A new study published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Biological Sciences looks at niche variation within sympatric killer whale populations in the North Sea. Those of you familiar with the terminology I just used might want to skip to the next paragraph. Otherwise, let’s hit a few terms first. We’ll start with the niche variation hypothesis. In the simplest terms, a niche describes where a species lives and the roles it plays in its habitat. The niche variation hypothesis describes differences within a species that are correlated with the variety of foods and habitats that are used by various populations. For example, why do island birds of the same species have different bill sizes? Likely because their bills adapt to the food items they are exploiting on their own island. It conveys a competitive advantage which results in a reproductive advantage that will lead, eventually, to an evolutionary change. This change will likely be a speciation event. This is a lineation-splitting event that produces two or more separate species from one (think about the branching on the tree of life). Usually we think of speciation as occurring via a geographic isolation (birds on different islands, populations separated by a mountain range, etc.), but the niche variation hypothesis allows for sympatric speciation because the exploitation of different resources splits a population within the same habitat. Admittedly, this type of selection would need to be really strong and stable over a long period of time to cause speciation. Now on to the study!

Killer whales (Orcinus orca) are actually members of the dolphin family (Delphinidae). They are the most widely distributed cetacean species in the world and are top marine predators. Males typically live about 30 years on average, and females about 50 years. The diet of killer whales is often geographic or population specific. Populations of orcas are usually defined as either “residents” or “transients.” As the name suggests, residents tend to stay in a more localized area whereas transients travel over large distances, sometimes overlapping with the ranges of resident populations. It has been documented that these different types of populations vary greatly in their diets, each consuming a narrow range of prey. Residents feed primarily on fish while transients feed nearly exclusively on other marine mammals. Considering this, and what we know of how the niche variation hypothesis cause speciation, have or are killer whales branching in to two species?

One of the problems in answering this question is the long-lived nature of these animals. It’s difficult to see a long-range change on a long-lived species. Most evolutionary studies use either comparisons at a single point in time or over timescales representing one to a few generations. Okay, that’s pretty good, and these snapshots have been very informative, but to get a real-time view in a long-lived species you really need to go small. And by that I mean molecular. Ancient DNA (aDNA) and stable isotope data from subfossil (remains that have not completed the fossilization process) specimens can be used to track niche and evolutionary history. The scientists in this study used these methods to look at the evolution in sympatric killer whale populations in the North Sea. First, they sampled 23 subfossil killer whale bones and teeth recovered by dredging or trawling the Southern Bight of the North Sea or from archaeological sites in Southern Scandinavia. Then they dated their samples using radiocarbon techniques or archaeological context. Next, they used stable isotope ratios to provide a long-term measure of what the animals ate during their lifetimes and thereby estimate the orcas’ niche width (it is argued that populations in wider niches are more variable than populations in narrower niches). Additional evidence of these dietary habits was gathered from examining the wear-patterns on the teeth (for example, feeding heavily on herring badly wears down the teeth). Then mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequencing was used to determine the degree of linage sorting (separate populations carry their genetic diversity with them) based on isotopic (prey) niche. And finally, they biopsied the skin of modern orcas, sampling either while the animals fed on fish or on stranded remains with known stomach contents. From this they were able to extract high-quality DNA and conduct an individual-based analysis of population structure. This, combined with the aDNA data, effectively gave them a map of the evolutionary outcome of niche variation.

This is one of those studies where the results are all variable. *sigh* ‘Tis science. From the isotopic analysis, the researchers found  a lot of overlap in the results, mostly likely explained by among-individual differences. Because this type of analysis represents what an animal ate over its lifetime, differences in prey items within the diets of individuals are not apparent. This and the analysis of tooth wear suggests some overlap either in the diet and/or foraging method of the specimens studied. The result is consistent with the observations of the modern whales. Fish eating pods are often found with mammal remains in their stomach contents. Lineage sorting of mtDNA sequences based on the isotopic values revealed that there “has been multiple diversifications [sic] in isotopic niche” and “an indication there was relatively stable transmission of isotopic niche along matrilineal lines within some clades, in particular those that were dominated by samples from Norway.” The incomplete lineage sorting they found seems to be consistent with relatively recent divergences in niches, and their models indicate panmixia (random mating) between at least some groups that feed on fish and some groups whose diet includes seals.

To sum up, we know that there is niche variation in populations of killer whales. But all of that variation and overlap that the researchers found suggests that any speciation is still at an early stage in this system. And while the results of this study seem to be all over the place, it does add more information to the story while providing a useful long-term evolution study methodology. It also strengths the argument that sympatric speciation is difficult to achieve.

Also check out this great presentation on this study!



ResearchBlogging.orgFoote, Andrew D., Newton, Jason Newton, Ávila-Arcos, María C., Kampmann, Marie-Louise, Samaniego, Jose A., Post, Klaas, Rosing-Asvid, Aqqalu, Sinding, Mikkel-Holger S., & Gilbert, M. Thomas P. (2013). Tracking niche variation over millennial timescales in sympatric killer whale lineages Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Biological Sciences, 280 (1768) DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2013.1481

Science's article "North Atlantic Killer Whales May Be Branching Into Two Species"

For more information and explanation of some of the evolutionary terms discussed this post see:
Understanding Evolution via Berkeley, particularly the page on sympatric speciation
and for a nice description and examples of niche variation see
Soule, M. and Stewart, B.A. (1970) The "Niche-Variation" Hypothesis: A Test and Alternatives. The American Naturalist, 104(935): 85-97. (LINK)

Some useful resources for information on killer whales:
NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources page on Killer Whales
National Marine Mammal Laboratory's page on Killer Whales
Cascadia Research Collective's "Studying the diet of fish-eating killer whales"


(image via National Geographic, photo credit Gerard Lacz/Animals Animals—Earth Scenes)

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

A Catchy Tune

image from the Daily Mail, story linked below, credit to Alamy
 I heard a song in the car earlier today and now it's stuck in my head. I've been silently, and sometimes no so silently, singing it all day. So imagine my surprise when I was flipping, or rather clicking, through the most recent issue of Current Biology and this study all about the cultural transmission of humpback whale song caught my eye.

Cultural transmission. Put simply it is the social learning of information or behaviors within members of a species. In the animal kingdom you can find it in several large groups including cetaceans (whales and dolphins), birds, and primates. It can happen in a couple of different ways. Cultural traits can be passed vertically from parents to their offspring. They can be passed obliquely from older nonrelated individuals to younger individuals. And they can also be passed horizontally between unrelated individuals close to or within the same generation. Kinda makes sense right? I mean, where did you get your information as you grew up and where do you get it now?

The study for today's post takes a look at male humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). This species is wide ranging, living in polar and tropical waters all over the globe, and they are known to migrate between northern and southern latitudes with the climatic cycle usually for feeding and reproduction. Humpback whales live in groups and are protective but not thought to be territorial. Both males and females will vocalize, but males produce long, loud, and often complex songs that function in sexual selection. It is known that whales within a population will sing the same song which will slowly change over time. This study looks at the horizontal transmission of these songs over the ocean basin.

Before discussing a paper about whale songs it is probably goon to note that the sounds of a song are arranged in a nested hierarchy: "themes" contain a number of repeated "phrases" which consist of a string of individual "units." In this study, the researchers picked field locations that corresponded to the multiple migration routes and breeding grounds within the western and central South Pacific region (northeastern Australia, New Caledonia, Tonga, American Samoa, the Cook Islands, and French Polynesia). Over an 11 year period they recorded humpback whale songs mostly using hydrophones suspended from boats. Then they viewed the songs as spectrographs so that they could look at each unit in the song clearly and then transcribe it based on the visual and aural qualities of the sound. The recorded sounds were classified and analyzed, comparing the similarity of songs and grouping all songs of the same type or themes together. The identified song types were grouped into six different lineages with color: pink, black/gray, blue, red, yellow, and green. When a song had comnpletely evolved and the orignial themes were replaced they were renamed/recolored. This made it easier to track the movement, evolution, and splits in song type between populations.

The study points out that at any one time males within a population show a strong conformity to a single song type containing the same themes sung in the same order. The pattern of the song evolves from year to year but all singers maintain conformity. When analyzing the songs they found that four new songs originating in eastern Australia gradually spread eastwards so that within two years the whales in French Polynesia were singing the same song. That is pretty fast over a really large area. Considering that, during the breeding season (July-October), there are several breeding groups where interchange is uncommon, what is going on?  The direction of the song transmission may be the detail that answers this question. The songs appear to have changed and radiated consistently from west to east in a series of cultural waves. One possible explanation for this directionality is that the eastern Australian population is the largest in the region and so its influence on the other populations is greater than the influence of the other populations on it. Another explanation is the migration. Males from different populations encounter each other along shared migration routes where they hear and learn each other's songs. Previous studies have shown that the eastern Australian population songs rapidly change, within two or three months, and so migratory routes would not need to overlap extensively and minimal contact would be required for song learning.

Overall, this study is a wonderful example of cultural transmission over a vast geographic area. The rate of change and the vocal linkage between populations is pretty incredible. Now I just need go get my next cultural wave of information to get this song out of my head.

Read the article here:
Garland, Ellen C. et al. (2011) Dynamic horizonal cultural transmission of humpback whale on at the ocean basin scale. Current Biology: 21, 1-5. (DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2011.03.019)
The article and supplementary content includes audio recordings.

Visit the Whalesong  Project: http://www.whalesong.net/index.php

After some searching I found that this article has been picked up by some major news outlets, particularly in Australia:
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/whale-watch/word-of-mouth-spreads-whale-song-far-and-wide-20110415-1dh7o.html
http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/pacbeat/stories/201104/s3194046.htm
http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/healthday/651947.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9457000/9457855.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/science/19obwhale.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1376862/Popular-humpback-whale-songs-spread-world-like-hit-singles.html

Friday, July 2, 2010

Thar She Blows!

When you hear the words "raptorial sperm whale" what do you think of? A warped Moby Dick? A SyFy original movie? The picture above? Go with Door #3.

A new paper in Nature titled "The giant bite of a new raptorial sperm whale from the Miocene epoch of Peru" describes the discovery of one of the biggest predators to ever live - a whale eating whale. Whoa.

The newly discovered whale has been named Leviathan melvillei, a name loosely translated as 'Melville's sea monster.' The bones were discovered in Cerro Colorado in the Pisco-Ica Desert on the southern coast of Peru two years ago by paleontologists Olivier Lambert and Klaas Post and their team. The researchers were able to recover 75% of the whale's skull, including large fragments of jaws and several teeth. The huge whale (13.5-17.5 meters long) is thought to have lived and died about 12-13 million years ago and is most closely related to modern day sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus). Today's sperm whales have small teeth (less than 26 cm), lack functional teeth in the upper jaw, and feed by suction - a morphology suited to a squiddy diet. Conversely, L. melvillei has large, interlocking teeth approximately 36 cm (15 in) long. The mouth itself is 3 meters (9 ft) long and just over 2 meters (7 ft) wide with a skull structure that suggests very powerful biting muscles. Put these traits together and you get an animal that hunts in a similar way to extant killer whales (Orcinus orca), using its teeth to capture prey and tear off flesh. Yum. L. melvillei is thought to have fed on medium-sized (7-10 m long) baleen whales and other large prey; it would have been an effective competitor with Megalodon (the giant shark of that age).

If you picture a sperm whale what do you see? Yeah, massive head and itty-bitty mouth (well, relatively at least). That big ole head is mostly forehead, a forehead that holds the "spermaceti organ." This organ is composed of a series of oil and wax reservoirs buttressed with massive partitions of connective tissue, and it's thought to help the whales dive deeply. The skull of L. melvillei exhibits a curved basin atop the snout which suggests that it also had this organ, even though it was not a specialized deep diver. So why have it? The authors suggest that the organ existed before modern sperm whales adapted to deep diving, probably for other functions such as echolocation and/or acoustic displays. Another possibility? Aggressive head-butting. Think underwater goats/rams. Wow. Well, there are records of at least two nineteenth-century whaling ships were sunk when large male whales punched holes in their sides with their foreheads, so the idea isn't too far out there. The underwater head-butting could have been used to show dominance in such situations as contests over females. Its just kinda fun to picture two huge whales swimming at each other at full speed and then crashing their heads together - imagine the wave off of that!

The massive cetacean is thought to have been driven to extinction by changes in its environment, namely its prey and the effects of climate cooling. At that time baleen whales were widely diverse and then underwent a significant changes in number, diversity, and size. Changes in prey are known to impact top predators in a drastic way - no prey means a predator must adapt or go extinct. L. melvillei's surviving relatives (Physeter, pygmy and dwarf sperm whales) are deep-diving, squid-eating specialists - a very different ecological niche than L. melvillei.

Here's the article:
Lambert, Olivier et al. (2010) The giant bite of a new raptorial sperm whale from the Miocene epoch of Peru. Nature: 466, 105-108. (DOI: 10.1038/nature09067)

and here's some write-ups about it:
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100630/full/news.2010.322.html
and
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128213707&sc=fb&cc=fp

Monday, April 26, 2010

Poo-tastic

Save the whales, save the planet. No longer mutually exclusive issues. More whales equals more whale poop, and now researchers from the Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) have taken a close look at that whale poop to study its affects on the ocean ecosystem. They have found that baleen whale poo contains large amounts of iron, 10 million times as much as seawater. Ah-ha! A great discovery as it applies to carbon cycling/storage/sequestration (call it what you want) in the oceans. Follow me here...

Iron is a source of food for phytoplankton.
Phytoplankton absorbs atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Phytoplankton is eaten by krill.
Krill is eaten by baleen whales.
Baleen whales excrete iron in their feces.

For a while, it has been suggested that whale poo contained high amounts of iron, but this is the first study to confirm that suggestion. The study also showed that the krill the whales are feeding on (DNA testing of the poo confirms that it contains a lot of krill) also contains large amounts of iron.

Recent geoengineering proposals have called for adding soluble iron to the ocean to seed this phytoplankton growth in order to sequester carbon. One of the reasons it hasn't happened yet is concerns over the consequences this seeding might have on the ocean ecosystem (think massive algae blooms, etc). According to this study, whale poop is an all natural way to reach this goal. True, we could still add iron to the ocean and we would see phytoplankton blooms (and the resultant krill blooms) which would absorb carbon dioxide. But without an increase in baleen whale populations you would not have a natural control mechanism in place.

Stephen Nicol of the AAD believes that before commercial whaling reduced whale populations to the brink, baleen whale feces may have accounted for approximately 12% of the iron in the Southern Ocean. Before commercial whaling, it is estimated that baleen whales consumed about 190 million tonnes of krill per year and produced 7600 tonnes of feces. That's a lot of iron-rich poo. So it stands to reason that if we allow whale populations to recover to pre-consumer whaling numbers then greater amounts of carbon will be sequestered in the oceans, fighting global warming.

The article appeared in Fish and Fisheries:
Nicol, Stephen et al. (2010) Southern Ocean iron fertilization by baleen whales and Antarctic krill. Fish and Fisheries: published online. (DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-2979.2010.00356.x)

and http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18807-whale-poop-is-vital-to-oceans-carbon-cycle.html

(image from animal.discovery.com)
Related Posts with Thumbnails