Calls produced by Ecotype C killer whales (Orcinus orca) off the Eckstroem Iceshelf, Antarctica

Killer whales (Orcinus orca) are highly social top predators distributed throughout the worldʼs oceans. They are divided into different ecotypes according to foraging specializations, phenotype, and social organization. For Northern Hemisphere killer whale ecotypes, acoustic behaviour has been shown to relate to foraging strategies and social organization. In contrast to the intensively studied Northern Hemisphere ecotypes, distribution patterns, social structures, and acoustic behaviour of the Southern Hemisphere killer whale ecotypes are poorly known. One of the Southern Hemisphere ecotypes, the Antarctic Ecotype C killer whale, is known to occur in regions with dense pack ice. The limited accessibility of these areas make passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) methods a very effective investigation tool to derive information on ecotype-specific abundance and distribution. During 2 d in February 2013, it was possible to collect concurrent visual and acoustic information of Ecotype C killer whales off the Antarctic continent. From these events, a call type catalogue was compiled. The 2,238 examined calls were subjectively classified into 26 discrete call types. Ten percent of the examined calls were re-classified by two additional independent observers to examine robustness of the classification. Mean classification accordance among observers was 68%. Most call types were composed of more than one call part. Sixty-five percent of all call types were monophonic, and 35% were biphonic. Almost two-third of all call types started with a short, broadband pulse. The variability within call types was relatively high. The Ecotype C vocal repertoire contained typical acoustic features such as biphonation, high call complexity, and generally high variability in frequency modulation. For future studies, the distinct characteristics of some of the call types described herein could potentially serve as acoustic markers for PAM-based differentiation of killer whale ecotypes in the Southern Ocean

Language and Literacy Practices of Bilingual Education Preservice Teachers at a Hispanic-Serving College of Education

This chapter focuses on an exploratory study of the language and literacy practices of undergraduate students within our Hispanic-Serving College of Education (HSCOE). HSCOEs must first understand and approach the language and literacy practices of bilingual education preservice teachers from an asset-based perspective. Language and literacy practices shape people’s identities and how they exist in the world. Language and literacy development also have an essential role in adult success since reading allows people to access, analyze, synthesize, and use knowledge to understand the world and learn new things. Much of the literature related to language and literacy practices at the postsecondary level focuses on academic literacy, especially the particular language of higher education and academia. The intersection of language and academic preparedness and performance for bilingual Latinx students is particularly noteworthy. The bilingual education preservice teachers used multiple linguistic codes and engaged in translanguaging in various aspects of their lives

The marine soundscape off Elephant Island: A Southern Ocean coastal habitat

Here we present a comprehensive description of the acoustic environment approximately 31 km west-northwest of Minstrel Point, Elephant Island, Antarctica at 210 m water depth based on three years (Jan 2013 – Feb 2016) of subsampled (5 min per hour) passive acoustic recordings. Long-term spectrograms reveal a notable recurrence of acoustic environments between years. Fin and Antarctic blue whale calls dominate the low (< 100 Hz) part of the biophonic spectrum energetically from end of January to late July/early August. November through early January are dominated by leopard seal vocalizations at around 300 Hz. Concurrently, the geophonic spectrum exhibits strong fluctuations between days, both due to storm and tidal influences, causing flow and shackle noise from the instrumentation itself. Manual analysis of every second day of the subsampled data by visual and aural screening (employing short term spectrograms) was used to examine the data in greater detail for additional acoustic contributions and to assign the various acoustic signatures to their sources. Six cetacean and two pinniped species were identified based on their acoustic signatures and analysed for seasonal and diel patterns in occurrence. Anthrophonic signatures were attributed to air guns on 3 % of the analysed days. Vessel noise was noted between 10 and 12% of days on annual averages, occurring mainly in austral summer and fall with sporadic events throughout the remainder of the year

Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) acoustic presence off Elephant Island, Antarctica

Recent visual observations suggest that the region around Elephant Island serves as an important feeding area for fin whales. Passive acoustic recordings collected northwest of Elephant Island (61°0.88’S, 55°58.53’W) from January 2013 to February 2016 were analysed manually for seasonal and diel patterns of fin whale 20 Hz calls. Overall, calls were detected year-round, although in some years calls were not present during all months. For all years, fin whale calls were consistently present from February to July for more than 90% of days per month. From August to January, percentage of days with calls varied between years, with presence exceeding 75% of days per month throughout 2014, whereas in 2015 calls were absent in October and November. In 2013, fin whale calling dropped in August and increased again towards November (present 80% of days per month). Diel patterns in call activity were analysed for a 10-month subset of the data from 2013. Fluctuations in call rates did not follow a diel pattern nor correspond to local insolation. During peak calling period, maximum calls amounted approximately to 80 per 10-minute file. Fluctuations in call presence outside the peak calling period may be explained by variation in local ice conditions as drift may temporally force the animals away to areas with reduced ice concentrations. Furthermore, delays in the timing of migration between age groups, sexes and/or reproductive classes may also affect temporal patterns in the clustering of calls. The observed peaks in fin whale call activity correspond to the periods during which fin whale super groups have been repeatedly observed visually in this region. Our year-round acoustic analysis indicates that the Elephant Island region is likely to play an important role for fin whales throughout the remainder of the year

Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) acoustic presence off Elephant Island (South Shetland Islands), Antarctica

Summertime visual observations suggest that the region around Elephant Island may serve as an important feeding area for fin whales. To explore its year-round relevance, passive acoustic recordings collected northwest of Elephant Island (61°0.88’S, 55°58.53’W) from January 2013 to February 2016 were analysed for seasonal and diel patterns of fin whale 20 Hz calls. Calls were detected year-round, although in some years calls were not present during all months. For all years, fin whale calls were consistently present from March to July for more than 90% of days per month. From August to January, percentage of days with calls varied between years, with presence exceeding 75% of days per month throughout 2014, whereas in 2015 calls were absent in October and November. In 2013, fin whale calling dropped in August and increased again towards October and November. Quantitative analyses of power spectral density for the 20-Hz and 89-Hz fin whale bands, showed that fin whale acoustic power in both frequency bands followed a Gaussian-like temporal pattern, increasing in late January, peaking during April-May and decreasing in late August for all years. A second shoulder peak in PSD seemed to occur during the second part of July showing strongest for the upper fin whale band, followed by a rapid decrease, after which SNR for both bands dropped to zero. Diel patterns in call activity were analysed for a 10-month subset of the data from 2013. Fluctuations in call rates did not follow a diel pattern nor correspond to local insolation. The observed peaks in fin whale call activity correspond to the periods during which fin whale super groups have been observed visually in this region. Our year-round acoustic analysis indicates that the Elephant Island region likely carries an important role for fin whales throughout the entire year

Visual and passive acoustic observations of blue whale trios from two distinct populations

© The Author(s), 2019. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Schall, E., Di Iorio, L., Berchok, C., Filun, D., Bedrinana-Romano, L., Buchan, S. J., Van Opzeeland, I., Sears, R., & Hucke-Gaete, R. Visual and passive acoustic observations of blue whale trios from two distinct populations. Marine Mammal Science, (2019): 1-10, doi:10.1111/mms.12643.Blue whale populations from both hemispheres are thought to undertake annual migrations between high latitude feeding grounds and low latitude breeding grounds (Mackintosh, 1966). For individuals of some populations these predetermined movements to and from wintering areas where calving occurs have been confirmed through photo‐identification, satellite‐tracking, and passive acoustic monitoring (Burtenshaw et al., 2004; Mate, Lagerquist, & Calambokidis, 1999; Sears & Perrin, 2002; Stafford, Nieukirk, & Fox, 1999a). However, for many blue whale populations no clear migratory behavior has been reported and locations of respective breeding grounds remain unclear (e.g., Hucke‐Gaete, Osman, Moreno, Findlay, & Ljungblad, 2004; Samaran et al., 2013; Stafford, Chapp, Bohnenstiel, & Tolstoy, 2011; Thomisch et al., 2016). On feeding grounds in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and along the coast of California, blue whales have been observed to form female–male pairs during summer, which can remain stable up to over several weeks, with the number of pairs increasing towards the end of summer (Sears & Perrin, 2002; Calambokidis, unpublished data;1 RS, unpublished data). These pairs are sometimes joined by a second male, forming a blue whale trio, which often is observed to engage in surface active behaviors lasting several minutes (Sears & Perrin, 2002; RS, unpublished data). The formation of blue whale trios is probably related to reproductive competition between male escorts and female choice (RS, unpublished data). Blue whale males produce population‐specific songs likely functioning as reproductive advertisement (Edds‐Walton, 1997; Oleson et al. 2007a; Stafford, Fox, & Clark, 1998). Several studies have reported song year‐round in low‐, mid‐, and high‐latitude waters, frequently with high song production rates during summer on the feeding grounds (e.g., Barlow et al., 2018; Buchan, Stafford, & Hucke‐Gaete, 2015; Samaran, Adam, & Guinett, 2010; Širović et al., 2004; Stafford, Nieukirk, & Fox, 1999b; Thomisch et al., 2016). Therefore, breeding activities in blue whales may be more opportunistic, i.e., not restricted to the breeding season or to a specific habitat.ES thanks Prof. Dr. Per J. Palsbøll for the supervision of the initial Master research project, the Marco Polo fund, and the University Groningen for covering travel expenses. We thank the Melimoyu Ecosystem Research Institute, SNP Patagonia Sur, and the company Teledyne Reson for partially funding the acoustic data collection in southern Chile. RHG is thankful to WWF‐Germany/Chile for partially funding fieldwork through grants to Centro Ballena Azul. CLB thanks the team of the Mingan Island Cetacean Study for their logistical support of boats and lodging, access to the North Atlantic blue whale database, and field assistance; Yvon Bélanger for opening his home to her and RS's field crews; for financial support from the National Science Foundation (Graduate Fellowship), National Defense Industrial Association, American Museum of Natural History (Lerner Gray Fund for Marine Research Grant), Penn State Applied Research Laboratory, and private donors Jeff and Lynn Kraus; and graduate advisors at Penn State University David L. Bradley, Thomas B. Gabrielson, and Diana McCammon. LDI thanks the Croisières du Grand Héron and Center Mériscope for allowing and supporting fieldwork, the Animal Behavior Department of the University of Zurich (Switzerland), the Bioacoustics Research Program at Cornell University (USA) and Prof. M. Manser and C. W. Clark for supervising LDI's Ph.D. The work was supported by grants to LDI for her PhD from the Forschungskommission der Universität Zürich, Züricher Tierschutz, Basler Stiftung für Biologische Forschung, SCNAT, Zangger‐Weber‐Stiftung, SSVA. SJB thanks the Center for Oceanographic Research COPAS Sur‐Austral, CONICYT PIA PFB31, the Office of Naval Research Global (awards N62909‐16‐2214 and N00014‐17‐2606), and a grant to the Centro de Estudios Avanzados en Zonas Áridas from Programa Regional CONICYT R16A10003 for support during manuscript writing. We would like to thank the field crews (F. Viddi, J. Ruiz, A. Carpentier, M. Lessard, A. Liebschner, C. Ramp, S. Angel, K. Aucrenaz, T. Doniol‐Valcroze, J. LeBreus, B. Kot, and J. Puschock) for their immense commitment to blue whale research

Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) mitogenomics: A cautionary tale of defining sub-species from mitochondrial sequence monophyly

The advent of massive parallel sequencing technologies has resulted in an increase of studies based upon complete mitochondrial genome DNA sequences that revisit the taxonomic status within and among species. Spatially distinct monophyly in such mitogenomic genealogies, i.e., the sharing of a recent common ancestor among con-specific samples collected in the same region has been viewed as evidence for subspecies. Several recent studies in cetaceans have employed this criterion to suggest subsequent intraspecific taxonomic revisions. We reason that employing intra-specific, spatially distinct monophyly at non-recombining, clonally inherited genomes is an unsatisfactory criterion for defining subspecies based upon theoretical (genetic drift) and practical (sampling effort) arguments. This point was illustrated by a re-analysis of a global mitogenomic assessment of fin whales, Balaenoptera physalus spp., published by Archer et al. (2013), which proposed to further subdivide the Northern Hemisphere fin whale subspecies, B. p. physalus. The proposed revision was based upon the detection of spatially distinct monophyly among North Atlantic and North Pacific fin whales in a genealogy based upon complete mitochondrial genome DNA sequences. The extended analysis conducted in this study (1676 mitochondrial control region, 162 complete mitochondrial genome DNA sequences and 20 microsatellite loci genotyped in 380 samples) revealed that the apparent monophyly among North Atlantic fin whales reported by Archer et al. (2013) to be due to low sample sizes. In conclusion, defining sub-species from monophyly (i.e., the absence of para- or polyphyly) can lead to erroneous conclusions due to relatively 'trivial' aspects, such as sampling. Basic population genetic processes (i.e., genetic drift and migration) also affect the time to the most recent common ancestor and hence the probability that individuals in a sample are monophyletic

Beyond the Global Brain Differences:Intraindividual Variability Differences in 1q21.1 Distal and 15q11.2 BP1-BP2 Deletion Carriers

BACKGROUND: Carriers of the 1q21.1 distal and 15q11.2 BP1-BP2 copy number variants exhibit regional and globalbrain differences compared with noncarriers. However, interpreting regional differences is challenging if a globaldifference drives the regional brain differences. Intraindividual variability measures can be used to test for regionaldifferences beyond global differences in brain structure.METHODS: Magnetic resonance imaging data were used to obtain regional brain values for 1q21.1 distal deletion (n =30) and duplication (n = 27) and 15q11.2 BP1-BP2 deletion (n = 170) and duplication (n = 243) carriers and matchednoncarriers (n = 2350). Regional intra-deviation scores, i.e., the standardized difference between an individual’sregional difference and global difference, were used to test for regional differences that diverge from the globaldifference.RESULTS: For the 1q21.1 distal deletion carriers, cortical surface area for regions in the medial visual cortex, posterior cingulate, and temporal pole differed less and regions in the prefrontal and superior temporal cortex differedmore than the global difference in cortical surface area. For the 15q11.2 BP1-BP2 deletion carriers, cortical thicknessin regions in the medial visual cortex, auditory cortex, and temporal pole differed less and the prefrontal andsomatosensory cortex differed more than the global difference in cortical thickness.CONCLUSIONS: We find evidence for regional effects beyond differences in global brain measures in 1q21.1 distaland 15q11.2 BP1-BP2 copy number variants. The results provide new insight into brain profiling of the 1q21.1 distaland 15q11.2 BP1-BP2 copy number variants, with the potential to increase understanding of the mechanismsinvolved in altered neurodevelopment