Estimates of large whale abundance in Greenlandic waters from a ship-based survey in 2005

Abstract

A ship-based line transect survey of large whales in East and West Greenland was conducted in September 2005. The survey platform primarily targeted capelin, Mallotus villosus, using acoustic methods and systematically covered the east and west coasts of Greenland from the coast to the shelf break (approximately 200m). The surveyed area comprised 81,000km2 in East Greenland and 225,000km2 in West Greenland. A total of 194 sightings of 13 cetacean species were obtained and standard line transect methods were used to derive abundance estimates of the four most commonly encountered large cetaceans. Fin whales, Balaenoptera physalus, were most abundant in East Greenland (3,214, 95% CI=980-10,547) with lower abundances estimated for West Greenland (1,980, 95% CI=913-4,296). Sei whales, B. borealis, were frequently encountered in the same areas as fin whales, but the estimated abundance in East Greenland (763, 95% CI=236- 2,465) was lower than in West Greenland (1,599, 95% CI=690-3,705). Humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, were found both in offshore and coastal areas of West Greenland (1,306, 95% CI=570-2,989) and in low numbers in East Greenland (347, 95% CI=48-2,515). Finally, common minke whale, B. acutorostrata, abundance was estimated at 1,848 (95% CI=197-17,348) for East Greenland and 4,479 (95% CI=1,760-11,394) for West Greenland. Inclusion of sightings of unidentified large baleen whales in West Greenland distributed in proportion to species and strata increased abundance estimates for fin, sei, and humpback whales to 2,824 (95% CI=1,346-5,925), 2,009 (95% CI=948-4,260), and 1,514 (95% CI=560-4,089), respectively. Despite good conditions and considerable effort, few cetaceans were observed in the northernmost strata in West Greenland. This suggests that the southbound fall migration of large whales from North West Greenland had already started by the time the survey was initiated. The abundance estimates presented in this study are negatively biased. No corrections were applied for whales missed by observers or for whales submerged during the passage of the survey platform, which should cause a particularly large negative bias, for the estimates of common minke whale abundance.