Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPrieto, Rui  Concept link
dc.contributor.authorTobeña Morcillo, Marta  Concept link
dc.contributor.authorSilva, Monica  Concept link
dc.date.accessioned2017-08-03T17:29:04Z
dc.date.issued2016-08
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1912/9153
dc.description© The Author(s), 2016. This is the author's version of the work and is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 141 (2017): 155-167, doi:10.1016/j.dsr2.2016.07.015.en_US
dc.description.abstractUnderstanding the dynamics of baleen whale distribution is essential to predict how environmental changes can affect their ecology and, in turn, ecosystem functioning. Recent work showed that mid-latitude habitats along migratory routes may play an important role on the feeding ecology of baleen whales. This study aimed to investigate the function of a mid-latitude habitat for blue (Balaenoptera musculus), fin (B. physalus) and sei (B. borealis) whales occurring in sympatry during spring and summer months and to what extent their environmental niches overlap. We addressed those questions by developing environmental niche models (ENM) for each species and then making pairwise comparisons of niche overlap and relative habitat patch importance among the three species. ENMs were created using sightings from the Azorean Fisheries Observer Program from May to November, between 2004 and 2009, and a set of 18 predictor environmental variables. We then assessed monthly (April-July) overlap among ENMs using a modified Hellinger’s distance metric (I). Results show that the habitat niches of blue and fin whales are strongly influenced by primary productivity and sea surface temperature and are highly dynamic both spatially and temporally due to the oceanography of the region. Niche overlap analyses show that blue and fin whale environmental niches are similar and that the suitable habitats for the two species have high degree of spatial coincidence. These results in combination suggest that this habitat may function as a mid-latitude feeding ground to both species while conditions are adequate. The sei whale model, on the other hand, did not include variables considered to be proxies for prey distribution and little environmental niche overlap was found between this species and the other two. We argue that these results suggest that the region holds little importance as a foraging habitat for the sei whale.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThis work was supported by FEDER funds, through the Competitiveness Factors Operational Programme - COMPETE, by national funds, through FCT - Foundation for Science and Technology, under project TRACE (PTDC/ MAR/74071/2006), and by regional funds, through DRCT/SRCTE, under project MAPCET (M2.1.2/ F/012/2011). We acknowledge funds provided by FCT to MARE, through the strategic project UID/MAR/04292/2013. RP was supported by an FCT postdoctoral grant (SFRH_BPD_108007_2015); MT’s fellowship was supported by the FCT Exploratory project (IF/00943/2013); MAS has an FCT Investigador contract (IF/00943/2013).en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.relation.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2016.07.015
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.titleHabitat preferences of baleen whales in a mid-latitude habitaten_US
dc.typePreprinten_US
dc.description.embargo2018-08-02en_US
dc.embargo.liftdate2018-08-02


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International