Cargando…
Benthic studies adjacent to Sakhalin Island, Russia 2015 III: benthic energy density spatial models in the nearshore gray whale feeding area
Energy densities of six dominant benthic groups (Actinopterygii, Amphipoda, Bivalvia, Cumacea, Isopoda, and Polychaeta) and total prey energy were modeled for the nearshore western gray whale feeding area, Sakhalin Island, Russia, as part of a multi-disciplinary research program in the summer of 201...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9579071/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36255557 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10661-022-10018-7 |
Sumario: | Energy densities of six dominant benthic groups (Actinopterygii, Amphipoda, Bivalvia, Cumacea, Isopoda, and Polychaeta) and total prey energy were modeled for the nearshore western gray whale feeding area, Sakhalin Island, Russia, as part of a multi-disciplinary research program in the summer of 2015. Energy was modeled using generalized additive mixed models (GAMM) with accommodations for zero-inflation (logistic regression and hurdle models) and regression predictions combined with kriging to interpolate energy densities across the nearshore feeding area. Amphipoda energy density was the highest nearshore and in the south whereas Bivalvia energy density was the highest offshore and in the northern portion of the study area. Total energy was the highest in mid-range distances from shore and in the north. Amphipoda energy density was higher than minimum energy estimates defining gray whale feeding habitats (312–442 kJ/m(2)) in 13% of the nearshore feeding area whereas total prey energy density was higher than the minimum energy requirement in 49% of the habitat. Inverse distance-weighted interpolations of Amphipoda energy provided a broader scale representation of the data whereas kriging estimates were spatially limited but more representative of higher density in the southern portion of the study area. Both methods represented the general trend of higher Amphipoda energy density nearshore but with significant differences that highlight the value of using multiple methods to model patterns in highly complex environments. |
---|