Expedition HF27: Initial findings and speculation

Equipo Saoirse.jpg

Group shot in front of the Tempanos Glacier. Clockwise from top left: Sebastián, Franco, Greg, Keri, Ana, Katie, Fernanda y Alex, Fiordo Tempano (c) Keri-Lee Pashuk

We are excited to have returned safely from a very successful expedition to Golfo de Penas. The final count is in, and Expedition HF27 has reeled in a grand total of 1,051 samples!

After arriving to Puerto Montt, we presented all samples to Chilean authorities for inventory and revision, and now we are able to distribute samples to their respective specialists and laboratories for analysis. We are very excited to see results from analyses for stable isotopes, trace elements, Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP), phytoplankton abundance and species richness, virology, oceanographic nutrients and gasses, and DNA. The resulting information will not only provide insights into the mass mortality event of the Sei whales, but also their general life histories and, most importantly, the marine and terrestrial environment of Golfo de Penas overall.


Ana and Vreni open up boxes of samples for revision, 7 March 2016

Here is the breakdown of sample totals:


  • Nutrients: 182
  • Gasses 370
  • Plankton 90



  • Munida packets: 3
  • Mussels packets:5
  • Stable Isotopes (plants, earth): 137
  • PSP tests: 25


  • Necropsy: 138
  • DNA : 35
  • Baleen: 21


While still keeping in mind the unclear seasonality, residence time and patchiness of Harmful Algae Bloom (marea roja) events in Golfo de Penas, it must be noted that we received 19 negative results of Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning (PSP) tests from all around the entire Golfo. 11 of these negative results come from Phytoplankton samples, 6 come from mussels and 2 come from Munida samples. One of these negative resulting Munida samples came from the duodenum (an organ just below the stomach along the digestive tract) of a necropsied whale.

We did receive some ambiguously positive results from our field PSP tests. These three samples come from Phytoplankton near the head of Seno Newman, where the water was a bright iodine-like color, and plankton tows brought up a large quantity of filamentous green algae and thousands of very small amphipod and shrimp-like creatures (sizes where <5mm). However, repeat sampling three days later resulted in a negative test. Laboratory qualitative, quantitative and chemical analysis will provide more detailed insights in the future. For more information, please check back for a more detailed report under Project, Phytoplankton on this blog.

These initial findings, combined with observations of at least 2 large pods of orcas attacking Sei whales (see Keri’s post and Greg’s post), and the appearance of many newly dead Sei whales along beaches in areas where orcas are present and PSP is not, leads us to begin to shift our research focus as we look towards our return to these sites in May. Some immediate questions that arise are (1) Could it be that orcas are responsible for all, or the majority, of the 337 whales’ deaths reported from last year ?(2) How many new whales will we find in May ? (3) What is the scope of the orca-baleen whale interaction in Golfo de Penas and Chilean Patagonia? (4) Is there connectivity between other regions? (5) Did red tide really play a role in this event? How much?

These are just a few questions that we are doing our best to prepare for over the next two months. And in the meantime, we will be working on compiling our findings from this expedition, especially the observed orca and Sei whale behavior, into a succinct report to be widely communicated.

Screen Shot 2016-03-05 at 2.38.46 PM.png

Seba, Ana, Katie, Franco and Alex look to the orcas and sei whale in the distance (c) Keri-Lee Pashuk 2016





6 thoughts on “Expedition HF27: Initial findings and speculation

  1. Three questions to answer: Why is this study important? What are the societal benefits? How does this intervention change Nature?


    • Yes, three more questions to answer and the first two might just be naturally spoken for. As for the third, I don’t think Nature is actually changed, just our perception of it… which in turn circles back around to question 1 and 2! 😉


  2. 1. Any study like this is important to understand the complex world we live in and form part of. Especially if we want to protect it and get the best benefits out of it, for our own purposes as humans, but also for the benefits of nature itself

    2. I hope you understand that any sort of achievement ever in human history has had an ample form of investigation and understanding of the involved systems as its base. Though direct benefit (i.e. lucrative or medical) may not always be visible, the long-term benefits of such investigation is invaluable for society.

    3. Why would you want to change nature? If anything we can change how we interact with nature and mitigate our impacts that influence nature in negative ways.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s