Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:30:31.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The social organization of sperm whales in the Gulf of California and comparisons with other populations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2009

Nathalie Jaquet*
Affiliation:
Center for Coastal Studies, 5 Holway Avenue, Provincetown, MA 02657, USA
Diane Gendron
Affiliation:
Centro Interdisciplinario en Ciencias Marinas, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, A. P.l 592, CP 23000 La Paz, BCS, Mexico
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: Nathalie Jaquet, Center for Coastal Studies, 5 Holway Avenue, Provincetown, MA 02657, USA email: [email protected]

Abstract

Intra-specific variation in social organization provides valuable insights into the selective forces driving social evolution. Sperm whales are distributed globally and live far from shore, thus obtaining large sample sizes on social organization in multiple areas is logistically challenging and few comparative studies exist. In order to address how ecological factors influence sociality, we investigated the social organization of sperm whales in the Gulf of California (GoC) using a long-term study (1998–2004) and compare our results to other published studies. Standard photo-identification and behavioural observation techniques were used. Group size was calculated from photographic mark–recaptures using a Petersen estimator. Social organization was investigated using SocProg 2.3. Mean typical group sizes in the GoC were similar to those in the Galápagos Islands, Chile and Seychelles (24.7, 24.8, 30.4 and 18 individuals respectively), but substantially larger than in the Sargasso Sea, Caribbean and northern Gulf of Mexico (12.0, 6.4 and 6.9 individuals respectively). Sperm whale social organization in the GoC best fitted a constant companion/casual acquaintance model, where permanent units sizes were 12.5 individuals and two units usually associated together to form a group. This structure is similar to the situation in the Galápagos Islands and Chile areas. However, groups were more stable in the GoC than in the South Pacific, as groups stayed together for periods of about 80 days versus about ten days in the Galápagos Islands and Chile. It is likely that differences in the social organization between the study areas in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans were due to differences in predation pressure and/or food resources. We suggest that, site-specific ecological factors are likely to influence fundamental aspects of sperm whale social organization.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alexander, R.D. (1974) The evolution of social behavior. Annual Reviews of Ecological Systems 5, 325383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnbom, T. (1987) Individual identification of sperm whales. Report of the International Whaling Commission 37, 201204.Google Scholar
Backus, R.H. and Schevill, W.E. (1966) Physeter clicks. In Norris, K.S. (ed.) Whales, dolphins and porpoises. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 510527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baird, R.W. (2000) The killer whale. In Mann, J. et al. (eds) Cetacean societies: field studies of dolphins and whales. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 127153.Google Scholar
Baird, R.W. and Dill, L.M. (1996) Ecological and social determinants of group size in transient killer whales. Behavioral Ecology 7, 408416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, W.H. (1989) Global maps of ocean productivity. In Berger, W.H. et al. (eds) Productivity of the ocean: present and past. New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 429455.Google Scholar
Best, P.B., Canham, P.A.S. and MacLeod, N. (1984) Patterns of reproduction in sperm whales, Physeter macrocephalus. Report of the International Whaling Commission (Special Issue, 6), 5179.Google Scholar
Biggs, D.C. and Ressler, P.H. (2001) Distribution and abundance in phytoplankton, zooplankton, ichthyoplankton, and micronekton in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico Science 1, 729.Google Scholar
Boesch, C. (2002) Behavioural diversity in pan. In Boesch, C. et al. (eds) Behavioural diversity in chimpanzees and bonobos. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, C.A., Wrangham, R.W. and Chapman, L.J. (1995) Ecological constraints on group size: an analysis of spider monkey and chimpanzee subgroups. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 36, 5970.Google Scholar
Christal, J., Whitehead, H. and Lettevall, E. (1998) Sperm whale social units: variation and change. Canadian Journal of Zoology 76, 14311440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coakes, A. and Whitehead, H. (2004) Social structure and mating system of sperm whales off northern Chile. Canadian Journal of Zoology 82, 13601369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connor, R.C. (2000) Group living in whales and dolphins. In Mann, J. et al. (eds) Cetacean societies: field studies of dolphins and whales. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 199218.Google Scholar
Connor, R.C., Wells, R.S., Mann, J. and Read, A.J. (2000) The bottlenose dolphin, social relationships in a fission–fusion society. In Mann, J. et al. (eds) Cetacean societies: field studies of dolphins and whales. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 91126.Google Scholar
Davis, R., Jaquet, N., Gendron, D., Bazzino, G., Markaida, U. and Gilly, W. (2007) Diving behavior of sperm whales in relation to behavior of a major prey species, the jumbo squid, in the Gulf of California, Mexico. Marine Ecology Progress Series 333, 291302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Efron, B. and Gong, G. (1983) A leisurely look at the bootstrap, the jackknife, and cross-validation. American Statistician 37, 3648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ersts, P.J. and Rosenbaum, H.C. (2003) Habitat preference reflects social organization of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) on a wintering ground. Journal of Zoology 260, 337345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaxiola-Castro, G., García-Cordova, J., Valdez-Holguin, J.E. and Botello-Ruvalcaba, M. (1995) Spatial distribution of chlorophyll a and primary productivity in relation to winter physical structure in the Gulf of California. Continental Shelf Research 15, 10431049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gendron, D. (2000) Family Physeteridae. In Alvarez-Casteñeda, S.T. and Patton, J.L. (eds) Mamíferos del Noroeste de México. La Paz, Baja California Sur: Centro de Investigación Biologicas del Noroeste, pp. 635637.Google Scholar
Gero, S. (2005) Fundamentals of sperm whale societies, care for calves. MSc thesis, Department of Biology, Halifax, NS.Google Scholar
Gowans, S., Whitehead, H. and Hooker, S.K. (2001) Social organization in northern bottlenose whales, Hyperoodon ampullatus: not driven by deep-water foraging? Animal Behaviour 62, 369377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guerrero-Ruiz, M., Gendron, D. and Urban, J. (1998) Distribution, movements and communities of killer whales (Orcinus orca) in the Gulf of California, Mexico. Report of the International Whaling Commission 48, 537543.Google Scholar
Houvenaghel, G.T. (1978) Oceanographic conditions in the Galapagos Archipelago and their relationships with life on the islands. In Boje, R. and Tomczak, M. (eds) Upwelling ecosystems. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 181200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaquet, N. and Gendron, D. (2002) Distribution and relative abundance of sperm whales in relation to key environmental features, squid landings and the distribution of other cetacean species in the Gulf of California, Mexico. Marine Biology 141, 591601.Google Scholar
Jaquet, N., Gendron, D. and Coakes, A. (2003) Sperm whales in the Gulf of California: residency, movements, behavior, and the possible influence of variation in food supply. Marine Mammal Science 19, 545562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaquet, N., Gordon, J. and Würsig, B. (2005a) Sperm whales in the northern Gulf of Mexico: abundance, habitat use, and aspects of social organization. In Jochens, A.E. and Biggs, D.C. (eds) Sperm whale seismic study in the Gulf of Mexico, Summary Report, 2002–2004. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA, OCS Study MMS 2004-067, pp. 75110.Google Scholar
Jaquet, N., Gendron, D., Gordon, J. and Würsig, B. (2005b) A new view of sperm whale social organization: potential influences of history, habitat and predation. Talk presented at the 16th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, San Diego, CA, USA.Google Scholar
Jarman, P.J. (1974) The social organization of antelope in relation to their ecology. Behavior 48, 215267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, T.A., Stacey, P.J. and Baird, R.W. (1991) A review of killer whale interactions with other marine mammals: predation to coexistence. Mammal Review 21, 151180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Jeugd, H.P. and Prins, H.H.T. (2000) Movements and group structure of Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) in Lake Manyare National Park, Tanzania. Journal of Zoology 251, 1521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, B., Whitehead, H. and Dillon, M. (1993) Indications of density dependent effects from comparisons of sperm whale populations. Marine Ecology Progress Series 93, 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karczmarski, L., Würsig, B., Gailey, G., Larson, K.W. and Vanderlip, C. (2005) Spinner dolphins in a remote Hawaiian atoll: social grouping and population structure. Behavioral Ecology 16, 675685.Google Scholar
Lee, P.C. (1994) Social structure and evolution. In Slater, P.J.B. and Halliday, T.R. (eds) Behaviour and evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 266303.Google Scholar
Lehmann, J. and Boesch, C. (2004) To fission or to fusion: effects of community size on wild chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) verus social organisation. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 56, 207217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McComb, K., Moss, C., Durant, S.M., Baker, L. and Sayialel, S. (2001) Matriarchs as repositories of social knowledge in African elephants. Science 292, 491494.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moehlman, P.D. (1989) Intraspecific variation in canid social systems. In Gittleman, J.L. (ed.) Carnivore behavior, ecology, and evolution. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, pp. 143163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitman, R., Ballance, L.T., Mesnick, S.I. and Chivers, S.J. (2001) Killer whale predation on sperm whales: observations and implications. Marine Mammal Science 17, 494507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rendell, L. and Whitehead, H. (2003) Vocal clans in sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus). Proceedings of the Royal Society B 270, 225231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rice, D.W. (1989) Sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus). In Ridgway, S.H. and Harrison, R. (eds) Handbook of marine mammals. London: Academic Press, pp. 177233.Google Scholar
Ruiz-Cooley, R.I., Gendron, D., Aguíñiga, S., Mesnick, S. and Carriquiry, J. (2004) Trophic relationships between sperm whales and the jumbo squid using stable isotopes of C and N. Marine Ecology Progress Series 277, 275283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santamaría-del-Angel, E., Alvarez-Borrego, S. and Müller-Karger, F.E. (1994) Gulf of California biogeographic regions based on coastal zone color scanner imagery. Journal of Geophysical Research 99, 74117421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seber, G.A.F. (1982) The estimation of animal abundance and related parameters. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Taylor, B.L. and Barlow, J. (1997) A review of information about sperm whales relating to setting an appropriate recovery factor. Report presented at the 1997 NMFS Scientific Review Group, 18 pp.Google Scholar
Valdez-Hoguín, J.E., Gaxiola-Castro, G. and Cervantes-Duarte, R. (1995) Primary productivity in the Gulf of California, calculated from the relationship between superficial irradiance and chlorophyll in the euphotic zone. Ciencias Marinas 21, 311329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weilgart, L.S. and Whitehead, H. (1988) Distinctive vocalizations from mature male sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus). Canadian Journal of Zoology 66, 19311937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, R.S., Irvine, A.B. and Scott, M.D. (1980) The social ecology of inshore odontocetes. In Herman, L.M. (ed.) Cetacean behavior: mechanisms and functions. New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 263317.Google Scholar
Whitehead, H. (1990) Rules for roving males. Journal of Theoretical Biology 145, 355358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, H. (1993) The behaviour of mature male sperm whales on the Galápagos Islands breeding grounds. Canadian Journal of Zoology 71, 689699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, H. (1995) Investigating structure and temporal scale in social organizations using identified individuals. Behavioral Ecology 6, 199208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, H. (1996) Babysitting, dive synchrony, and indications of alloparental care in sperm whales. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 38, 237244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, H. (1998) Cultural selection and genetic diversity in matrilineal whales. Science 282, 17081711.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitehead, H. (1999) Variation in the visually observable behavior of groups of Galápagos sperm whales. Marine Mammal Science 15, 11811197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, H. (2003) Sperm whales: social evolution in the ocean. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Whitehead, H. and Kahn, B. (1992) Temporal and geographic variation in the social structure of female sperm whales. Canadian Journal of Zoology 70, 21452149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, H., Waters, S. and Lyrholm, T. (1991) Social organization of female sperm whales and their offspring: constant companions and casual acquaintances. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 29, 385389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittemyer, G., Douglas-Hamilton, I. and Getz, W.M. (2005) The socioecology of elephants: analysis of the processes creating multitiered social structures. Animal Behavior 69, 13571371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wrangham, R.W. and Rubenstein, D.I. (1986) Social evolution in birds and mammals. In Rubenstein, D.I. and Wrangham, R.W. (eds) Ecological aspects of social evolution. Princton: Princeton University Press, pp. 452470.Google Scholar