This post has been de-listed
It is no longer included in search results and normal feeds (front page, hot posts, subreddit posts, etc). It remains visible only via the author's post history.
There is less sea ice, which means there is less algae, which means less crustaceans, so less food for whales, so they are thinner and starve to death. They suggest that this means there will be fewer whales rather than full extinction, but it depends. If the algae is less dense and spread out over a greater distance then there will be a lower density of crustaceans, so it will be harder for any whale to get enough food, at some point you spend more calories in searching and filtering for food than you can get from the food you eat. If the algae remain at that low density then surely all the whales will starve to death, as it would use more energy than they can get from their food, and it's just a matter of time using up their fat reserves. -On the assumption that algae density declines and it reaches this tipping point for a long period of time.
However, it needs nutrients which are provided by the circulating current caused by the ice. No ice, no current pulling up nutrients from the bottom of the ocean, no algae, no crustaceans, no whales. The whole food chain breaks down.
But, if it gets to the point they have to spend more energy swimming to find the food, as it's so spread out and low density, that they get from the food, then it wouldn't matter how many whales there are, because fewer whales wouldn't increase the density of the food.
That could be a compounding factor, but you need the ice to cause the cold water to sink and push up nutrients from the bottom of the ocean to then feed the algae, and then the rest of the food chain.
Subreddit
Post Details
- Posted
- 1 year ago
- Reddit URL
- View post on reddit.com
- External URL
- businessinsider.nl/gray-...
It's all part of the same food chain, so I would assume so