By Karen Lohman, Masters Student in Wildlife Science, Cetacean Conservation and Genomics Lab, Oregon State University
My name is Karen Lohman, and I’m a first-year student in Dr. Scott Baker’s Cetacean Conservation and Genomics Lab at OSU. Dr. Leigh Torres is serving on my committee and has asked me to contribute to the GEMM lab blog from time to time. For my master’s project, I’ll be applying population genetics and genomics techniques to better understand the degree of population mixing and breeding ground assignment of feeding humpback whales in the eastern North Pacific. In other words, I’ll be trying to determine where the humpback whales off the U.S. West Coast are migrating from, and at what frequency.
Earlier this month I joined the GEMM lab members in attending the Northwest Student Society of Marine Mammalogy Conference in Seattle. The GEMM lab members and I made the trip up to the University of Washington to present our work to our peers from across the Pacific Northwest. All five GEMM lab graduate students, plus GEMM lab intern Acacia Pepper, and myself gave talks presenting our research to our peers. I was able to present preliminary results on the population structure of feeding humpback whales across shared feeding habitat by multiple breeding groups in the eastern North Pacific using mitochondria DNA haplotype frequencies. In the end GEMM lab’s Dawn Barlow took home the “Best Oral Presentation” prize. Way to go Dawn!
A few of the GEMM lab members and me presenting our research at the NWSSMM conference in May 2019 at the University of Washington.
While conferences have a strong networking component, this one feels unique. It is a chance to network with our peers, who are working through the same challenges in graduate school and will hopefully be our future research collaborators in marine mammal research when we finish our degrees. It’s also one of the few groups of people that understand the challenges of studying marine mammals. Not every day is full of dolphins and rainbows; for me, it’s mostly labwork or writing code to overcome small and/or patchy sample size problems.
All of the CCGL and GEMM Lab members excited to hear Dr. Sylvia Earle’s presentation at Portland State University in May 2019 (from L to R: Karen L., Lisa H., Alexa K., Leila L., Dawn B., and Dom K.) . Photo Source: Alexa Kownacki
On the way back from Seattle we stopped to hear the one and only Dr. Sylvia Earle, talk in Portland. With 27 honorary doctorates and over 200 publications, Dr. Sylvia Earle is a legend in marine science. Hearing a distinguished marine researcher talk about her journey in research and to present such an inspiring message of ocean advocacy was a great way to end our weekend away from normal grad school responsibilities. While the entirety of her talk was moving, one of her final comments really stood out. Near the end of her talk she called the audience to action by saying “Look at your abilities and have confidence that you can and must make a difference. Do whatever you’ve got.” As a first-year graduate student trying to figure out my path forward in research and conservation, I couldn’t think of better advice to end the weekend on.
By Dominique Kone, Masters Student in Marine Resource Management
Should scientists engage in advocacy? This question is one of the most debated topics in conservation and natural resource management. Some experts firmly oppose researchers advocating for policy decisions because such actions potentially threaten the credibility of their science. While others argue that with environmental issues becoming more complex, society would benefit from hearing scientists’ opinions and preferences on proposed actions. While both arguments are valid, we must recognize the answer to this question may never be a universal yes or no. As an early-career scientist, I’d like to share some of my observations and thoughts on this topic, and help continue this dialogue on the appropriateness of scientists exercising advocacy.
Policymakers are tasked with making decisions that determine how species and natural resources are managed, and subsequently affect and impact society. Scientists commonly play an integral role in these policy decisions, by providing policymakers with reliable and accurate information so they can make better-informed decisions. Examples include using stock assessments to set fishing limits, incorporating the regeneration capacity of forests into the timing of timber harvest, or considering the distribution of blue whales in permitting seafloor mining projects. Importantly, informing policy with science is very different from scientists advocating on policy issues. To understand these nuances, we must first define these terms.
A scientist considering engaging in policy advocacy. Source: Karen Brey.
According to Merriam-Webster, informing means “to communicate knowledge to” or “to give information to an authority”. In contrast, advocating means “to support or argue for (a cause, policy, etc.)” (Merriam-Webster 2019). People can inform others by providing information without necessarily advocating for a cause or policy. For many researchers, providing credible science to inform policy decisions is the gold standard. We, as a society, do not take issue with researchers supplying policymakers with reliable information. Rather, pushback arises when researchers step out of their role as informants and attempt to influence or sway policymakers to decide in a particular manner by speaking to values. This is advocacy.
Dr. Robert Lackey is a fisheries & political scientist, and one of the prominent voices on this issue. In his popular 2007 article, he explains that when scientists inform policy while also advocating, a conflict of interest is created (Lackey 2007). To an outsider, it can be difficult to distinguish values from scientific evidence when researchers engage in policy discussions. Are they engaging in these discussions to provide reliable information as an honest scientist, or are they advocating for decisions or policies based on their personal preferences? As a scientist, I like to believe most scientists – in natural resource management and conservation – do not engage in policy decisions for their own benefit, and they truly want to see our resources managed in a responsible and sustainable manner. Yet, I also recognize this belief doesn’t negate the fact that when researchers engage in policy discussions, they could advocate for their personal preferences – whether they do so consciously or subconsciously – which makes identifying these conflicts of interest particularly challenging.
Examples of actions scientists take in conducting and reporting research. Actions on the left represent actions of policy advocacy, those on the right do not, and the center is maybe. This graphic was adapted from a policy advocacy graphic from Scott et al. 2007. Source: Jamie Keyes.
It seems much of the unease with researchers exercising advocacy has to do with a lack in transparency about which role the researcher chooses to play during those policy debates. A simple remedy to this dilemma – as Lackey suggested in his paper – could be to encourage scientists to be completely transparent when they are about to inform versus advocate (Lackey 2007). Yet, for this suggestion to work, it would require complete trust in scientists to (1) verbalize and make known whether they’re informing or advocating, and (2) when they are informing, to provide credible and unbiased information. I’ve only witnessed a few scientists do this without ensuing some skepticism, which unfortunately highlights issues around an emerging mistrust of researchers to provide policy-neutral science. This mistrust threatens the important role scientists have played in policy decisions and the relationships between scientists and policymakers.
While much of this discussion has been focused on how researchers and their science are received by policymakers, researchers engaging in advocacy are also concerned with how they are perceived by their peers within the scientific community. When I ask more-senior researchers about their concerns with engaging in advocacy, losing scientific credibility is typically at or near the top of their lists. Many of them fear that once you start advocating for a position or policy decision (e.g. protected areas, carbon emission reduction, etc.), you become known for that one cause, which opens you up to questions and suspicions on your ability to provide unbiased and objective science. Once your credibility as a scientist comes into question, it could hinder your career.
How it sometimes feels when researchers conduct policy-relevant science. Source: Justin DeFreitas.
Conservation scientists are faced with a unique dilemma. They value both biodiversity conservation and scientific credibility. Yet, in some cases, risk or potential harm to a species or ecosystem may outweigh concerns over damage to their credibility, and therefore, may choose to engage in advocacy to protect that species or ecosystem (Horton 2015). Horton’s explanation raises an important point that researchers taking a hands-off approach to advocacy may not always be warranted, and that a researcher’s decision to engage in advocacy will heavily depend on the issue at hand and the repercussions if the researcher does not advocate their policy preferences. Climate change is a great example, where climate scientists are advocating for the use of their science, recognizing the alternative could mean continued inaction on carbon emission reduction and mitigation. [Note: this is called science advocacy, which is slightly different than advocating personal preferences, but this example helps demonstrate my point.]
To revisit the question – should scientists engage in advocacy? Honestly, I don’t have a clear answer, because there is no clear answer. This topic is one that has so many dimensions beyond the few I mentioned in this blog post. In my opinion, I don’t think researchers should have an always yes or always no stance on advocacy. Nor do I think every researcher needs to agree on this topic. A researcher’s decision to engage in advocacy will all depend on context. When faced with this decision, it might be useful to ask yourself the following questions: (1) How much do policymakers trust me? (2) How will my peers perceive me if I choose to engage? (3) Could I lose scientific credibility if I do engage? And (4) What’s at stake if I don’t make my preferences known? Hopefully, the answers to these sub-questions will help you decide whether you should advocate.
References:
Horton, C. C., Peterson, T. R., Banerjee, P., and M. J. Peterson. 2015. Credibility and advocacy in conservation science. Conservation Biology. 30(1): 23-32.
Lackey, R. T. 2007. Science, Scientists, and Policy Advocacy. Conservation Biology. 21(1): 12-17.
Scott et al. (2007). Policy advocacy in science: prevalence, perspectives, and implications for conservation biologists. Conservation Biology. 21(1): 29-35.
By: Alexa Kownacki, Ph.D. Student, OSU Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Geospatial Ecology of Marine Megafauna Lab
For the past two years, I’ve had the opportunity to be the marine mammal observer aboard the NOAA ship Bell M. Shimada for 10 days in May. Both trips covered transects in the Northern California Current Ecosystem during the same time of year, but things looked very different from my chair on the fly bridge. This trip, in particular, highlighted the importance of standardization, seeing as it was the second replicate of the same area. Other scientists and crew members repeatedly asked me the same questions that made me realize just how important it is to have standards in scientific practices and communicating them.
Northern right whale dolphin porpoising out of the water beside the ship while in transit. May 2019. Image source: Alexa Kownacki
The questions:
What do you actually do here and why are you doing it?
Is this year the same as last year in terms of weather, sightings, and transect locations?
Did you expect to see greater or fewer sightings (number and diversity)?
What is this Beaufort Sea State scale that you keep referring to?
All of these are important scientific questions that influence our hypothesis-testing research, survey methods, expected results, and potential conclusions. Although the entire science party aboard the ship conducted marine science, we all had our own specialties and sometimes only knew the basics, if that, about what the other person was doing. It became a perfect opportunity to share our science and standards across similar, but different fields.
Now, to answer those questions:
a) What do you actually do here and b) why are you doing it?
a) As the only marine mammal observer, I stand watch during favorable weather conditions while the ship is in transit, scanning from 0 to 90 degrees off the starboard side (from the front of the ship to a right angle towards the right side when facing forwards). Meanwhile, an application on an iPad called SeaScribe, records the ship’s exact location every 15 seconds, even when no animal is sighted. This process allows for the collection of absence data, that is, data when no animals are present. The SeaScribe program records the survey lines, along with manual inputs that I add, including weather and observer information. When I spot a marine mammal, I immediately mark an exact location on a hand held GPS, use my binoculars to identify the species, and add information to the sighting on the SeaScribe program, such as species, distance to the sighted animal(s), the degree (angle) to the sighting, number of animals in a group, behavior, and direction if traveling.
b) Marine mammal observing serves many different purposes. In this case, observing collects information about what species are where at what time. By piggy-backing on these large-scale, offshore oceanographic NOAA surveys, we have the unique opportunity to survey along standardized transect lines during different times of the year. From replicate survey data, we can start to form an idea of which species use which areas and what oceanographic conditions may impact species distributions. Currently there is not much consistent marine mammal data collected over these offshore areas between Northern California and Washington State, so our work is aiming to fill this knowledge gap.
Alexa observing on the R/V Shimada in May 2019, all bundled up. Image Source: Alexa Kownacki
What is this Beaufort Sea State scale that you keep referring to?
Great question! It took me a while to realize that this standard measuring tool to estimate wind speeds and sea conditions, is not commonly recognized even among other sea-goers. The Beaufort Sea State, or BSS, uses an empirical scale that ranges from 0-12 with 0 being no wind and calm seas, to 12 being hurricane-force winds with 45+ ft seas. It is frequently referenced by scientists in oceanography, marine science, and climate science as a universally-understood metric. The BSS was created in 1805 by Francis Beaufort, a hydrographer in the Royal Navy, to standardize weather conditions across the fleet of vessels. By the mid-1850s, the BSS was standardized to non-naval use for sailing vessels, and in 1916, expanded to include information specific to the seas and not the sails1. We in the marine mammal observation field constantly collect BSS information while on survey to measure the quality of survey conditions that may impact our observations. BSS data allows us to measure the extent of our survey range, both in the distance that we are likely to sight animals and also the likelihood of sighting anything. Therefore, the BSS scale gives us an important indication of how much absence data we have collected, in addition to presence data.
A description of the Beaufort Sea State Scale. Image source: National Weather Service.
Is this year the same as last year in terms of weather, sightings, and transect locations?
The short answer is no. Observed differences in marine mammal sightings in terms of both species diversity and number of animals between years can be normal. There are many potential explanatory variables, from differences in currents, upwelling strength, El Nino index levels, water temperatures, or, what was obvious in this case: sighting conditions. The weather in May 2019 varied greatly from that in May 2018. Last year, I observed for nearly every day because the Beaufort Sea State (BSS) was frequently less than a four. However, this year, more often than not, the BSS greater than or equal to five. A BSS of 5 equates to approximately 17-21 knots of breeze with 6-foot waves and the water appears to have many “white horses” or pronounced white caps with sea spray. Additionally, mechanical issue with winches delayed and altered our transect locations. Therefore, although multiple transects from May 2018 were also surveyed during May 2019, there were a few lines that do not have data for both cruises.
May 2018 with a BSS 1May 2019 with a BSS 6
Did you expect to see greater or fewer sightings (number and diversity)?
Knowing that I had less favorable sighting conditions and less amount of effort observing this year, it is not surprising that I observed fewer marine mammals in total count and in species diversity. Even less surprising is that on the day with the best weather, where the BSS was less than a five, I recorded the most sightings with the highest species count. May 2018 felt a bit like a tropical vacation because we had surprisingly sunny days with mild winds, and during May 2019 we had some rough seas with gale force winds. Additionally, as an observer, I need to remove as much bias as possible. So, yes, I had hoped to see beaked whales or orca like I did in May 2018, but I was still pleasantly surprised when I spotted fin whales feeding in May 2019.
Standardization is a common theme. Observing between years on standard transects, at set speeds, in different conditions using standardized tools is critical to collecting high quality data that is comparable across different periods. Scientists constantly think about quality control. We look for trends and patterns, similarities and differences, but none of those could be understood without having standard metrics.
The entire science party aboard the R/V Shimada in May 2019, including a marine mammal scientist, phytoplankton scientists, zooplankton scientists, and fisheries scientists, and oceanographers. Image Source: Alexa Kownacki
Literature Cited:
1Oliver, John E. (2005). Encyclopedia of world climatology. Springer.
There aren’t that many Steller sea lions that call the Pribilof Islands home. The way I learned to spot them, was to watch for excited groups of kittiwakes materializing out of nowhere, just off-shore. The kittiwakes circle, periodically dipping down to grab something from the water. Then a sea lion head emerges from the water and more often than not, the lion would have a flatfish. The sea lion whips the fish back and forth, splashing and causing pieces to break off. The kittiwakes drop down and pick up the little bits. The black-legged kittiwakes that we were tracking with GPS dataloggers often flew in laps around the island (Paredes et al. 2012, 2014); stopping at the outflow of the fish processing plant, and perhaps, also on the lookout for foraging Steller sea lions to pick up an extra snack.
A Steller’s sea lion with a small flock of kittiwakes viewed from the cliffs of St. George Island. Photo: R. Orben
Gape limitation
At first glance, one might assume that sea lions are gape-limited. What do I mean by this? Basically, gape limitation means that predators can’t consume anything that doesn’t fit into their mouths whole. This idea is typically considered in the context of fish but does come up in seabird and marine mammal ecology from time-to-time. Specifically, when a predator doesn’t have a method for pulling its prey apart so is required to consume it whole. For instance, seabirds that feed their chicks whole fish can encounter this problem (e.g. puffins, terns, murres). Small chicks can starve if parents are bringing back fish that are too large to fit into the gape of the chick.
Gape limitation of cartoon fishes. Art: R. Orben
Sea lions and their eclectic large prey
I don’t know if the flatfish consumed by the Steller sea lions are too large to be swallowed whole. But, I do know that they use a strategy known as ‘shake feeding’ (Kienle et al. 2017). This feeding style is important as it offers the behavioral mechanism that allows sea lions to consume prey that exceeds their gape limitations. When sea lions are observed eating large prey it often occurs in surprising circumstances, but I suspect this foraging tactic is fairly common (e.g. Hocking et al. 2016). I have compiled a few examples both from the scientific literature and the internet to see.
Observations
Galapagos sea lions and tuna. This example is amazing and features Galapagos sea lions working together to herd tuna into shallow lagoons. Compared to the sea lions, the tuna are large! (When you are done looking at the amazing photos please return and finish reading my blog.)
Besides the flatfish I observed Steller’s sea lions eating, there is an observation of a Steller catching a shark (the online photo account stops before the shark is consumed so I don’t know what happened) and catching and consuming northern fur seal pups (Gentry & Johnson, 1981).
Gentry & Johnson 1981, include a particularly gruesome description of the predation events: “Fur seal young most often were caught by the abdomen and eviscerated with a sideways shake of the sea lion’s head (in the same manner used to tear apart large fish). Sea lions most often dived with the prey still moving and surfaced father offshore, usually beyond the kelp beds, with the pup motionless. …Larger sea lions broke apart their prey under water, surfacing only to swallow large bits of tissue. Smaller sea lions vigorously shook the carcass at the surface using the same sideways snapping motion used to eviscerate the pup at capture.”
Photo of a Steller Sea Lion and its prey: a northern fur seal pup. Photo: Gentry & Johnson 1981.
Southern sea lions consume large prey in the form of penguins and more surprisingly fur seals. Thus far these observations are limited to males.
A southern sea lion on the hunt for penguins early in the morning at Volunteer Point, Falkland Islands. Photo: R. Orben
South American Sea Lion killing a small fur seal. Photo R. Orben
Sea lions eating a fur seal. Photo R. Orben
After a kill caracaras and vultures picked the carcasses clean. Photo R. Orben
Patrolling sea lion. Photo R. Orben
Eating octopus
Sea lions also use shake feeding to consume octopus. Though an octopus might be smalled enough to be eaten in one gulp, they are a smart and agile prey whose tentacles make them harder to swallow. I have seen Southern sea lions flipping octopus at the surface using the ‘shake feeding’ mode. Once I watched a young juvenile bring one ashore to eat (photos below). Perhaps foraging on octopus offers some opportunities for learning how to eat large prey?
A southern sea lion shaking an octopus just off-shore Turn Island, Falkland Islands. Photo: R. Orben 2014
A juvenile southern sea lion bringing an octopus ashore on Kidney Island, Falkland Islands. Photo: R. Orben 2018
Hocking DP, Ladds MA, Slip DJ, Fitzgerald EMG, Evans AR (2016) Chew, shake, and tear: Prey processing in Australian sea lions (Neophoca cinerea). Marine Mammal Sci 33:541–557
Kienle SS, Law CJ, Costa DP, BERTA A, Mehta RS (2017) Revisiting the behavioural framework of feeding in predatory aquatic mammals. Proc Biol Sci 284:20171035–4
Paredes R, Harding AMA, Irons DB, Roby DD, Suryan RM, Orben RA, Renner HM, Young R, Kitaysky AS (2012) Proximity to multiple foraging habitats enhances seabirds’ resilience to local food shortages. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 471:253–269
Paredes R, Orben RA, Suryan RM, Irons DB, Roby DD, Harding AMA, Young RC, Benoit-Bird KJ, Ladd C, Renner H, Heppell S, Phillips RA, Kitaysky AS (2014) Foraging Responses of Black-Legged Kittiwakes to Prolonged Food-Shortages around Colonies on the Bering Sea Shelf. PLoS ONE 9:e92520
