Hubbry Logo
Cetacean surfacing behaviourCetacean surfacing behaviourMain
Open search
Cetacean surfacing behaviour
Community hub
Cetacean surfacing behaviour
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Cetacean surfacing behaviour
Cetacean surfacing behaviour
Cetacean surfacing behaviour
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Humpback whale breaching

Cetacean surfacing behaviour is a grouping of movement types that cetaceans make at the water's surface in addition to breathing. Cetaceans have developed and use surface behaviours for many functions such as display, feeding and communication. All regularly observed members of the infraorder Cetacea, including whales, dolphins and porpoises, show a range of surfacing behaviours.

Cetacea is usually split into two suborders, Odontoceti and Mysticeti, based on the presence of teeth or baleen plates in adults respectively. However, when considering behaviour, Cetacea can be split into whales (cetaceans more than 10 m long such as sperm and most baleen whales) and dolphins and porpoises (all Odontocetes less than 10 m long including orca[1]) as many behaviours are correlated with size.

Although some behaviours such as spyhopping, logging and lobtailing occur in both groups, others such as bow riding or peduncle throws are exclusive to one or the other. It is these energetic behaviours that humans observe most frequently, which has resulted in a large amount of scientific literature on the subject and a popular tourism industry.

Travelling surface behaviour

[edit]

Breaching and lunging

[edit]
Humpback whale breach sequence

A breach or a lunge is a leap out of the water, also known as cresting. The distinction between the two is fairly arbitrary: cetacean researcher Hal Whitehead defines a breach as any leap in which at least 40% of the animal's body clears the water, and a lunge as a leap with less than 40% clearance.[2] Qualitatively, a breach is a genuine jump with an intent to clear the water, whereas a lunge is the result of a fast upward-sloping swim that has caused the whale to clear the surface of the water unintentionally. This latter "lunging" behaviour is often a result of feeding in rorquals.[3] The right, humpback, and sperm whales are the most widely observed jumpers. However other baleen whales such as fin, blue, minke, gray and sei whales also breach. Oceanic dolphins, including the orca, are very common breachers and are in fact capable of lifting themselves completely out of the water very easily, although there is little distinction between this and porpoising. Some non-cetacean marine creatures also exhibit breaching behavior, such as several shark species and rays of the genera Manta and Mobula.[4]

Two techniques are used by cetaceans in order to breach. The first method, most common in sperm and humpback whales, is conducted by swimming vertically upwards from depth, and heading straight out of the water.[5] The other more common method is to travel close to the surface and parallel to it, and then jerk upwards at full speed with as few as 3 tail strokes to perform a breach.[5][6] In all breaches the cetacean clears the water with the majority of its body at an acute angle, such as an average of 30° to the horizontal as recorded in sperm whales.[7] The whale then turns to land on its back or side, and less frequently may not turn but "belly flop" instead. In order to achieve 90% clearance, a humpback needs to leave the water at a speed of eight metres per second or 29 kilometres per hour (18 mph). For a 36 metric tons (40 short tons) animal, this results in a momentum of 288 thousand newton seconds. Despite its energetic cost, breaching is often carried out in series. The longest recorded sustained series was by a humpback near the West Indies totaling 130 leaps in less than 90 minutes.[8] Repeated breaches tire the animal, so less of the body clears the water each time.[9]

Ultimately, the reasons for breaching are unknown; however, there is evidence to support a range of hypotheses. Whales are more likely to breach when they are in groups, suggesting that it is a non-verbal signal to other group members during social behaviour. Scientists have called this theory "honest signalling". The immense cloud of bubbles and underwater disturbance following a breach cannot be faked; neighbours then know a breach has taken place. A single breach costs a whale only about 0.075% of its total daily energy intake, but a long series of breaches may add up to a significant energy expenditure.[9] A breach is therefore a sign that the animal is physically fit enough to afford energy for this acrobatic display, hence it could be used for ascertaining dominance, courting or warning of danger.[5] It is also possible that the loud "smack" upon re-entering is useful for stunning or scaring prey, similar to lobtailing. As breaching is often seen in rough seas it is possible that a breach allows the whale to breathe in air that is not close to the surface and full of spray, or that they use breaching to communicate when the noise of the ocean would mask acoustic signals.[10] Another widely accepted possible reason is to dislodge parasites from the skin.[10] The behaviour may also be more simply a form of play.[10]

Porpoising

[edit]

Porpoising, also known as running,[11] is a high speed surface behaviour of small cetaceans where long jumps are alternated with swimming close to the surface. Despite the name, porpoising behaviour is seen in dolphins and porpoises, as well as other marine species such as penguins[12] and pinnipeds.[13] When marine mammals are travelling at speed they are forced to stay close to the surface in order to maintain respiration for the energetic exercise. At leisurely cruising speeds below 4.6 m/s, dolphins swim below the water's surface and only briefly expose their blowholes along with up to one third of their body at any one time.[11] This results in little splashing as they have a very streamlined shape.[13] Porpoising occurs mainly when dolphins and porpoises are swimming at speeds greater than 4.6 m/s.[11] Here, jump length is roughly equal to distance traveled when the cetaceans are submerged.[11] This exposes the blowhole for longer which is needed to get enough oxygen to maintain metabolism and therefore high speeds over long periods of time. Studies have also shown that leaping is more energetically efficient than swimming above a certain threshold speed.[11] This is due to the reduction in friction when travelling in air compared to water which saves more energy than is needed to produce the leap.[13] These benefits also outweigh the energy wasted due to the large amount of splashing often seen when groups are porpoising.[11] Porpoising is therefore a result of high speed swimming which cetaceans use for important pursuit and escape activities. For example, dolphins may be seen porpoising away from their main predator, sharks[14] or the direction of incoming boats to avoid collision.[15]

Although porpoising is a useful product of rapid swimming, much variation seen in the behaviour cannot be explained by this cause alone; it has likely evolved to provide other functions. For example, the rotation during porpoising by the spinner dolphin leads to much splashing and is more common at slower speeds[11] so cannot be attributed to an energy saving mechanism. It is therefore more likely to be a form of play or communication within or between pods.[11] Another reason might be to remove barnacles or remoras that, when attached, increase drag during swimming.[16] When spinner dolphins impact the water the combination of centrifugal and vertical force upon these ectoparasites can be up to 700 times their own weight and so efficiently remove them.[16] Other theories suggest that cetaceans may porpoise in order to observe distant objects such as food by looking for visual cues, such as birds dive-bombing a bait ball.[17] Research into the additional functions of porpoising has so far been focussed on the more acrobatic species, but it is likely that other cetaceans also use it for these, and perhaps unknown, reasons too.

Wave or bow-riding and following vessels

[edit]

The term wave-riding is most commonly used to describe the surface activity of cetaceans that approach boats and jump repeatedly in the waves produced by the boats. This includes bow-riding, where cetaceans are in the pressure wave in front of the boat, and wake-riding, where they are off the stern in the wake.[18] Cetaceans swim using fluke propulsion when experiencing wave energy below the threshold needed for riding, such as when boats travel at speeds slower than 3 m/s[19] or when they are outside of the peak wave energy zone. However, at higher speeds dolphins and porpoises will seek out the pressure wave and its maximum energy zone in order to ride the wave by holding their flukes in a fixed plane, with only minor adjustments for repositioning.[19] Wave-riding reduces the energetic cost of swimming to the dolphin, even when compared to slower swimming speeds.[19] For example, heart rate, metabolic rate and transport cost was reduced by up to 70% during wave-riding compared to swimming at speeds 1 m/s slower in bottlenose dolphin.[19] Wave-riding behaviour can be performed by dolphins from minutes up to several hours,[19] and therefore is a useful energy-saving mechanism for swimming at higher speeds.

Wave-riding is most common in small Odontocetes. It has also been observed in larger cetaceans such as false killer whales and orca,[20][21] although most larger Odontocetes do not seek out any form of interaction with boats. Bow-riding is the most common form of interactive behaviour with boats across a variety of smaller Odontocete species, such as dolphins in the genera Stenella and Delphinus.[22] The type of interaction can often depend on the behavioral state of the group as well as species. For example, spotted dolphins are more likely to interact when travelling or milling but less likely when they are socialising or surface feeding.[22] Interactive behavior may also depend on group composition, as both orca and bottlenose dolphins have been recorded to interact mostly when a calf was in the group.[22][23] This indicates that groups with calves may approach boats in order to teach the young how to interact safely to avoid collision. Another result of cetaceans traveling in pods is an increase in competition for the optimal wave energy and so maximum energy saving position. Position of individuals may reflect the dominance hierarchy of the pod and therefore could be used to ascertain dominance.[21] Several rorquals, such as minke,[24] sei,[25] bryde's,[26] humpback,[27] and gray[28] are also known to display actions in similar manners.

[edit]

Stationary surface behaviour

[edit]
See also: Bubble net feeding

Spyhopping

[edit]

When spyhopping, the whale rises and holds a vertical position partially out of the water, often exposing its entire rostrum and head. It is visually akin to a human treading water. Spyhopping is controlled and slow, and can last for minutes at a time if the whale is sufficiently inquisitive about whatever it is viewing. Generally, the whale does not appear to swim by fluke propulsion to maintain its "elevated" position while spyhopping, instead relying on exceptional buoyancy control and positioning with pectoral fins. Typically the whale's eyes will be slightly above or below the surface of the water, enabling it to see whatever is nearby on the surface.[29] Different species of sharks, including the great white shark and oceanic whitetip shark, have also been known to spyhop.[30][31]

Spyhopping often occurs during a "mugging" situation, where the focus of a whale's attention is on a boat, such as whale-watching tours, which they sometimes approach and interact with.[32] On the other hand, spyhopping among orcas is thought to aid predation, as they are often seen around ice floes attempting to view prey species such as seals that are resting on the floes.[33] When prey is detected the individual will conduct a series of spy-hops from different locations around it, then vocalise to the group members to do the same to possibly prepare for an attack.[33] In this instance a spyhop may be more useful than a breach, because the view is held steady for a longer period of time. Often when cetaceans breach, their eyes do not clear the water, which suggests it might not be used for looking but instead for hearing. For example, gray whales will often spy-hop in order to hear better when they are near the line where waves begin to break in the ocean as this marks out their migration route.[29]

Lobtailing and slapping

[edit]
See also: Tail sailing
  • Humpback whale lobtailing at Ísafjarðardjúp, Iceland
    Humpback whale lobtailing at Ísafjarðardjúp, Iceland
  • Humpback whale tail-slapping off the coast of Molokai, Hawaii
    Humpback whale tail-slapping off the coast of Molokai, Hawaii
  • Humpback whale tail-slapping with California sea lions
    Humpback whale tail-slapping with California sea lions
  • Bowhead whale tail-slapping in Shantar Islands
    Bowhead whale tail-slapping in Shantar Islands

Lobtailing is the act of a whale or dolphin lifting its flukes out of the water and then bringing them down onto the surface of the water hard and fast in order to make a loud slap. Large whales tend to lobtail by positioning themselves vertically downwards into the water and then slapping the surface by bending the tail stock. Dolphins, however, tend to remain horizontal, either on their belly or their back, and make the slap via a jerky whole body movement. All species are likely to slap several times in a single session. Like breaching, lobtailing is common amongst active cetacean species such as sperm, humpback, right and gray whales. It is less common, but still occasionally occurs, amongst the other large whales. Porpoises and river dolphins rarely lobtail, but it is a very common phenomenon amongst oceanic dolphins. Lobtailing is more common within species that have a complex social order than those where animals are more likely to be solitary. Lobtailing often occurs in conjunction with other aerial behaviour such as breaching. Species with large flippers may also slap them against the water for a similar effect, known as pectoral slapping.[citation needed]

The sound of a lobtail can be heard underwater several hundred metres from the site of a slap. This has led to speculation amongst scientists that lobtailing is, like breaching, a form of non-vocal communication. However, studies of bowhead whales have shown that the noise of a lobtail travels much less well than that of a vocal call or a breach. Thus the lobtail is probably important visually as well as acoustically, and may be a sign of aggression. Some suggest that lobtailing in humpback whales is a means of foraging. The hypothesis is that the loud noise causes fish to become frightened, thus tightening their school together, making it easier for the humpback to feed on them.[34] In this instance, lobtail feeding behaviour appeared to progressively spread throughout the population, as it increased from 0 to 50% of the population using it over the 9-year study.[34] As no individual under 2 years old nor any mothers were observed to use lobtail feeding it suggests that it is taught in foraging groups. The spread of lobtail feeding amongst humpback whales indicates its success as a novel foraging method.[34]

[edit]

Peduncle throw

[edit]

A peduncle throw, also known as peduncling, is a surfacing behaviour unique to humpback whales. During this the humpback converts its forward momentum into a crack-the-whip rotation, pivoting with its pectorals as it drives its head downward and thrusts its entire fluke and peduncle (the muscular rear portion of the torso) out of the water and sideways, before crashing into the water with terrific force. Peduncling takes place among the focal animals (female, escort, challenging male) in a competitive group, apparently as an aggressive gesture. Possibilities include escorts fending off a particular challenging male, females who seem agitated with an escort, or an individual not comfortable with a watching boat's presence. Occasionally, one whale performs a series of dozens of peduncle throws, directed at the same target each time.[35]

Pectoral slapping

[edit]

Pectoral slapping, informally known as pec-slapping, is when a cetacean turns on its side, exposes one or both pectoral fins into the air, and then slaps them against the surface of the water. It is a form of non-vocal communication[36] commonly observed in a variety of whale and dolphin species as well as seals. The motion is slow and controlled, and the behaviour can occur repeatedly by one individual over a few minutes.[37] The humpback whale's pectoral fin is the largest appendage of any mammal and humpbacks are known for their extremely acrobatic behaviour. Pec-slapping varies between groups of different social structure, such as not occurring in lone males but being common in mother calf pairs and also when they are accompanied by an escort.[37] The reasons for pec-slapping therefore can vary depending on age and sex of individual humpback whales. During the breeding season adult males pec-slap before they disassociate with a group of males that are vying for a female, whereas adult females pec-slap to attract potential mates and indicate that she is sexually receptive.[38] Its function between mother calf pairs is less well known but is likely to be a form of play and communication that is taught to the calf by the mother for use when it is sexually mature.[38] Pectoral slapping has also been observed in the right whale, but due to its smaller size, the sound produced will be quieter[39] and therefore used for communication over smaller distances unlike the humpback. Exposure of the pectoral fin and consequent slapping has also been infrequently observed in blue whales, where it is most often a by-product of lunge feeding followed by rolling on to its side.

Logging

[edit]
  • Southern right whales resting
    Southern right whales resting
  • Bowhead whale sleeping
    Bowhead whale sleeping
  • Gray whale cavorting
    Gray whale cavorting

Logging is a behaviour that whales exhibit when at rest and appear like "logs" at the surface.[40] It is defined as lying without forward movement at the surface of the water with the dorsal fin or parts of the back are exposed.[41] Whales often rest for periods of time under the surface in order to sleep in mainly horizontal positions, although sperm whales also rest vertically.[42] However, as they consciously need to breathe at the surface, they can rest only one-half of their brain at a time, known as unihemispheric slow-wave sleep. This sleep pattern has been identified in all five cetacean species that have been tested for it thus far.[43] Cetaceans intermittently come to the surface in order to breathe during these sleep periods and exhibit logging behaviour. Logging can occur interchangeably with surface resting behaviour when cetaceans are travelling slowly, which is particularly common in mother-calf pairs,[44] as the young tire quickly during swimming. Logging is common, particularly in right whales, sperm whales, pilot whales and humpback whales. Another behaviour that may be mistaken for logging is milling, where a group of cetaceans at the surface have little or no directional movement[45] but instead socialise with each other. This behaviour is particularly common in large groups of pilot whales.[45]

Dive times

[edit]

Time intervals between surfacing can vary depending on the species, surfacing style or the purpose of the dive; some species have been known to dive for up to 85 minutes at a time when hunting,[46] and dives in excess of three hours have been observed in Cuvier's beaked whale under extreme circumstances.[47]

Human interaction

[edit]

Whale watching is carried out on every continent, with an estimated 13 million people participating in 2008.[48] This, when combined with the sustained increase in boat vessel traffic, has likely affected the surface activity of cetaceans. When boats and other whale watching vessels approach, most cetaceans will either avoid or seek interactions. The occasions where no effect is seen is predominantly when the cetaceans are travelling or feeding, but not when they are showing surface activity.[49] In the case of avoidance, the animals may dive rather than staying submerged near the surface or move horizontally away from the vessels.[50] For example, when sperm whales are approached by boats they surface less, shorten the intervals between breathes and do not show their fluke before diving as often.[49] Cetaceans may also reduce their acrobatic surfacing behaviours, such as when humpback whale groups without calves are approached by vessels to within 300 m.[51] Avoidance behaviour is typical of whales, but interactions are more common in whale groups that contain calves[50] and also in the smaller odontocetes. For example, studies on killer whales in North America have shown that the focal animals increased their tail-slapping behaviour when approached by boats within 100 m, and that 70% of surface active behaviours (SABs) in these orca were seen when a boat was within 225 m.[52] Similarly, dusky dolphins also jump, change direction and form tighter groups more when boats are present, particularly when they do not adhere to the regulations about approach.[53] As an increase in SABs is beneficial to the whale watching tours' participants, the tours may be encouraged to approach cetaceans closer than recommended by guidelines. There is a lack of understanding about the long-term effects of whale-watching on the behaviour of cetaceans, but it is theorised that it may cause avoidance of popular sites,[51] or a decrease in the energy budget for individuals involved.[50]

See also

[edit]


References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Cetacean surfacing behaviour

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Cetacean surfacing behaviour encompasses the respiratory and non-respiratory actions that whales, dolphins, and porpoises—members of the mammalian order Cetacea—perform when emerging at the ocean surface to access atmospheric oxygen. As fully aquatic air-breathers, cetaceans rely on periodic surfacing to inhale through dorsal blowholes, exhibiting lower breathing frequencies (typically 1-5 breaths per minute at rest) and larger tidal volumes relative to body mass compared to terrestrial mammals, adaptations that support prolonged submergence and efficient during dives. These patterns vary by species, activity level, and environmental factors, with mysticetes ( whales) often producing visible, species-specific spouts of condensed vapor and odontocetes (toothed whales) displaying more subtle blows. Beyond respiration, surfacing includes dynamic displays such as breaching, where the body propels partially or fully out of the water, potentially for communication or parasite removal; spyhopping, involving vertical head elevation to scan above-water surroundings; and lobtailing, the forceful tail slap against the surface, which may stun prey or signal conspecifics. Such behaviors are frequently observed in social or foraging contexts, particularly in humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) and (Orcinus orca), though their precise causal functions remain largely hypothetical, inferred from observational data rather than experimentally confirmed mechanisms. Surfacing patterns also inform ecological studies, revealing dive capabilities and energy expenditure, with empirical measurements from respirometry linking breath intervals to metabolic demands.

Overview and Definitions

Respiratory Surfacing Fundamentals

Cetaceans, as mammalian air-breathers fully adapted to aquatic environments, must surface periodically to replenish oxygen and expel , a necessity driven by their reliance on atmospheric oxygen despite submerged and locomotion. This respiratory surfacing contrasts with gill-breathing , as cetacean lungs facilitate efficient during brief surface intervals, typically involving a forceful that clears stale air followed by rapid . The dorsal blowhole—single in odontocetes (toothed whales, dolphins, porpoises) and paired in mysticetes ( whales)—serves as the primary interface, positioned for minimal body exposure above water to reduce predation risk and energy expenditure. produces a visible spout in larger species, formed by and condensed respiratory moisture propelled upward at speeds exceeding 100 km/h in some cases, though smaller cetaceans exhibit subtler blows. To extend dive durations, cetaceans employ physiological adaptations for oxygen conservation, storing substantial reserves in blood , lung air (though lungs collapse partially during deep dives to mitigate nitrogen absorption), and especially muscle , an oxygen-binding protein present at concentrations 5-10 times higher than in terrestrial mammals. facilitates oxygen diffusion within muscles, supporting aerobic metabolism during submergence and enabling behavioral aerobic dive limits (bADL) of 9-11 minutes in adult bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp.) and up to 30 minutes in species like sperm whales ( macrocephalus). Surfacing frequency inversely correlates with body size and dive depth; small odontocetes like common dolphins ( delphis) surface every 20-60 seconds during active swimming, while mysticetes such as blue whales ( musculus) average 5-15 minute submergences with surface intervals of 2-5 minutes. Respiratory efficiency during surfacing is enhanced by cardiovascular adjustments, including and peripheral upon diving, which prioritize oxygen delivery to vital organs and delay the onset of hypoxia. Empirical measurements indicate tidal volumes approaching total capacity (up to 80-90% in some species) per breath, minimizing surface time relative to dive duration. Variations arise from activity levels: resting cetaceans exhibit lower surfacing rates (e.g., 1-2 breaths per minute in belugas, Delphinapterus leucas), while or fleeing increases to 4-6 breaths per minute in dolphins, reflecting heightened metabolic oxygen demand. These patterns underscore the causal linkage between oxygen debt accumulation and surfacing imperatives, with empirical tag data confirming species-specific thresholds where prompts ascent.

Behavioral Classification Framework

Cetacean surfacing behaviors, excluding routine respiratory acts, are systematically classified using ethograms, which provide standardized definitions and catalogs of observable actions to ensure consistency in ethological studies. These frameworks distinguish between state behaviors, which persist over time and are measured by duration (e.g., , where the animal floats motionless at the surface), and event behaviors, which are discrete and countable occurrences (e.g., breaching, a sudden of the body out of the water). This binary aids in quantitative analysis via methods like focal-animal sampling, where behaviors are recorded at fixed intervals or continuously during surface observations. Functional categories further organize these behaviors, typically into travelling (directed movement with surfacing), resting (minimal activity at surface), feeding (surface-associated foraging), socializing (interactive displays), and milling (undirected or exploratory patterns). For instance, porpoising—a rapid, low-arc leap during fast travel—is classified as a travelling event in dolphins, facilitating efficient locomotion while accessing air. Spyhopping, where the head emerges vertically with eyes above water, often falls under socializing or investigative milling, as observed in species like humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). Slapping variants, such as lobtailing (fluke slapped on water) or pectoral fin slapping, are event-based and categorized as surface displays potentially serving communicative roles within social contexts. Path characterization methods complement ethograms by analyzing track lines from surface follows or drone footage, classifying behaviors via metrics like (straight paths for travelling) versus (meandering for or milling with surfacing). This integrated approach, informed by prior species-specific knowledge, minimizes and enables cross-study comparisons, though challenges persist in distinguishing intent from observable form due to limited subsurface visibility. Breaching subtypes, for example, are refined in humpback ethograms into full (over 50% body exposure), half, spinning, or non-spinning variants, each as discrete events potentially linked to displays or dislodging parasites.
Behavior TypeExamplesCategoryDuration Type
StateLogging (motionless float)RestingProlonged
EventBreaching (body propulsion out)Socializing/TravellingDiscrete
EventLobtailing (fluke slap)Surface DisplayDiscrete
State/EventSpyhopping (head emergence)Milling/SocializingVariable
Such tables standardize documentation, supporting empirical assessments of ecological or anthropogenic influences on surfacing patterns.

Locomotory Surfacing Behaviors

Breaching and Lunging Mechanics

Breaching occurs when cetaceans propel more than 40% of their body length above the water surface, distinguishing it from lunging, which involves lesser emergence typically under 40%. Both behaviors rely on underwater generated by oscillatory movements of the caudal flukes, which produce through hydrodynamic lift and drag forces on the peduncle and flukes. In humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), for breaching involves 2 to 10 fluke strokes, building from depths ranging from 4 m to 52 m. Kinematic analyses reveal variable underwater trajectories, including U-shaped, V-shaped, I-shaped, and J-shaped paths, allowing to starting depth and desired height. Exit speeds at the surface reach up to 8.9 m/s in humpback whales, with accelerations averaging 0.5 to 0.75 m/s², indicating a gradual rather than explosive buildup of velocity. Pectoral flippers contribute to stability and minor steering during ascent, while the streamlined body minimizes drag until the final surge. For smaller cetaceans like dolphins, peak breaching speeds approach 11 m/s, reflecting higher mass-specific power outputs up to 50 W/kg, which scale differently with body size compared to larger whales where thrust limitations dominate. Energetically, breaching demands significantly more power than comparable high-speed maneuvers like predatory lunges; for a 14.8 m , a high-emergence breach requires approximately 10.3 MJ, versus 3.6 MJ for a lunge of similar speed. This equates to 0.5% to 2.3% of daily field metabolic rate, with costs scaling positively with height and speed due to increased hydrodynamic drag and gravitational work during aerial phases. In lunging, reduced lowers these demands, often linking to surface-oriented feeding or social displays, but mechanics mirror breaching at scaled intensities. Physical limits arise from muscle power output and , with larger whales achieving variable airtimes governed by initial converted to minus drag losses upon re-entry.

Porpoising Dynamics

Porpoising constitutes a specialized high-speed locomotion strategy observed predominantly in small odontocetes, such as dolphins (Tursiops spp., Delphinus spp.) and porpoises (Phocoena spp.), involving rhythmic partial breaches where the rostrum pierces the surface in an arched, streamlined posture, alternated with brief submerged intervals. This behavior facilitates sustained velocities exceeding 7 m/s by exploiting lower drag in air relative to water during aerial phases. The dynamics of porpoising can be modeled in three primary phases: an initial leap propelled by fluke thrusts to achieve takeoff speed UfU_f, a submerged coasting phase where speed decays to UiU_i, and an active phase accelerating back to UfU_f for the subsequent leap. Alternatively, a four-stage kinematic includes underwater , upward leap, air , and downward re-entry, with optimal leap distances achieved at escape angles of 45°–60° and maximum heights at near-vertical angles. Hydrodynamic simulations reveal oscillating lift and drag forces modulated by leap , with peak efficiency at 7–8 Hz, where aerial minimizes wave-making drag that dominates submerged high-speed travel. Energetically, porpoising enhances above a critical "crossover" speed—typically around the point where submerged drag costs exceed the incremental energy for leaps—by reducing overall transport costs through time spent in low-density air, theoretically lowering drag by orders of magnitude compared to continuous submerged . Empirical and theoretical analyses indicate that jump lengths approximate twice the length of intervening bouts, with the strategy yielding net savings when aerial drag reduction outweighs vertical propulsion penalties, as validated in observations. This intermittent approach contrasts with steady , becoming advantageous for velocities where power demands for continuous propulsion would otherwise limit performance.

Wave-Riding and Vessel Interaction Patterns

![Dolphins jumping the wake in front of a military vessel][float-right] Dolphins frequently exhibit bow-riding behavior by positioning themselves in the hydrodynamic pressure wave generated at the bow of moving vessels, which allows them to maintain speed with reduced energetic expenditure compared to solo swimming. A 2024 study on common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) demonstrated that bow-riding yields significant energy savings, with metabolic costs dropping by up to 20-30% relative to unassisted travel at equivalent velocities, supporting the that this pattern serves a primarily adaptive function rather than mere playfulness. This interaction is observed across multiple odontocete , including bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus), spinner dolphins (Stenella longirostris), and Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops aduncus), often in coastal or nearshore environments where vessel traffic is high. Wake-riding, a related pattern, involves dolphins surfing the stern waves or turbulence created by a vessel's propulsion, typically occurring at lower speeds and enabling prolonged associations with boats. Observations indicate that these behaviors are more prevalent during daylight hours and in groups, with dolphins approaching vessels proactively rather than reactively, suggesting curiosity or opportunistic foraging cues from vessel-induced prey aggregation in the disturbed water. Vessel interactions extend beyond riding to include sustained approaches, where cetaceans parallel or circle boats, potentially increasing collision risks; for instance, young dolphins inexperienced in timing leaps against hulls face higher injury probabilities. In whales, wave-riding patterns are less documented with vessels but occur with natural swells or conspecific-generated waves, analogous to bow-riding mechanics for during migration. Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) have been recorded surfacing proximal to vessel bows in areas like Glacier Bay National Park, though such proximity often elicits evasive maneuvers rather than sustained riding, contrasting the affiliative patterns in . Overall, vessel interactions in cetaceans show species-specific variability, with odontocetes displaying attraction to anthropogenic waves for biomechanical benefits, while mysticetes prioritize avoidance to mitigate strike hazards.

Social and Communicative Surfacing Behaviors

Spyhopping Observations

Spyhopping involves cetaceans vertically elevating their heads and often upper bodies above the water surface to facilitate aerial visual observation, a behavior documented across odontocete and mysticete species including killer whales (Orcinus orca), humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus), and pilot whales (Globicephala spp.). This maneuver positions at least one eye out of the water, leveraging adaptations in cetacean vision for effective sight in both air and aquatic media, as echolocation proves ineffective above the surface. In killer whales, spyhopping frequently occurs during foraging near , enabling detection of prey on floes; populations, such as Type A ecotypes, were observed identifying 108 individual seals across 58 distinct spyhopping instances during cooperative hunts. Observations of Southern Resident killer whales off the Washington coast also record spyhopping in social contexts, including superpod gatherings during seasons where it accompanies breaching and lobbing. Humpback whale spyhopping is prominent in mother-calf aggregations, comprising 80% of such events observed off , , from July to October 2018, where it likely serves vigilance functions amid whale-watching vessel proximity. In the Las Perlas Archipelago, , during August-September 2019 surveys, spyhops manifested exclusively in sessions with boats present and increased with higher vessel density, indicating responsiveness to human activity despite overall low frequency relative to other surfacing behaviors. Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) exhibit spyhopping in response to approaching vessels or experimental stimuli, such as during boat-based surveys assessing short-term behavioral reactions. Gray whales employ it near coastal landmarks during migrations for navigational orientation, while pilot whales have been noted spyhopping in rare encounters with human threats like operations. Across species, elevated rates near tourist boats suggest curiosity-driven observations of surface phenomena.

Tail and Peduncle Slapping Variants

Tail slapping, commonly termed lobtailing, consists of a cetacean elevating its flukes above the water surface and forcefully impacting them downward, generating substantial acoustic signals detectable abovewater and underwater. This behavior predominates in baleen whales such as the (Megaptera novaeangliae), where it frequently involves an inverted or vertical body posture beneath the surface. In odontocetes like killer whales (Orcinus orca), tail slaps occur submerged to produce thud-like pulses that stun (Clupea harengus) within schools, thereby immobilizing prey for easier consumption during cooperative hunts observed in Norwegian waters. Variants of tail slapping encompass ventral orientations, with flukes directed toward the belly during impact, and dorsal orientations, with flukes facing upward; these differ in splash patterns and propagation. In humpback whales, lobtailing precedes by herding fish schools and preventing evasion, as documented in Alaskan populations where the slap disrupts prey aggregation at the surface. Such percussive actions also manifest in delphinids, including humpback dolphins (Sousa chinensis), where tail slaps accompany social affiliations or agonistic encounters in the northern , with observed rates varying by group composition. Peduncle slapping, alternatively designated as peduncle throw or tail throw, entails propelling the caudal peduncle—the robust muscular region linking the body to the flukes—sideways onto the water, often alongside partial fluke emergence, yielding a broader splash than isolated fluke impacts. Predominantly recorded in humpback whales at breeding grounds like , , this variant appears in solitary individuals (48% of instances) or social groups (28%), correlating with aggressive displays, attention solicitation, or potential ectoparasite dislodgement. Across migrating humpback populations, both and peduncle slaps facilitate intragroup signaling, escalating during competitive pod dynamics or group coalescence, underscoring their role in short-range acoustic communication amid variable ambient noise. Empirical observations link these behaviors to non-vocal mediation of social tensions, though energetic costs—estimated at 0.75% of daily metabolic expenditure per slap in prolonged sequences—suggest selective deployment tied to high-stakes interactions.

Pectoral Fin Slapping Functions

Pectoral fin slapping, wherein cetaceans forcefully strike the water surface with their elongated forelimbs, generates distinctive acoustic signals and visual displays observable across odontocete and mysticete species, particularly humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) and various (family Delphinidae). In humpback whales, this behavior predominantly functions in reproductive contexts on wintering grounds, where mature females perform pectoral slaps within male competitive groups to incite escalated rivalry and signal mating readiness, as documented in observations from Hawaiian waters during the . Adult males also engage in pec-slapping, often during solitary singing or in non-competitive social pods, potentially serving as agonistic displays or territorial markers, though interpretations remain provisional due to limited longitudinal data. During migrations, rates of pectoral slapping correlate with elevated wind speeds, suggesting an adaptive role in augmenting visual and acoustic communication when underwater vocalizations attenuate, thereby maintaining group cohesion over distances exceeding 1-2 km. Among dolphins, pectoral fin (flipper) slapping produces sharp percussive sounds analogous to tail slaps, functioning primarily in social signaling and inter-individual coordination; the intensity and repetition modulate message conveyance, with louder, iterative slaps indicating urgency in group alerts or dominance assertions. Such actions facilitate play, affiliation, or conflict resolution in pods, as evidenced by (Tursiops truncatus) studies revealing context-dependent usage in captive and wild settings since the early 2000s. Secondary hypotheses include facilitation, where humpback whales may deploy pectoral slaps to corral or disorient schools near the surface, though empirical confirmation is sparse and confined to anecdotal reports from Alaskan feeding grounds in the . Across species, these behaviors underscore pectoral fins' multifunctional utility beyond locomotion, leveraging hydrodynamic forces to propagate signals with minimal energetic expenditure relative to breaching.

Resting and Foraging Surfacing Behaviors

Logging Posture and Contexts

Logging posture in cetaceans refers to a stationary resting state where individuals float motionless at the water's surface with the body oriented horizontally, resembling a drifting , and the blowhole positioned to allow periodic respiration without active movement. This is observed across both odontocete and mysticete species and is primarily associated with rest or , facilitating after periods of diving or . In odontocetes, often coincides with (USWS), where one remains alert to maintain postural control and environmental awareness, typically evidenced by closure of the ipsilateral eye. In delphinids such as bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus), logging involves floating with minimal propulsion or slow, steady swimming near the surface, occurring for episodes that contribute to daily rest totaling around 4 hours of per hemisphere. Killer whales (Orcinus orca) exhibit immobility during logging for up to 1 hour, while sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) frequently rest in groups, floating horizontally or vertically at the surface, as documented through radio and satellite tag tracking showing prolonged motionless periods. Mysticetes display similar postures; for instance, humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) log at high-latitude feeding grounds under calm conditions with reduced respiratory rates, and (Eschrichtius robustus) calves remain stationary for 3 to 98 minutes. Contexts for logging include post-foraging recovery, group synchronization in pods for sentinel vigilance, and to aquatic environments lacking solid substrates for bilateral . In belugas (Delphinapterus leucas), surface supports one-eyed vigilance, mirroring USWS patterns observed in where 45% of time is spent in stationary . Empirical studies, including EEG correlations between eye state and hemispheric activity, confirm as a sleep analogue rather than mere quiescence, though mysticete data remain sparser compared to odontocetes. Anthropogenic disturbances, such as vessel approaches, can interrupt , reducing time in like southern right whales (Eubalaena australis).

Surface-Associated Feeding Behaviors

whales, including species such as the humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae), (Balaenoptera physalus), and (Balaenoptera musculus), employ lunge feeding as a primary surface-associated tactic, accelerating toward dense aggregations of or small near the air-water interface before engulfing up to 70,000 liters of prey-laden seawater per event—often exceeding the whale's body mass—in under 10 seconds at speeds reaching 3 m/s. This maneuver relies on expandable ventral grooves and filtration, with mandibular rotation and deceleration visible during surface lunges, enabling ingestion of over 1 tonne of in sustained bouts limited to approximately 15 minutes due to energetic demands. Minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) exhibit specialized surface feeding, such as bird-associated lunges or solo gulps on schools at the interface, documented in regions like the St. Lawrence estuary where prey vulnerability peaks seasonally. Toothed cetaceans demonstrate cooperative herding to concentrate prey at the surface for capture. Killer whales (Orcinus orca) use carousel feeding, in which groups of 3–8 individuals circle (Clupea harengus) schools—typically 10–20 m in diameter—to compress them into tight balls within 0–20 m depth, stunning fish via tail slaps before partitioning the at the surface, with synchronized surfacing rates averaging 6.9 events per minute during observed bouts totaling over 40 minutes. Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) perform strand feeding in coastal marshes, such as those in , where coordinated groups herd mullet or other fish onto shallow mudflats or shorelines, briefly stranding to seize prey amid receding ; success correlates with group size, with larger pods achieving higher capture rates in prey-abundant habitats. These tactics exploit surface prey accessibility but entail risks like temporary beaching, observed primarily in resident populations with socially transmitted techniques.

Physiological and Energetic Underpinnings

Respiratory Physiology and Dive Limits

Cetaceans possess a modified respiratory system adapted for intermittent surfacing, featuring a pair of nostrils fused into a blowhole atop the head for rapid gas exchange. Their lungs are reinforced with cartilaginous rings and exhibit high compressibility, enabling collapse under pressure during dives to minimize nitrogen uptake and prevent decompression sickness. Oxygen storage is distributed across blood (via hemoglobin), muscles (via myoglobin), and to a lesser extent lungs, with cetaceans relying heavily on muscle myoglobin concentrations that can exceed 5-10 times those in terrestrial mammals, facilitating prolonged apnea. This storage supports aerobic metabolism during submersion, where oxygen demand is met primarily from myoglobin-bound reserves in locomotor muscles. The diving response, triggered upon submersion, includes bradycardia (heart rate reduction to 10-30% of resting levels), peripheral vasoconstriction prioritizing blood flow to vital organs like the brain and heart, and reduced cardiac output to non-essential tissues. These adjustments, combined with metabolic rate depression, extend usable oxygen stores, allowing dives beyond what lung volume alone would permit. Lung collapse occurs progressively with depth—typically complete by 70-100 meters in smaller species—compressing alveoli and shunting residual air into the trachea and bronchi, thereby limiting gas exchange and inert gas loading. Tracheal compression further delays full alveolar collapse, preserving some ventilatory function upon surfacing. These physiological traits impose species-specific dive limits, governed by the aerobic dive limit (ADL), the duration until lactate accumulation signals anaerobic shift. Shallow-diving odontocetes like bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) achieve routine dives to 200-300 meters lasting 5-10 minutes, supported by descent/ascent rates of 1.5-2.5 m/s. Deep-diving species, such as sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) and beaked whales (Ziphiidae), routinely exceed 500-1000 meters for 60-90 minutes, leveraging greater myoglobin stores and thoracic compliance to mitigate high-pressure effects. Mysticetes, like humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), exhibit shorter, shallower profiles (typically <500 meters, 20-30 minutes) due to larger body sizes increasing oxygen demands despite comparable adaptations. Exceeding ADL risks hypoxemia, but surfacing frequency is modulated by prey depth and energy balance, with recovery breaths replenishing stores in 1-2 minutes.

Biomechanics and Energy Costs of Surfacing

Cetaceans achieve surfacing through propulsion generated by oscillatory movements of the caudal flukes, which act as flexible hydrofoils producing thrust via lift-based forces during both power strokes and recovery phases. In mysticetes like humpback whales, this involves dorsoventral undulations of the posterior body, with fluke beats accelerating the animal to emergence speeds of 5–15 m/s for routine breathing or breaching. Odontocetes, such as dolphins, supplement fluke propulsion with lateral body undulations or carangiform swimming at lower speeds, while pectoral flippers provide stability and roll control during ascent to minimize yaw and pitch instabilities. Buoyancy dynamics influence mechanics: during dives, lung collapse under pressure increases density, necessitating active propulsion for surfacing as passive glide distances are limited to tens of meters in larger species; odontocetes rely more on muscular myoglobin stores and hydrodynamic adjustments than variable air volume for buoyancy control. Energy costs of surfacing scale with body mass, speed, and emergence height, primarily from axial musculature powering fluke oscillations against hydrodynamic drag and gravitational potential. Routine surfacing from shallow dives (<50 m) in dolphins incurs costs equivalent to 1.5–2 times resting metabolic rate, measured via respirometry during stroke cycles, with porpoising at 7–9 m/s reducing submerged drag time but elevating per-breath expenditure due to doubled fin-beat power at high velocities. In mysticetes, breaching demands higher outputs: kinematic analyses of humpback whales show high-emergence events (>40% body clearance) require swim powers exceeding predatory lunge efforts, with trajectories involving descent to 10–30 m followed by rapid ascent at accelerations up to 2g. For a 7.8 m humpback (mass ~15 tonnes), a single full breach expends ~0.9 MJ, rising to ~10.3 MJ for a 14.8 m individual (mass ~40 tonnes), reflecting cubic scaling of kinetic and potential energy demands with size; this equates to 0.075–0.5% of daily intake per event, though series can accumulate to 2.3% in active groups. These costs are mitigated by efficient fluke cambering, which enhances thrust-to-power ratios via passive deformation, and by behavioral modulation—e.g., angled approaches in breaching to leverage —but remain elevated relative to submerged cruising due to air exposure and re-entry drag forces peaking at 10^4–10^5 in large whales. Empirical models from tag data and hydrodynamic simulations confirm that muscle power limits maximum breach height to ~1.5 times body length in adults, with juveniles achieving proportionally higher clearances due to lower mass-specific drag.

Functional Hypotheses and Evolutionary Insights

Adaptive Explanations from Empirical Data

Empirical observations of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) during migration reveal that surface-active behaviors, including breaching, lobtailing, and pectoral slapping, frequently coincide with group cohesion and interactions, such as mergers or splits among pods, suggesting a primary role in intraspecific communication over distances exceeding visual range. These behaviors produce audible signals propagating through water and air, potentially conveying information on location, fitness, or intent, with rates increasing in competitive contexts where males perform sequences of slaps and breaches to display strength. Biomechanical analyses quantify breaching as energetically costly, requiring speeds of 6.2–8.2 m/s and power outputs near muscular limits (up to 85 W/kg), exceeding those of lunge feeding by factors of 2–4 times per event (e.g., 9.8 MJ vs. 2.6 MJ for a 14.7 m individual), which supports an adaptive function as costly signaling of health or dominance rather than routine foraging. In odontocetes like bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus), pectoral slapping correlates with age, sex, and social role, often observed in affiliative or agonistic encounters, indicating context-specific signaling to coordinate group activities or resolve conflicts. Foraging adaptations are evidenced in specific variants, such as humpback lobtailing, where repeated slaps (up to 30 per minute) generate waves that tighten schooling , facilitating efficiency, as documented in observations linking slap sequences to prey ball formation. Parasite dislodgement receives anecdotal support from post-activity examinations showing reduced epizoic on breached whales, though controlled remain limited and confounded by shedding cycles. Spyhopping in species like s (Orcinus orca) and dolphins may enable visual threat assessment or , with field showing elevated rates near vessels or ice edges, but lacks quantification of fitness benefits beyond correlative patterns. Across cetaceans, these behaviors' persistence despite metabolic demands (0.5–2.3% of daily energy budget per breach) underscores selection for social and ecological gains in fluid, low-visibility environments.

Debated Interpretations and Evidence Gaps

Interpretations of cetacean surfacing behaviors, such as breaching and lobtailing, remain contested, with primary hypotheses centering on communication, parasite dislodgement, play, and prey manipulation, though direct causal evidence for any single function is limited across species. For instance, breaching in humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) has been linked to acoustic signaling, as the impact generates underwater sounds propagating over kilometers, potentially serving long-range communication in low-visibility conditions, supported by correlations with social grouping during migrations. However, alternative explanations emphasize ectoparasite removal or playful exploration, particularly in solitary instances where social contexts are absent, yet experimental validation is absent due to ethical and logistical constraints in wild populations. Lobtailing similarly elicits debate, with acoustic models suggesting it produces directional signals for conspecific coordination, but observations of increased rates in parasite-laden individuals imply a grooming role, without controlled studies disentangling these. Evidence gaps persist prominently in establishing causality and context-specificity, as most data derive from opportunistic surface observations prone to sampling biases, such as overrepresentation of coastal humpback aggregations while deep-diving odontocetes like sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) yield sparse records. Quantitative energetic analyses reveal breaching demands up to 10 times the cost of routine lunges, implying adaptive value beyond play, yet longitudinal tracking of individuals—via tags or photo-ID—rarely exceeds short durations, obscuring whether behaviors signal fitness honestly or serve multifaceted roles varying by age, sex, or environmental factors. Comparative deficits are evident, with mysticete behaviors better documented than odontocete variants like porpoising, where versus evasion hypotheses lack acoustic or kinematic corroboration. Furthermore, anthropogenic confounders, including vessel proximity altering rates by 20-50% in responsive species, complicate attribution to intrinsic motivations. These uncertainties underscore the need for integrated approaches, such as multi-sensor tagging combining accelerometry, hydrophones, and GPS, to parse behavioral sequences underwater, though deployment challenges in remote habitats and tag-induced artifacts limit generalizability. Peer-reviewed syntheses highlight that while contextual correlations (e.g., elevated slapping in competitive pods) bolster communication models, null hypotheses of non-adaptive origins cannot be falsified without manipulative precluded in protected taxa, perpetuating interpretive pluralism over consensus.

Species-Specific Variations

Odontocete vs Mysticete Differences

Odontocetes and mysticetes exhibit distinct surfacing behaviors shaped by anatomical, physiological, and ecological divergences. Odontocetes, with their single anteriorly positioned blowhole, enable swift, low-profile respirations that minimize exposure time at the surface, supporting sustained echolocation and agile maneuvers during foraging or travel. In contrast, mysticetes' paired, more posterior blowholes produce taller, bushier spouts and often necessitate greater body rolling or exposure during breathing, reflecting adaptations for bulk filtration feeding rather than precise prey pursuit. Respiratory surfacing frequency differs markedly, correlating with body size and metabolic demands. Small odontocetes, such as bottlenose dolphins, display high rates with inter-breath intervals of 17-25 seconds, allowing frequent oxygen replenishment amid active hunting via . Larger mysticetes, like blue whales, surface every 10-20 minutes for dives averaging similar durations, prioritizing energy conservation during migrations or swarms over rapid cycles. While exceptional odontocetes like sperm whales achieve prolonged submergences exceeding 60 minutes, suborder-wide trends show odontocetes' greater variability in short, iterative surfacing tied to predatory lifestyles. Locomotor and display surfacing further highlights contrasts. Porpoising—rhythmic partial leaps to reduce drag at speeds over 30 km/h—is prevalent among fast-swimming odontocetes like dolphins and porpoises, enhancing efficiency in open-water pursuits but absent in mysticetes, whose bulkier forms and gulp-feeding preclude such hydrodynamics. Spyhopping, a deliberate vertical for above-water , appears across both groups but integrates more seamlessly with odontocetes' visual and acoustic scouting in social pods. Breaching occurs in both, yet mysticetes like humpback whales perform it repetitively with full-body clearance, potentially for signaling over distances, whereas odontocete breaches in species like orcas often synchronize in groups for coordination or play. These patterns underscore odontocetes' emphasis on agility and sensory integration versus mysticetes' focus on endurance and communicative displays, though overlaps exist due to convergent pressures like predator avoidance. Empirical observations from tagging and acoustics reveal odontocetes' surfacing as more erratic and context-driven by prey detection, while mysticetes' is rhythmic and migration-aligned.

Intra-Family Behavioral Divergences

Within the family Delphinidae, which encompasses oceanic dolphins and includes over 30 , surfacing behaviors such as breaching and spyhopping vary significantly in frequency, form, and presumed function across genera. (Orcinus orca), the largest delphinids, exhibit frequent spyhopping, often in predatory contexts near ice floes where individuals vertically position their heads above water to scan for seals or other prey, with observations documenting durations of up to several minutes per event. In contrast, smaller delphinids like common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) prioritize high-speed porpoising and full-body breaches during travel and foraging, achieving speeds exceeding 25 km/h while clearing the water surface almost entirely, a linked to efficient locomotion and social signaling rather than visual . Rough-toothed dolphins (Steno bredanensis), another delphinid, display aerial behaviors akin to those in other family members but with atypical variations, such as synchronized group breaches that deviate from solitary patterns observed in species like Risso's dolphins (Grampus griseus), potentially reflecting differences in group cohesion and habitat use. These intra-family divergences may stem from body size, prey specialization, and social complexity, with larger, apex-predator species like integrating surfacing into cooperative hunting, while smaller, pelagic species emphasize for evasion and group coordination. In the Balaenopteridae ( excluding humpbacks), surfacing patterns diverge markedly between species, influenced by dive depth, prey pursuit strategies, and lunge-feeding mechanics. Blue whales ( musculus) display diel variations in surfacing, with longer surface intervals and shallower dives at night (averaging 5-10 minutes at surface post-dive) compared to deeper daytime dives exceeding 300 meters, reflecting adaptations to vertically migrating prey and reduced visibility constraints. Minke whales ( acutorostrata), conversely, maintain shorter dive cycles (typically 2-5 minutes) with more frequent, rapid surfacings even during foraging, enabling opportunistic surface lunge-feeding on fish schools and exhibiting less pronounced diel shifts, as documented in populations where respiration rates stabilize over extended periods regardless of activity. Fin whales ( physalus) bridge these extremes, with surfacing often tied to double-breathing sequences post-deep dives (up to 500 meters), but showing higher variability in lunge-associated breaches during dense encounters, differing from the more consistent, non-aerial surfacing in sei whales ( borealis). These differences correlate with morphological traits like throat pleat expansion capacity and body length, where larger species incur higher energetic costs for breaches, favoring subdued surfacing for respiration over acrobatic displays. Lobtailing and peduncle slapping, percussive surfacing acts involving tail or body strikes on the water surface, also vary within families, often scaling with . In Delphinidae, species with fission-fusion societies like bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp.) use lobtailing more for intra-group communication or , with rates increasing during mating seasons, whereas s deploy it in coordinated hunts to stun prey or signal pod members. Empirical data from acoustic monitoring indicate these behaviors generate distinct sound signatures, with orca lobtails producing louder, lower-frequency impacts suited to their larger flukes compared to the sharper slaps of smaller delphinids. Such intra-family polymorphisms underscore how ecological niches drive behavioral specialization, though gaps persist in quantifying exact frequencies across less-studied species due to observational biases in open-ocean habitats.

Research Approaches and Challenges

Field Observation Methods

Field observations of cetacean surfacing behavior primarily rely on visual surveys conducted from vessels, shore stations, or , capturing events such as , breaching, spyhopping, and lobtailing during brief surface intervals. Boat-based line-transect surveys, operating at speeds of 8–10 knots, detect surfacing animals using to estimate distances and group sizes, with closing modes allowing approaches for detailed identification while minimizing through post-approach returns to the transect line. These methods account for availability , as cetaceans surface predictably for respiration, enabling abundance estimates alongside behavioral notes on surfacing . Focal follow protocols, applied in systematic individual or group tracking, provide granular data on surfacing patterns by paralleling animals at distances of at least 100 meters and recording continuous metrics like surface duration (e.g., 2.1 ± 1.2 seconds for traveling killer whales), dive intervals, and breach incidents via and GPS. Sessions typically last 30–40 minutes or until multiple surfacing events are missed, prioritizing identifiable animals to link behaviors like sequential breaches to social or contexts. Scan sampling complements this by logging instantaneous group states every 10 minutes, categorizing surfacing as part of travel (70.4% of observations in one killer whale study) or (21.0%), while incident sampling targets discrete events such as breaches for frequency counts. Shore-based theodolite tracking offers a non-invasive alternative, using surveyor's s to triangulate surfacing positions in real-time, generating paths from sequential blows to analyze movement and use without vessel disturbance. Software like processes angles into geographic coordinates, facilitating studies of surfacing trajectories in coastal species such as bottlenose dolphins. Challenges include variable sea states limiting visibility to Beaufort scale 0–3, short surface times (often under 10 seconds), and reactive movements altering natural behavior, necessitating protocols like randomized transects and environmental covariates in . sampling, though common (59% of studies from 1989–1995), introduces and is less reliable for quantifying surfacing rates compared to structured continuous or point sampling.

Technological Tools and Recent Advances

Digital acoustic recording tags (DTAGs), attached via suction cups, enable detailed measurement of surfacing events by logging depth profiles, orientation, and acoustic data during breaths and dives, with deployments lasting up to 24 hours on species like humpback and sperm whales. These noninvasive devices, weighing approximately 300 grams, capture 3D movement traces synchronized with surfacing, revealing patterns such as inter-breath intervals and behavioral contexts without penetrating the skin. Satellite-linked tags, including conductivity-temperature-depth (CTD) models, track long-term surfacing frequency by transmitting data only when the animal is at or near the surface, with median deployment durations of 17.5 days across large whales like blues and fins. These tags require 0.5–1 second of exposure above water for reliable positioning, allowing inference of breathing rates and dive cycles over months, though tag placement affects accuracy in movement analysis. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs or drones) facilitate overhead observation of surfacing behaviors, such as breaching and spyhopping, with minimal disturbance, capturing high-resolution video and photogrammetric measurements of body condition during breaths. Recent integrations include drone-deployed suction-cup tags via "tap-and-go" methods, reducing human risk and enabling precise application on backs during surfacing, as demonstrated in 2024 studies on Rice's whales and whales. Advances in autonomous systems, such as frameworks for robot rendezvous with surfacing cetaceans, enhance tracking precision using VHF signals from tags, as developed in Project CETI by October 2024. Convolutional neural networks applied to UAV imagery automate cetacean detection during surfacing, improving behavioral analysis efficiency as shown in January 2025 validations. These tools collectively address prior limitations in field observations by providing scalable, data-rich insights into surfacing dynamics.

Human-Cetacean Interactions

Vessel-Induced Behavioral Changes

Vessel presence and underwater noise from boats and ships elicit measurable changes in cetacean surfacing behaviors, often characterized by increased respiration rates and shortened dive intervals indicative of disturbance responses. In humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), land-based tracking in Hawaiian waters from 2015 to 2018 revealed respiration rates increasing at vessel approach distances of 75–150 meters and 250–340 meters, with dive times decreasing by approximately 83% during and immediately after encounters. Controlled playback experiments on resting mother-calf pairs in Australia demonstrated that exposure to high vessel noise levels (172 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m) doubled maternal respiration rates from 0.3 to 0.6 breaths per minute while reducing resting time by 30%. These alterations typically reflect anti-predator or avoidance tactics, elevating energetic demands through more frequent surfacing for air and heightened vigilance. Post-encounter, humpback whales exhibited a temporary 13% decrease in respiration rates, suggesting recovery phases, though path directness remained elevated, implying sustained directional changes to evade vessels. Similar patterns occur in odontocetes; for instance, bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) display modified surfacing synchrony and inter-breath intervals in response to boat traffic, potentially disrupting efficiency. Killer whales (Orcinus ) and other species show comparable shifts in surface-active group behaviors, such as increased spyhopping or erratic breaching, correlated with vessel proximity under federal approach regulations. Empirical data underscore that such responses are noise- and distance-dependent, with implications for population-level fitness in high-traffic areas like breeding grounds, though long-term remains debated absent chronic exposure studies.

Tourism Impacts and Empirical Assessments

Whale-watching tourism disrupts cetacean surfacing behaviors primarily through vessel noise, proximity, and traffic, prompting short-term physiological and kinematic adjustments. In sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) tagged in the from 2017 to 2019, exposure to whale-watching vessels increased ascent velocities during dives from 1.23 m/s to 1.35 m/s (p=0.039) and overall dynamic body acceleration from 1.72 m/s² to 1.79 m/s² (p=0.039), indicating heightened costs in surfacing phases without altering blow rates or breaching . Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) exhibit doubled respiration rates (p<0.001) and 37% faster swim speeds (p=0.04) under high vessel noise (172 dB), correlating with more frequent surfacing and a 30% reduction in maternal resting time (p=0.01) during controlled exposures in Gulf, , in 2018. These responses, observed in mother-calf pairs, suggest vessels trigger avoidance akin to predator evasion, prioritizing rapid surfacing over prolonged surface intervals. In killer whales (Orcinus orca), close approaches by vessels (within 100-150 m) significantly elevate surface-active behaviors, including breaches (7-13% of events), spyhops (5-6%), and tail slaps (66%), with peaks 30 seconds post-approach (p<0.0001) in studies off from 2005-2006. Such behaviors, statistically linked to proximity (χ²=5.3, p=0.02 in 2005), may serve displacement or signaling functions but increase energetic demands. Across odontocetes and mysticetes, empirical reviews document consistent surfacing alterations, such as shortened inter-breath intervals in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) and elevated breaching in humpbacks, though population-level fitness consequences require further longitudinal data. Regulatory guidelines, like 100 m approach limits, appear insufficient to prevent these responses, as evidenced by persistent behavioral shifts even at compliant distances.

References

  1. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/physiology/articles/10.3389/fphys.2020.00142/full
  2. https://stellwagen.noaa.gov/visit/whalewatching/whale-behaviors.html
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10988691/
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7063064/
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7915992/
  6. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1779406/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  7. https://journals.biologists.com/jeb/article/220/6/1135/18876/Swimming-and-diving-energetics-in-dolphins-a
  8. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1095643301003488
  9. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mms.13023
  10. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03949370.2025.2482525
  11. https://blogs.oregonstate.edu/gemmlab/2019/11/18/classifying-cetacean-behavior/
  12. https://whalesenseblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/ethogram_mn2.pdf
  13. https://elifesciences.org/articles/51760
  14. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7065846/
  15. https://journals.biologists.com/jeb/article/223/1/jeb216036/224626/The-energetics-of-airtime-estimating-swim-power
  16. https://bioone.org/journals/integrative-and-comparative-biology/volume-42/issue-5/42.5.1071/Dynamics-of-Dolphin-Porpoising-Revisited1/10.1093/icb/42.5.1071.xml
  17. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0029801821004200
  18. https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/41/2/166/135294
  19. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11615280/
  20. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39627448/
  21. https://www.aquaticmammalsjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/35_2_Hawkins-Gartside-2.pdf
  22. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/bow-riding
  23. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21983996/
  24. https://www.dolphincommunicationproject.org/kids-science-quickie-3/
  25. https://www.victoriawhalewatching.com/whale-surfacing-behaviors/
  26. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/context/usdeptcommercepub/article/1305/viewcontent/Pitman_MMS_2011_Cooperative_hunting.pdf
  27. https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/bitstreams/df31b3b1-9bfb-4cd8-bfe4-8575a3889cd5/download
  28. https://www.nps.gov/kefj/learn/nature/orca.htm
  29. https://www.mdpi.com/2079-7737/13/12/996
  30. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles/10.3389/fmars.2020.601277/full
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6561960/
  32. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15939784/
  33. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347205803185
  34. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371174652_Context_of_breaching_and_tail_slapping_in_Indo-Pacific_humpback_dolphins_in_the_northern_South_China_Sea
  35. https://medium.com/the-scope-yale-scientific-magazines-online-blog/whale-speak-why-does-a-humpback-slap-its-tail-c147e7534bcc
  36. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/29739736_Humpback_Whale_Megaptera_novaeangliae_Communication_The_Context_and_Potential_Functions_of_Pec-Slapping_Behavior_on_the_Hawaiian_Wintering_Grounds
  37. https://www.dolphincommunicationproject.org/dolphin-communication/
  38. https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/items/81d7cdbb-6e2f-49d1-a839-a42c462e5076
  39. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/mms.12374
  40. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2114953-whales-talk-to-each-other-by-slapping-out-messages-on-water/
  41. https://www.whalefacts.org/how-do-dolphins-communicate/
  42. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.191104
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8742503/
  44. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X23000520
  45. https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-ultimate-mouthful-lunge-feeding-in-rorqual-whales
  46. https://www.canadianfieldnaturalist.ca/index.php/cfn/article/download/109/109/433
  47. https://www.aquaticmammalsjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/23-03_Simila.pdf
  48. https://lajamjournal.org/index.php/lajam/article/view/397
  49. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12044383/
  50. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3497143/
  51. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10936758/
  52. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349184711_Myoglobin_Concentration_and_Oxygen_Stores_in_Different_Functional_Muscle_Groups_from_Three_Small_Cetacean_Species
  53. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8200650/
  54. https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/about/shortcourses/costa_divingphysiology2007.pdf
  55. https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-024-10263-9
  56. https://journals.biologists.com/jeb/article/202/20/2739/8215/The-diving-physiology-of-bottlenose-dolphins
  57. https://journals.biologists.com/jeb/article/226/20/jeb245832/333475/Field-physiology-in-the-aquatic-realm-ecological
  58. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-3190/ace50b
  59. https://journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/318108
  60. https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/23709/how-do-marine-mammals-control-buoyancy
  61. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6168651_Passive_cambering_and_flexible_propulsors_Cetacean_flukes
  62. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310664934_Evidence_for_the_functions_of_surface-active_behaviors_in_humpback_whales_Megaptera_novaeangliae
  63. https://baleinesendirect.org/en/que-signifient-les-prouesses-des-rorquals-a-bosse/
  64. https://seagoddesswhalewatch.com/blog/whale-behavior-tail-slapping-on-monterey-bay/
  65. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229979789_Epizoic_barnacles_removed_from_the_skin_of_a_humpback_whale_after_a_period_of_intense_surface_activity
  66. https://elifesciences.org/articles/55722
  67. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347216301452
  68. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles/10.3389/fmars.2019.00710/full
  69. https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/marine-mammals/whales
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4890674/
  71. https://danawharf.com/blog/how-long-can-whales-stay-underwater/
  72. https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Cetacea/
  73. https://www.dolphincommunicationproject.org/the-dolphin-pod-41/
  74. https://www.hwdt.org/news/whaletrackbehaviours
  75. https://www.aquaticmammalsjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/28-01_Ritter.pdf
  76. https://www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/files/5714/9091/6981/Smultea__Lomac-MacNair_2016_Observer_Effect.pdf
  77. https://www.whaleresearch.com/post/orca-behaviors
  78. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9290343/
  79. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0126396
  80. https://www.aquaticmammalsjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/45.2-Keen.pdf
  81. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/mms.12115
  82. https://www.nwf.org/Magazines/National-Wildlife/2003/The-Cultural-Cetacean
  83. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles/10.3389/fmars.2016.00087/full
  84. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/context/usdeptcommercepub/article/1254/viewcontent/Dawson_MR_2008_Design_and_field_methods.pdf
  85. https://dosits.org/animals/effects-of-sound/measure-marine-mammals-reaction-to-sound/visual-observations/
  86. https://www.aquaticmammalsjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/AM-42.2-Noren-Hauser-et-al-ada.pdf
  87. https://www.monkeymiadolphins.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Mann-1999-Behavioral-sampling-methods-for-cetaceans.pdf
  88. https://www.aquaticmammalsjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/44_6_piwetz.pdf
  89. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239612037_Pythagoras_Theodolite_Cetacean_Tracking_User%27s_manual
  90. https://www2.whoi.edu/site/marinemammalbehaviorlab/dtag/
  91. https://soundtags.wp.st-andrews.ac.uk/dtags/
  92. https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2020/07/studying-whales-high-tech-tools
  93. https://animalbiotelemetry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40317-022-00297-9
  94. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967063720300017
  95. https://animalbiotelemetry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40317-019-0173-7
  96. https://www.aimmportugal.org/drones-in-cetacean-research/
  97. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles/10.3389/fmars.2018.00319/full
  98. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/using-drones-and-tags-study-rices-whales
  99. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0328037
  100. https://www.therobotreport.com/how-project-ceti-uses-drones-to-humanely-tag-sperm-whales/
  101. https://seas.harvard.edu/news/2024/10/new-methods-whale-tracking-and-rendezvous-using-autonomous-robots
  102. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41060-024-00704-9
  103. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles/10.3389/fmars.2021.601433/full
  104. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7324156/
  105. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2012/807294
  106. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles/10.3389/fmars.2022.914397/full
  107. https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/document/2020/Oct/07354626222.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.