Ecological niche modeling of sympatric krill predators around Marguerite Bay, Western Antarctic Peninsula

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2010.11.018Get rights and content

Abstract

Adélie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae), carabeater seals (Lobodon carcinophagus), humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae), and minke whales (Balaenoptera bonaernsis) are found in the waters surrounding the Western Antarctic Peninsula. Each species relies primarily on Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) and has physiological constraints and foraging behaviors that dictate their ecological niches. Understanding the degree of ecological overlap between sympatric krill predators is critical to understanding and predicting the impacts on climate-driven changes to the Antarctic marine ecosystem. To explore ecological relationships amongst sympatric krill predators, we developed ecological niche models using a maximum entropy modeling approach (Maxent) that allows the integration of data collected by a variety of means (e.g. satellite-based locations and visual observations). We created spatially explicit probability distributions for the four krill predators in fall 2001 and 2002 in conjunction with a suite of environmental variables. We find areas within Marguerite Bay with high krill predator occurrence rates or biological hot spots. We find the modeled ecological niches for Adélie penguins and crabeater seals may be affected by their physiological needs to haul-out on substrate. Thus, their distributions may be less dictated by proximity to prey and more so by physical features that over time provide adequate access to prey. Humpback and minke whales, being fully marine and having greater energetic demands, occupy ecological niches more directly proximate to prey. We also find evidence to suggest that the amount of overlap between modeled niches is relatively low, even for species with similar energetic requirements. In a rapidly changing and variable environment, our modeling work shows little indication that krill predators maintain similar ecological niches across years around Marguerite Bay. Given the amount of variability in the marine environment around the Antarctic Peninsula and how this affects the local abundance of prey, there may be consequences for krill predators with historically little niche overlap to increase the potential for interspecific competition for shared prey resources.

Introduction

The structure and function of ocean ecosystems are affected in large part by spatial and temporal variability in the physical environment, which produces areas of enhanced biological activity. These areas, where critical linkages between trophic levels exist, are considered ‘biological hot spots’ (Sydeman et al., 2006). These regions attract higher trophic level organisms, as a result of physical features (static) and forcing (episodic) mechanisms that act in concert to enhance prey availability (Ainley et al., 1998, Bost et al., 2009). At evolutionary time scales, species have adopted life history strategies and foraging behaviors to take advantage of particularly persistent and profitable regions (Costa, 1993, Etnoyer et al., 2004). Biological hot spots have been described across a broad range of spatial scales: from broad upwelling zones to meso-scale frontal boundaries and smaller episodic eddies (see Palacios et al., 2006). In fact, it could be argued that the entire Southern Ocean below the Polar Front is in and of itself an entire biological hot spot (Tynan, 1998, Bost et al., 2009).

Within the Southern Ocean, physical, biological, and chemical processes combine to create an ecosystem dominated by the annual advance and retreat of sea ice and seasonal primary productivity (Knox, 2007). This in turn has lead to a zooplankton community dominated by abundant euphausiids, particularly Antarctic krill (E. superba). The Southern Ocean supports an unprecedented number of upper trophic-level predators, including whales, seals, penguins, seabirds, and fish, which feed primarily on the large biomass of Antarctic krill (Knox, 2007). Baleen whales (humpback (M. novaeangliae), minke (Balaenoptera bonaerensis)), crabeater seals (L. Carcinophagus), and Adélie penguins (P. adeliae) are all abundant in the nearshore waters along the Western Antarctic Peninsula (WAP). They all feed primarily on Antarctic krill, and yet have extremely varied foraging strategies and abilities to access prey (Costa and Crocker, 1996, Fraser and Trivelpiece, 1996, Ducklow et al., 2007). Humpback whales are seasonal residents, migrating between tropical breeding and calving grounds to feed along the WAP in summer and autumn months (Laws, 1985). Minke whales have been observed throughout winter months around the WAP, indicating that they are year-round residents (e.g. Thiele et al., 2004). Some portion of the minke whale population may migrate seasonally, but little is known regarding this behavior and what proportion of the population this represents. Crabeater seals are resident to the Antarctic and are pagophilic; they rarely come to shore, and use sea ice as their primary haul-out platform and breeding and pupping substrate (Siniff, 1991). Adélie penguins breed on rocky shores along the WAP (Fraser and Hofmann, 2003). They are considered central-place foragers that they must come and go to their breeding colonies to provision chicks while they are being raised in spring and summer months. They also utilize sea ice as a haul-out substrate throughout the year between foraging bouts.

Given the broad size ranges and energetic requirements of these krill predators, each has developed unique foraging behaviors and feeding strategies to maximize efficiency (Costa, 1991). While Adélie penguins feed mainly in the upper 100 m of the water column (Chappell et al., 1993), crabeater seals forage as deep as 450 m (Burns et al., 2004). And while both penguins and seals feed on individual krill, baleen whales (including humpback and minke whales) engulf large quantities of krill-rich water to consume as many prey as possible at once. Considering these feeding and life history constraints, the distributions of each species should reflect locations that offer the ability to satisfy both their physical and energetic requirements for survival.

Over the past 50 years, significant climate warming has been detected along the WAP (Vaughan et al., 2003). This warming is believed to have affected the amount of sea ice and its interannual variability (Murphy et al., 2007, Stammerjohn et al., 2008) and the abundance of Antarctic krill around in the region (Atkinson et al., 2004, Ducklow et al., 2007). These changes have, in part, led to decrease in population trends in some krill predator populations (e.g. Adélie penguins, see Fraser and Hofmann, 2003, Ducklow et al., 2007, Forcada et al., 2008). Given the changes in both the physical environment and availability of prey resources, assessing the likelihood or degree of ecological interactions between krill predators is necessary to better understand future impacts of climate-driven changes to the Antarctic marine ecosystem (Costa et al., 2010). The purpose of the present study is to: (1) better understand how physical and biological features, and variability among these as observed in 2001 and 2002, affect the distribution of sympatric krill predators around Marguerite Bay, WAP; and (2) describe the amount of niche overlap among and between krill predators during autumn months and how these relationships are affected by environmental variability. We address these objectives by determining the combination of environmental variables (derived largely from data collected during the Southern Ocean Global Ecosystems Dynamics (SO GLOBEC) field seasons in 2001 and 2002) that best predict the habitat and account for the distribution of different krill predators using a presence-only habitat modeling technique called maximum entropy modeling, Maxent. Maxent estimates a species' probability distribution by finding the probability distribution of maximum entropy (i.e., closest to uniform), subject to a set of constraints derived from available information about the species' environmental relationships (Phillips et al., 2006). We also explore the extent of ecological overlap and niche partitioning of these habitat models across predator taxonomic groups and between years using established niche overlap assessment techniques.

Section snippets

Time frame, study region and data sources

We use data collected as part of the Southern Ocean GLOBEC program in April–May 2001 and 2002 (Julian days 90–150) in and around Marguerite Bay, WAP (see Hofmann et al., 2004; Fig. 1). We integrate a suite of physical and biological environmental variables collected by a combination of underway continuous and station-based sampling, as well as remotely sensed imagery. Hydrographic data were collected from the RVIB Nathaniel B. Palmer in both 2001 and 2002. The hydrographic variables in this

Ecological niche modeling

The number of observations or occurrences for each species in each year is shown in Table 1. Initial plots of predator occurrence reveal several “hot spots” (Fig. 2). In 2001, the area along the southeastern corner of Adelaide Island and near the northwestern corner of Alexander Island had the highest rates of occurrence. In 2002, the same general area around Adelaide Island (as well as along the northern coast of the island) contained the most predator occurrences. Predator occurrence is

Discussion

The results of our analyses indicate several important and novel aspects of the distribution and amount of niche overlap between krill predators in Antarctica. We use presence-only data to generate ecological niche models, which (1) describe the concurrent habitat preferences, (2) model the amount of niche overlaps between, and (3) measure variability in modeled ecological niches in 2 years for several major groups of krill predators in autumn around Marguerite Bay, WAP. We find that there are

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the ships' crews and RPSC employees for their assistance. We would like to thank all of the members of the field and survey teams that helped with data collection. We would especially like to thank Eileen Hofmann for her guidance and leadership during the SO GLOBEC project. Our manuscript was greatly improved by the comments and thoughts of Christine Ribic and one anonymous reviewer. All animal handling protocols were authorized under National Marine Fisheries Service permit

References (83)

  • G.L. Lawson et al.

    Acoustically-inferred zooplankton distribution in relation to hydrography west of the Antarctic Peninsula

    Deep-Sea Research II

    (2004)
  • G.L. Lawson et al.

    Euphausiid distribution along the Western Antarctic Peninsula—Part B: distribution of euphausiid aggregations and biomass, and associations with environmental features

    Deep-Sea Research II

    (2008)
  • D.M. Palacios et al.

    Oceanographic characteristics of biological hot spots in the North Pacific: a remote sensing perspective

    Deep-Sea Research II

    (2006)
  • S.J. Phillips et al.

    Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions

    Ecological Modeling

    (2006)
  • C.A. Ribic et al.

    Top predators in relation to bathymetry, ice and krill during austral winter in Marguerite Bay, Antarctica

    Deep Sea Research Part II

    (2008)
  • W.J. Sydeman et al.

    Marine habitat “hotspots” and their use by migratory species and top predators in the North Pacific: introduction

    Deep-Sea Research II

    (2006)
  • D. Thiele et al.

    Seasonal variability in whale encounters in the Western Antarctic Peninsula

    Deep-Sea Research II

    (2004)
  • D.G. Ainley et al.

    Seabird distribution and oceanic features of the Amundsen and southern Bellingshausen seas

    Antarctic Science

    (1998)
  • D.G. Ainley

    The Adélie Penguin: Bellwether of Climate Change

    (2002)
  • D.G. Ainley et al.

    Competition among penguins and cetaceans reveals trophic cascades in the western Ross Sea

    Ecology

    (2006)
  • D.G. Ainley et al.

    Impacts of cetaceans on the structure of Southern Ocean food webs

    Marine Mammal Science

    (2009)
  • A. Atkinson et al.

    Long-term decline in krill stock and increase in salps within the Southern Ocean

    Nature

    (2004)
  • L. Ballance et al.

    The removal of large whales from the Southern Ocean: evidence for long-term ecosystem effects?

  • B. Bentlage et al.

    Inferring distributions of chirodropid box-jellyfishes (Cnidaria: Cubozoa) in geographic and ecological space using ecological niche modeling

    Marine Ecology Progress Series

    (2009)
  • M.G. Betts et al.

    Comment on “Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data: a review”

    Ecography

    (2009)
  • BirdLife International

    State of the World's Birds: Indicators for our Changing World

    (2004)
  • Bolmer, S.T., Beardsley, R.C., Pudsey, C., Mooris, P., Wiebe, P.H., Hofmann, E.E., Anderson, J., Maldonado, A., 2004....
  • Branch, T.A., 2006. Abundance estimates for Antarctic minke whales from three completed circumpolar sets of surveys,...
  • T.A. Branch

    Humpback whale abundance south of 60S from three completed sets of IDCR/SOWER circumpolar surveys

    Journal of Cetacean Research and Management

    (2009)
  • M.A. Chappell et al.

    Energetics of foraging in breeding Adélie penguins

    Ecology

    (1993)
  • Clapham P.J., Baker, C.S., 2001. How many whales were killed in the Southern Hemisphere during the 20th century? Report...
  • D.P. Costa

    Reproductive and foraging energetics of high latitude penguins, albatrosses and pinnipeds: implications for life history patterns

    American Zoologist

    (1991)
  • D.P. Costa

    The relationship between reproductive and foraging energetics and the evolution of the Pinnipedia

  • D.P. Costa et al.

    Marine mammals of the Southern Ocean

  • D.P. Costa et al.

    Approaches to studying climatic change and its role on the habitat selection of antarctic pinnipeds

    Integrative and Comparative Biology

    (2010)
  • D.A. Croll et al.

    An integrated approach to the foraging ecology of marine birds and mammals

    Deep-Sea Research Part II

    (1998)
  • J.P. Croxall et al.

    Fur seal (Arctocephalus gazella) diving behavior in relation to vertical distribution of krill (Euphausia superba)

    Journal of Animal Ecology

    (1985)
  • C.F. Dormann et al.

    Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data: a review

    Ecography

    (2007)
  • C.F. Dormann

    Response to comment on “Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data: a review”

    Ecography

    (2009)
  • H.W. Ducklow et al.

    Marine pelagic ecosystems: the West Antarctic Peninsula

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

    (2007)
  • S.M.C. Edren et al.

    Modelling spatial patterns in harbour porpoise satellite telemetry data using maximum entropy

    Ecography

    (2010)
  • Cited by (101)

    • Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) distribution and movements in the vicinity of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Marine Protected Area

      2022, Deep-Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography
      Citation Excerpt :

      Models of animal habitat use provide an important means of evaluating areas of habitat importance for management (Gregr et al., 2013). Models built from satellite telemetry-based tracking of individual animals provide high resolution, time-stamped location information, which can provide information both during periods accessible for fieldwork and during less accessible periods (Curtice et al., 2015; Friedlaender et al., 2009, 2011; Raymond et al., 2015; Zerbini et al., 2015). Such insights are valuable for remote locations, such as SGSSI, where sighting surveys have typically been conducted during the austral summer (Baines et al., 2021; Branch, 2011; Reilly et al., 2004).

    • Not going with the flow: Ecological niche of a migratory seabird, the South American Tern Sterna hirundinacea

      2022, Ecological Modelling
      Citation Excerpt :

      Therefore, how southern coastal environments shape the seabirds’ migratory behaviour and influence population differentiation have been seldom addressed topics (but see, e.g. Ingenloff, 2017; Scales et al., 2016). Along marine coasts, different superficial marine currents increase productivity and biomass heterogeneously, creating distinct feeding areas for seabird communities (Bost et al., 2009; Friedlaender et al., 2011), and possibly forcing populations to vary their migratory and reproductive habits according to the food availability (Bost et al., 2009). These areas harbour different sets of endemic taxa, and have been divided into provinces to convey such marine variability (Spalding et al., 2007).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text