SC/F14/J22

Observation of marine debris in the Antarctic based on
JARPA and JARPAII data
Tatsuya Isoda, Tsutomu Tamura, Shigetoshi Nishiwaki and Luis A. Pastene
Institute of Cetacean Research, Toyomi-cho 4-5, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0055, Japan
ABSTRACT
Records of marine debris in the Antarctic waters and ingestions/entanglements by whales are very limited.
In this study, we summarized the information on marine debris collected during the surveys of theJapanese Whale Research under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA) and its Phase II (JARPAII), forthe period of 1987/88 to 2010/11. We considered three kinds of observations: marine debris on the sea
surface, marine debris in the stomachs of whales caught under JARPA and JARPAII (Antarctic minke,
dwarf minke and fin whales), and entanglements. Marine debris on the sea surface was recorded throughthe sighting surveys of the JARPA and JARPAII. In the Antarctic research area (south of 60ºS), marine
debris included metals (drum, can) and petrochemical products (buoy, ball, bottle, container, fender, net,rope, styrofoma). Buoys were the most abundant type of debris (69% of all marine debris recorded). The
highest density index (DI: number of marine debris observed per 100 nautical miles) was recorded in
Area V (DI: 0.15), followed by Area IV (DI: 0.12). DI of buoys in Area IV and V suddenly increased after
the 2005/06 austral summer season. The increase of buoy debris coincides with an increase of longline
fishery operations in this area. The stomachs of a total of 10,041 Antarctic minke whales, 16 dwarf minke
whales and 16 fin whales were examined for debris. A total of 70 pieces of marine debris and objects
other than prey were found in the stomachs of three species, including feather, stone, wood, plastic andothers. The number of occurrences of marine debris and objects other than prey in the fore and main
stomachs per 100 Antarctic minke whales examined was estimated at 0.35. The size of solid objects in thestomachs was small, less than 100×100mm. We found four cases of entanglement in a total of 10,041
Antarctic minke whales examined. Those involved fishing hooks, monofilament fishing lines, ropes andpacking bands. Given the low indices, the effect of marine debris on whales in the Antarctic is expected tobe limited at the present time. This study provided the first comprehensive observations of marine debris
found on the sea surface, inside the stomachs of whales, and in entanglements of whales in the Antarctic.
KEYWORDS: DEBRIS; ANTARCTIC; SURVEY-VESSELS; ANTARCTIC MINKE WHALE; MINKEWHALE; FIN WHALE
INTRODUCTION
Gregory (2009) recognized several problems associated with marine debris, for example the aesthetic
values, entanglement, ingestion, smothering, ghost fishing and hanging-on/hitch-hiking alien invasions.
The Antarctic is one of the most isolated places and the effects of human activities in this regard arelimited. However, marine debris has been recorded in sub-Antarctic and Antarctic islands, although there
is very little information about marine debris in the sea (Barnes et al. 2010, Ivar do Sul et al. 2011).
Marine debris causes negative effects on whales through ingestion and entanglement. There is no
information on the relationship between marine debris and whales in the Antarctic. However, there are a
few reports of entanglement by fisheries to whales (Kock et al. 2006, SC-CAMLR 2004, 2012).
JARPA and JARPAII have been conducting systematic monitoring of the Antarctic ecosystem including
observation of marine debris in whales and their environment. The present study summarizes theobservations on marine debris collected by JARPA and JARPAII in a research area covering half of the
Antarctic waters and during a research period of more than 20 years.

1

MATERIALS AND METHODS
The present study was based on data collected by the JARPA (1987/88 - 2004/05 seasons) and JARPAII,(2005/06 - 2010/11 seasons) (regarding general methodology and survey procedure, see Nishiwaki et al.
2006 and Nishiwaki et al. 2014).
Marine debris on the sea surface
Marine debris on the sea surface was collected by dedicated sighting vessels in the International Whaling
Commission (IWC) Antarctic management Areas III (East) (35°E-70°E), IV (70°E-130°E), V(130E°-170°W) and VI (West) (170°W-145°W), south of 60°S during 1995/96-2010/11 seasons. Data
collected included sighting dates, sighting positions and types of marine debris. Marine debris data wasroughly sorted into three types of debris: metal, petrochemical products and other, and in consideration of
the search effort e.g. data obtained on and off during the search effort. The density index (DI: number ofmarine debris per 100 nautical miles) was also calculated in the period of the 1995/96–2009/10 seasons.
No independent sighting surveys were conducted in the 2010/11 season due to external interferences.
Ingestion of marine debris and objects other than preyIngestion of marine debris and objects other than prey were examined in 10,041 Antarctic minke whales(Balaenoptera bonaerensis) (research seasons: JARPA from 1987/88 to 2004/05, JARPAII from2005/2006 to 2010/11), 16 dwarf minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata subsp.) (research seasons:
JARPA from 1987/88 to 1992/93) and 16 fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) (research seasons: JARPAII
from 2005/06 to 2010/11).
The examination of whale stomachs was conducted onboard the research base vessel. The threestomach chambers and the duodenal ampulla were examined during the JARPA, and the fore and main
stomachs were examined during the JARPAII. Some marine debris and objects were recorded being
found in body parts other than the stomach. Marine debris and objects other than prey were tabulated by
five categories: feather, stone, wood, plastic and other. The sizes of solid objects (stone, wood and plastic)
were estimated from photographic records. The relationship between body length and body weight ofAntarctic minke whales was compared between whales with and without debris in their stomachs(n=8,086). This was made to examine the body condition of the whales with debris in their stomachs.
Entanglement
Observations of the external part of the bodies of the whales were made onboard the research base vessel.
All cases of entanglements (attached objects) in Antarctic minke whales sampled by the JARPA and
JARPAII (n= 10,041) were recorded. Furthermore scars and marks in the body of whales possibly
produced by entanglements was examined for whales sampled under the JARPAII (n=3,264). The latter
analysis was based on JARPAII samples only because more detailed body observations, supported by theuse of digital cameras, started from JARPAII.
The relationship between body length and body weight of Antarctic minke whales was compared between
whales with and without entanglements (n=8,086). This was made to examine the body condition of thewhales with entanglements.
RESULTS
Marine debris on the sea surface
A total of 131 records of marine debris were made (nine metals, 121 petrochemical products and one
other) (Table 1). Buoys (type of petrochemical) accounted for 69% of all marine debris. Marine debris
was found throughout all research areas; however, the DI was higher in Areas IV and V particularly
during the JARPAII period (Figures 1a and 1b, Table 2). The most southerly debris was a buoy found inarea V (Ross Sea) at 74°S, 176°W.
The highest DI was recorded in Area V (DI: 0.15), followed by Area IV (DI: 0.12). The average DI in
the four Areas was 0.12 (Table 2). DI for buoys ranged from zero to 0.33 (Figure 2) and these increased
suddenly in Areas IV and V after the 2005/06 season.

2

Ingestion of debris
A total of 59 out of the 10,041 Antarctic minke whales examined had ingested marine debris and objects
other than prey (Table 3). Feathers accounted for 43 cases, stones in six cases, pieces of wood in eightcases and plastics in nine cases. In 35 cases, debris was found in the fore and main stomach.
The occurrence of marine debris in the fore and main stomachs per 100 Antarctic minke whales
examined was calculated at 0.35 (Table 3). The size of solid objects (stone, wood, plastic) was less than
100×100mm. There were two occurrences (one plastic and one wood) in which the size of the objects wasmore than 100×100mm (Figure 3).
There were no differences in the relationship between body length and body weight of Antarctic minke
whales and whales with or without debris in their stomachs (Figure 4).
No debris was found in the stomachs of the 16 dwarf minke whales examined. In the case of the fin
whales, only one animal had ingested two feathers.
Entanglement
Four cases of entanglements were found in a total of 10,041 Antarctic minke whales examined (Table 4,
Figures 5). Those involved fishing hooks, monofilament fishing lines, ropes and packing bands. There
were no differences in the relationship between body length and body weight of Antarctic minke whales
and whales with or without entanglements (Figure 4).
At least four out of 3,264 Antarctic minke whales examined in JARPAII had scars presumably derived
from entanglements (Figure 6).
DISCUSSION
Evidence from remote oceanic islands suggests a southward-decreasing, strong latitudinal gradient inlitter densities from subtropical and temperate waters through the subtropical convergence to polar front
and beyond (i.e. there is a clear trend in marine debris accumulation with latitude) (Barnes 2005, Gregory
and Ryan 1997).
Matsumura and Nasu (1997) reported the results of sighting surveys which showed the distribution of
floating marine debris in the North Pacific Ocean and its adjacent waters during 1987-1991. Thesesurveys covered approximately 926,000 n. miles and counted 136,338 pieces of marine debris (including
natural objects). About 60% of marine debris accounted for petrochemical debris (e.g. fishing gear,
styrofoma, other plastic products). Total debris densities in coastal waters were 20-40 objects per square n.
mile, while the density in the north equatorial current area (5°to15°N, across the central Pacific) was
about 0.2 objects per square n. mile, and 1-3 objects per square n. mile in the subarctic boundary area
(35° to 45°N) (Matsumura and Nasu 1997). DI in our study (Table 2) was compared with those results by
Matsumura and Nasu (1997). DI in the Antarctic is lower by two orders of magnitude in comparison with
the North Pacific Ocean and its adjacent waters. Thus our observations prove that the Antarctic waters
have a very low density of marine debris on the sea surface.
Sources of marine debris include fishing, and research/tourism vessels traveling in the Southern Ocean,but also global oceanic debris rafting across the Polar Front. Fishing operations are important sources ofmarine debris to Antarctica, contributing not only with direct fishing-related debris but also miscellaneous
items (Ivar do Sul et al. 2011). According to our results, fishing buoys accounted for about 69% of allsighted marine debris on the sea surface. Barnes et al. (2010) recorded three pieces of marine debris in the
Durmont D’Urville and Davis Seas (i.e. Areas IV and V): a plastic cup and two fishing buoys. Oceanic
fronts, such as the subtropical Convergence and Polar Front, were obstructions along which marine debris
tended to collect and become concentrated, and which would be difficult to cross (Gregory and Ryan
1997). They are somewhat leaky barriers (Gregory 2009). The assumption that all buoys observed in the
Antarctic were transported from lower latitudes is unreasonable in consideration of the barrier effects of3

the Polar Frontal Zone, even if it is weak. Webber and Parker (2012) showed fishing gear loss of bottom
longline fisheries targeting Antarctic toothfish (Dissostichus mawsoni). Since 2004/05, licensed longline
vessels have conducted exploratory fishery for Dissostichus spp. (target species is Antarctic toothfish) in
CCAMLR division subarea 58.4.1, and there are high levels of IUU (illegal, unreported and unregulated)fishing conducted outside CCAMLR regulations (SC-CAMLR 2011). CCAMLR division subarea 58.4.1
overlaps with IWC Antarctic management Areas IV and V. Therefore, the number of sighted buoys
suddenly increased in these Areas after the 2005/06 season, which coincides with the increase of longline
fisheries operations (include IUU fishing).
In Iceland, six of 82 examined fin whales (commercial whaling) and in the New York area of the USA,
three of 19 examined mysticetes (stranding) contained synthetics in the gut (Sadove and Morreale 1990).
The occurrence rates of marine litter ingestion obtained from stranded animals examined in the UK were2.2% in the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) and 2.3% in the short-beaked common dolphin(Delphinus delphis) (Deaville and Jepson 2010). We found 59 minke whales with 68 pieces of marine
debris and objects other than prey out of 10,041 Antarctic minke whales sampled in the Antarctic (0.59%).
Among them, there were only nine cases of plastics, which is an extremely low frequency (0.09%) incomparison with other oceanic basins. Given this low frequency the effect of marine debris on whales is
expected to be low.
Entanglement of Antarctic fur seals (Arctocephalus gazella) was caused mostly by loop shaped debris
such as packing bands (Croxall et al. 1990, Arnould and Croxall 1995). CCAMLR has prohibited andrestricted the use of packing bands on fishing vessels in Conservation Measure 26-01. In this study, someentangled whales strapped with packing bands around their upper rostrums were found (Figures 5-d).
Similar cases were reported in common minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) in the Atlantic (Gillet al. 2000). It has been indicated that loop shaped debris causes the entanglement of whales as wellpinnipeds.
Fishing gear is the most significant source of entanglements for whales and those entanglements werereported in various waters (Laist 1997, Simmonds 2012). Documented interaction between whales andfisheries in the Southern Ocean included killer (Orcinus orca) and sperm whales (Kock et al. 2006),
however entanglement mortalities recorded in the case of sperm whales and possibly minke whales(SC-CAMLR 2004, 2012) were low. In this study, only three cases of entanglements (probably by fishinggear) were found among the 10,041 Antarctic minke whales examined.
At least four out of 3,264 Antarctic minke whales examined in JARPAII had scars presumably derived
from entanglements (see Figure 6). Those scars suggested that the entanglements occurred in previous
cases, but that they escaped from the obstructive objects and survived. Entanglements along the easternseaboard of the United States and Canada during a five year period were reported, and 27 cases of minke
whales and 77 of humpback whales were accounted (Glass et al. 2008). In Iceland, five of 95 fin whales
examined showed signs of previous entanglement (Sadove and Morreale 1990). The entanglements ofAntarctic minke whales are less frequent. Therefore the level of impact of entanglements on Antarctic
minke whales would be low in comparison with other oceanic basins.
This study provided the first comprehensive quantitative approach of marine debris on the sea surface,ingestion of marine debris and entanglement of whales in the Antarctic. Given the low frequencies andindices, the impact of marine debris on whales in the Antarctic is expected to be limited. Our study
provides some evidence that some degree of interaction between whales and fishery exist in the Antarctic.
Webber and Parker (2012) recommended that fishing vessels and/or the CCAMLR observer should record
the detailed gear loss, for estimating unaccounted fishing mortality and to reduce the loss of fishing gear.
That information is also essential to understand the interaction between whales and fishery and marine
debris. JARPAII provides a unique opportunity for monitoring the Antarctic environment including
marine debris in whales and their environment.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would sincerely like to thank H. Hatanaka, S. Ohsumi, K. Matsuoka and N. Kanda of the Institute of
Cetacean Research (ICR) and H. Kato of Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology for their4useful comments and suggestion in preparing this paper. We also would like to thank all of the captains,
crewmembers, cruise leaders and researchers onboard the research vessels of JARPA and JARPA II for
their contributions in collecting the data used in this study.
REFERENCES
Arnould, J.P.Y. and Croxall, J.P. 1995. Trends in entanglement of Antarctic fur seals (Arctocephalus
gazella) in man-made debris at South Georgia. Marine Pollution Bulletin 30(11): 707-712.
Barnes, D.K.A. 2005. Remote islands reveal rapid rise of southern hemisphere sea debris. Sci. World J. 5:
915-921.
Barnes, D.K.A., Walters, A. and Gonçalves, L. 2010. Macroplastics at sea around Antarctica. Marine
Environmental Research 70: 250-252.
Croxall, J.P., Rodwell, S. and Boyd, I.L. 1990. Entanglement in man-made debris of Antarctic fur seals at
Bird Island, South Georgia. Marine Mammal Science 6: 221-233.
Deaville, R. and Jepson, P.D. 2010. Final Report for the period 1st January 2005 - 31st. December 2010.
UK Cetacean Strandings Investigation Programme. 98pp.
Gill, A., Fairbairns, B. and Fairbairns, R. 2000. Photo-identification of the Minke Whale (Balaenoptera
acutorostrata) around the Isle of Mull, Scotland. Report to the Hebridean Whale and Dolphin Trust.
88pp.
Glass, A.H., Cole, T.V.N., Garron, M., Merrick, R.L. and Pace III, R.M. 2008. Mortality and serious
injury determinations for baleen whale stocks along the United States eastern seaboard and adjacentCanadian Maritimes, 2002-2006. U.S. Dep. Commer., Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent.Ref. Doc. 08-04. 18 pp.
Gregory, M.R. and Ryan, P.G. 1997. Pelagic plastics and other seaborne persistent synthetic debris: areview of southern hemisphere perspectives. In Coe J.M. and Rogers D.B. (eds) Marine Debris, sources,
impacts, and solutions. Pp. 49–66. New York. Springer-Verlag.
Gregory, M.R. 2009. Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine settings-entanglement,
ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking and alien invasions. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 364:
2013-2025.
Ivar do Sul, J.A., Barnes, D.K., Costa, M.F., Convey, P., Costa, E.S. and Campos, L. 2011. Plastics in the
Antarctic environment: Are we looking only at the tip of the iceberg? Oecologia Australis, 15(1):150-170.
Kock, K.H., Purves, M.G., and Duhamel, G. 2006. Interactions between cetacean and fisheries in theSouthern Ocean. Polar Biol. 29: 379-388.
Laist, D.W. 1997. Impacts of marine debris: entanglement of marine life in marine debris including acomprehensive list of species with entanglement and ingestion records. In Coe J.M. and Rogers D.B.
(eds) Marine Debris, sources, Impacts, and solutions. Pp. 99-139. New York. Springer-Verlag.
Matsumura, S. and Nasu, K. 1997. Distribution of floating debris in the North Pacific Ocean: sighting
surveys 1986-1991. In Coe J.M. and Rogers D.B. (eds) Marine Debris, sources, Impacts, and solutions.
Pp. 15-24. New York. Springer-Verlag.
Nishiwaki, S., Ishikawa, H. and Fujise, Y. 2006. Review of general methodology and survey procedure
under the JARPA. JARPA review meeting document SC/D06/J2.
Nishiwaki, S., Ishikawa, H., Goto, M., Matsuoka, K. and Tamura, T. 2014. Review of general5methodology and survey procedure under the JARPAII. JARPAII review meeting document SC/F14/J2.
Sadove, S.S., and Morreale, S.J. 1990. Marine mammal and sea turtle encounters with marine debris in
the New York Bight and the northeast Atlantic. In: Shomura, R.S. and Godfrey, M.L. (eds) Proceedings of
the Second International Conference on Marine Debris, 2–7 April 1989, Honolulu, Hawaii. NOAA Tech.
Memo. NMFS-SWFSC-154., Pp. 562–570.
SC-CAMLR. 2004. Report of the Working Group on Fish Stock Assessment. In: Report of thetwenty-third Meeting of the Scientific Committee (SC-CAMLR-XXIII), Annex 5. CCAMLR, Hobart,
Australia: 338-657.
SC-CAMLR. 2011. Report of the Working Group on Fish Stock Assessment (APPENDIX N: Fishery
Report: Exploratory fishery for Dissostichus spp.in Division 58.4.1). In: Report of the thirtieth Meeting of
the Scientific Committee (SC-CAMLR-XXX), Annex 7. CCAMLR, Hobart, Australia. 14pp.
SC-CAMLR. 2012. Report of the Working Group on Fish Stock Assessment. In: Report of the Thirty-first
Meeting of the Scientific Committee (SC-CAMLR-XXXI), Annex 7. CCAMLR, Hobart, Australia:
265-377.
Schlitzer, R. 2013. Ocean Data View. http://odv.awi.de.
Simmonds, M.P. 2012. Cetaceans and Marine Debris: The Great Unknown. Journal of Marine Biology.
Vol. 2012 Article ID 684279, doi:10.1155/2012/684279. 8 p.
Webber, D.N. and Parker, S.J. 2012. Estimating unaccounted fishing mortality in the Ross sea region andAmundsen sea (CCAMLR subareas 88.1 and 88.2) bottom longline fisheries targeting Antarctic toothfish.
CCAMLR Science 19: 17-30.

6

Table 1. Summary of the sightings of marine debris on the sea surface in Areas III (East), IV, V and VI (West) during the JARPA and JARPAII (1995/96-2010/11).

Metal

Other

Petrochemical products(Total number=9)(Totalnumber=1)(Total number=121)

CategoryCan

Drum(≦
200L)

Buoy*

Ball

BottleContainer

Fender

Net

Rope

Other
Styrofoma Other
plastic
Sub total
products products*
products

on off on off on off on off on off on off on off on off on off on off on off on off on off
AREA III (East)
1
3
1
1
1
6
1
AREA IV
1
1 26 3
1
1
1
1
7
1
1
38 6
AREA V2
1
2 35 13 1
3
2
5
1
2
1
52 16
AREA VI (West)
1
7
4
8
4
Total
2
0
4
3 71 20 1
0
4
1
3
0
5
1
3
0
1
0
0
1
9
1
1
0 104 27
Buoy/fenders were floating as single object, however, at least in six observation cases several buoy/fenders were observed; those cases were counted as one in this study.
*Material of buoys was considered to be plastic, in addition styrofoma and rubber.
*Other products were unknown material square boxes.

Total

AREA / Type of searching effort

Table 2. The Density indices (DI, number of marine debris per 100 n.miles) during JARPA and JARPAII (1995/96-2009/10).

Area
Area III (East)
Area IV
Area V
Area VI (West)
Total

Density indices
Number of marine
Searching distance(number of marine
debris (on(n.miles)debris per
searching effort)
100n.miles)
14,5706
0.04
30,76838
0.12
33,61552
0.15
10,0968
0.08
89,049
104
0.12

7

7
44
68
12
131

Table 3. Marine debris and objects other than prey ingested in Antarctic minke whales examined by JARPA and JARPAII(1987/88-2010/11).
Antarctic minke whale

Category

Total number ofResearch
examinedseasonAntarctic minke
whalesFeather

Stone

Wood

Plastic

OthersTotal

1987/88
1988/89
1989/90
1990/91
1991/92
1992/93
1993/94
1994/95
1995/96
1996/97
1997/98
1998/99
1999/00
2000/01
2001/02
2002/03
2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/102010/11
Total

2
8
4
1
1
2
4
8
11
2
43

1
1
1
1
1
1
6

1
1
1
1
1
2
1
8

1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
9

1
1
2

1
2
4
2
9
4
4
3
3
2
4
6
10
11
1
2
68

272
236
326
323
288
327
330
330
439
440
438
389
439
440
440
440
440
440
853
505
551
679
506
170
10,041

(2)
(7)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(1)
(3)
(3)
(11)
(2)
(29)

(0)
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(1)
(2)

(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(2)
(0)
(2)

(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(1)
(1)

(0)
(1)
(1)

(0)
(0)
(2)
(0)
(7)
(0)
(1)
(0)
(2)
(0)
(2)
(4)
(3)
(11)
(1)
(2)
(35)

Index of occurrence ofmarine debris and objects
other than prey in theforestomach and main
stomach (per 100 antarctic
minke whales)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.61
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.59
0.00
0.26
0.00
0.45
0.00
0.45
0.91
0.68
1.29
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.40
0.00
0.35

All items were found in the stomach and duodenal ampulla except for three feathers, one small stone and one plastic piece found in
the oral cavity, small intestine and anus respectively. The category “Others” includes one small rubber piece and one small mineralmatter such as coal.
(Number in parentheses): number of marine debris and objects other than prey found in the fore stomach and main stomach.

Table 4. List of entangled whales found by JARPA and JARPAII (1987/88-2010/11).
Researchseason1995/96
2003/04
2005/06
2005/06

Specimen
No.
065
046
190
765

Date

LatitudeLongitude

22/12/1995
10/12/2003
6/1/2006
5/3/2006

62°48'S63°10'S64°26'S63°56'S68°55'E
54°56'E
72°40'E
103°46'E

Body
length(m)
7.5
5.7
7.8
5.7

8

Body
weight(t)
4.7
2.1
NA
NA

Sex
M
M
F
M

Stomachcontents
Empty
Krill
Krill
Krill

Entanglement objects
Fishing hook
Monofilament fishing line
Rope
Packing band

Figure5abcdFigure 1a. Distribution of marine debris sighted during the JARPA (1987/89-2004/05). Figure made by Ocean Data View (Schlitzer,
2013)

Density indices (number of Buoys per 100n.miles)

Figure 1b. Distribution of marine debris sighted during the JARPAII (2005/06-2010/11). Figure made by Ocean Data View
(Schlitzer, 2013)

0.35
Area Ⅲ
0.3
0.25

Area Ⅳ
Area Ⅴ
Area Ⅵ

0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0

Rsearch seasons

Figure 2. Density indices in each research season/area of sighted buoys during the search effort (n=71) of the JARPA and JARPAII(1995/96-2008/09). Since the 2009/10 season was excluded from this graph, there was a large unsurveyed area due to externalinterferences (see Nishiwaki et al. 2014).

9

400
Plastic n=7350

Stone n=6
Wood n=5

Length (mm)

300
250
200
150
100
50
0

0

100

200

300
400
Length(mm)

500

600

Figure 3. Size of marine debris ingested by Antarctic minke whales examined by JARPA and JARPAII. One piece each of plastic
and wood was more than 100×100mm in size and in the shape of a bag and scantling, respectively.

14

Plastic n=8
Stone n=612Wood n=8
Entanglement n=2

Bodyweight (t)

10

8

6

4

2

0

0

2

4

6

Body lenght (m)

8

10

12

Figure 4. Relation of body length and body weight in Antarctic minke whales (n=8,086) plotted against ingested debris andentangled whale data.
There is no data regarding the body weight of one whale that ingested plastic and two whales that were entangled.

10Figure 5. Four entangled Antarctic minke whales in JARPA and JARPAII (1987/88-2010/11).
(a) Fishing hook, (b) Monofilament fishing line, (c) Rope, (d) Packing band. (d) Loose packing band when a whale was beingtransported on the way to research base vessel.

Figure 6. Four cases of Antarctic minke whales that were scarred probably entanglement in JARPAII (2005/06-2010/11).
In the lower right-hand picture the wire rope used in the processing is also shown.

11