Oregon State University – Page 2 – Geospatial Ecology of Marine Megafauna Laboratory

Disentangling the whys of whale entanglement

By Lindsay Wickman, Postdoctoral Scholar, Oregon State University Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Sciences, Geospatial Ecology of Marine Megafauna Lab

Previously on our blog, we mentioned the concerning rise of humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) entanglement in fishing gear on the US West Coast (see here and here). Gaining an improved understanding of the rate of entanglement and risk factors of humpback whales in Oregon are primary aims of the GEMM Lab’s SLATE and OPAL projects. In this post, I will discuss some reasons why whales get entangled. With whales generally regarded as intelligent, it is understandable to wonder why whales are unable to avoid these underwater obstacles.

Figure 1. Wrapping scars like these at the base of the flukes indicate this humpback whale was previously entangled. Photo taken under NOAA/NMFS permit #21678 to John Calambokidis.

Fishing lines are hard to detect underwater

Water clarity, depth, and time of day can all influence how visible a fishing line is underwater. Since baleen whales lack the ability to discriminate color (Levenson et al., 2000; Peichl et al. 2001), the brightly colored yellow and red ropes that make it easier for fishermen to find their gear make it harder for whales to see it underwater. White or black ropes may stand out better for whales (Kot et al., 2012), but there’s not enough evidence yet to suggest they reduce entanglement rates.

Whales have excellent hearing, but this may still not be enough to ensure detection of underwater ropes. Even if whales can hear water currents flowing over the rope, this noise can easily be masked by other sounds like weather, surf, and passing boats. Fishing gear also has a weak acoustic signature (Leatherwood et al., 1977), or it may be at a frequency not heard by whales. So even though whales produce and listen for sounds to help locate prey (Stimpert et al., 2007) and communicate, any sound produced by fishing lines may not be sufficient to alert whales to its presence.

There are very few studies that examine the behavior of whales around fishing gear, but a study of minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) by Kot et al. (2017) provides an exception. Researchers observed whales slowing down as they approached their test gear, and speeding up once they were past it (Kot et al., 2017). While the scope of the study was too small to generalize about whales’ ability to detect fishing gear, it does suggest whales can detect fishing gear, at least some of the time. There is also likely some individual variation in this skillset. Less experienced, juvenile humpback whales, for example, may be at a higher risk of entanglement than adults (Robbins, 2012).

Distracted driving?

Just like distracted drivers are more likely to crash when texting or eating, whales may be more likely to get entangled when they are preoccupied with behaviors like feeding or socializing.

Evidence suggests feeding is especially risky for entanglement. An analysis of entanglements in the North Atlantic found that almost half (43%) of the humpback whales were entangled at the mouth, and the mouth was also the most common attachment point for North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis, 77%; Johnson et al., 2005). In a study of minke whales in the East Sea of Korea, 80% of entangled whales had recently fed (Song et al, 2010). In many cases, entanglement at the mouth can severely restrict feeding ability, resulting in emaciation and/or death (Moore and van der Hoop, 2012).

Figure 2. A North Atlantic right whale with fishing gear attached at the mouth. Photo credit: NOAA Photo Library.

More whales, more heat waves, and more entanglements

On the US West Coast, the number of humpback whales has been increasing since the end of whaling (e.g., Barlow et al, 2011). With more whales in our waters, it makes sense that the number of entanglements will increase. Still, a larger population size is probably not the only reason for increasing entanglements.

Climate change, for example, may place whales in the areas with dense fishing gear much more often. A recent example of this was during 2014–2016, when a heatwave on the US West Coast led to a cascade of events that increased the likelihood of whale entanglements in California waters (Santora et al., 2020).

The increased temperatures led to a bloom of toxic diatoms, which delayed the commercial fishing season for Dungeness crabs in California. Unfortunately, the delay caused fishing to resume right as high numbers of whales were arriving from their annual migration from their breeding grounds. The wider ecosystem effects of the heat wave also meant humpback whales were feeding closer to shore — right where most crab pots are set. The combination of both the fisheries’ timing and the altered distribution of whales contributed to an unprecedented number of entanglements (Santora et al., 2020).

Whale entanglement is a concerning issue for fishermen, conservationists, and wildlife managers. By disentangling some of the whys of entanglement for humpback whales in Oregon, we hope our research can contribute to improved management plans that benefit both whales and the continuity of the Dungeness crab fishery. To learn more about these projects, visit the SLATE and OPAL pages, and subscribe to the blog for more updates.

Did you enjoy this blog? Want to learn more about marine life, research, and conservation? Subscribe to our blog and get a weekly message when we post a new blog. Just add your name and email into the subscribe box below.

References

Barlow, J., Calambokidis, J., Falcone, E.A., Baker, C.S., Burdin, A.M., Clapham, P.J., Ford, J.K., Gabriele, C.M., LeDuc, R., Mattila, D.K. and Quinn, T.J. (2011). Humpback whale abundance in the North Pacific estimated by photographic capture‐recapture with bias correction from simulation studies. Marine Mammal Science, 27(4), 793-818.

Johnson, A., Salvador, G., Kenney, J., Robbins, J., Kraus, S., Landry, S., and Clapham, P. (2005). Fishing gear involved in entanglements of right and humpback whales. Marine Mammal Science, 21, 635–645.

Kot, B.W., Sears, R., Anis, A., Nowacek, D.P., Gedamke, J. and Marshall, C.D. (2012). Behavioral responses of minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) to experimental fishing gear in a coastal environment. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 413, pp.13-20.

Leatherwood, J.S., Johnson, R.A., Ljungblad, D.K., and Evans, W.E. (1977). Broadband Measurements of Underwater Acoustic Target Strengths of Panels of Tuna Nets. Naval Oceans Systems Center, San Diego, CA Tech, Rep. 126.

Levenson, D.H., Dizon, A., and Ponganis, P.J. (2000). Identification of loss-of-function mutations within the short wave-length sensitive cone opsin genes of baleen and odontocete cetaceans. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 41, S610.

Moore, M. J., and van der Hoop, J. M. (2012). The painful side of trap and fixed net fisheries: chronic entanglement of large whales. Journal of Marine Sciences, 2012.

Peichl, L., Behrmann, and G., Kröger, R.H.H. (2001). For whales and seals the ocean is not blue: a visual pigment loss in marine mammals. European Journal of Neuroscience, 13, 1520–1528.

Robbins J. (2012). Scar-based inference Into Gulf of Maine humpback whale entanglement: 2010. Report EA133F0 9CN0253 to the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service. Center for Coastal Studies, Provincetown, MA.

Santora, J. A., Mantua, N. J., Schroeder, I. D., Field, J. C., Hazen, E. L., Bograd, S. J., Sydeman, W. J., Wells, B. K., Calambokidis, J., Saez, L., Lawson, D., and Forney, K. A. (2020). Habitat compression and ecosystem shifts as potential links between marine heatwave and record whale entanglements. Nature Communications, 11(1).

Song, K.-J., Kim, Z.G., Zhang, C.I., Kim, Y.H. (2010). Fishing gears involved in entanglements of minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) in the east sea of Korea. Marine Mammal Science, 26, 282–295.

Stimpert, A.K., Wiley, D.N., Au, W.W.L., Johnson, M.P., Arsenault, R. (2007). “Megapclicks”: acoustic click trains and buzzes produced during night-time foraging of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). Biology Letters, 3, 467–470.

Kelp to whales: New GEMM Lab publication explores indirect effects of a classic trophic cascade on gray whales

By Lisa Hildebrand, PhD candidate, OSU Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, & Conservation Sciences, Geospatial Ecology of Marine Megafauna Lab

As many of our avid readers already know, the Pacific Coast Feeding Group (PCFG) of gray whales employs a wide range of foraging tactics to feed on a number of different prey items in various benthic substrate types (Torres et al. 2018). One example foraging tactic is when PCFG whales, particularly when they are in the Oregon portion of their feeding range, forage on mysid shrimp in and near kelp beds on rocky reefs. We have countless drone video clips of whales weaving their large bodies through kelp and many photographs of whales coming to the surface to breath completely covered in kelp, looking more like a sea monster than a whale (Figure 1). So, when former intern Dylan Gregory made an astute observation during the 2018 TOPAZ/JASPER field season in Port Orford about a GoPro video the field team collected that showed many urchins voraciously feeding on an unhealthy-looking kelp stalk (Figure 2a), it made us wonder if and how changes to kelp forests may impact gray whales.

**Fig 1.** Gray whale surfacing in a large kelp patch. Photograph captured under NOAA/NMFS research permit #16111. Source: GEMM Lab.

Kelp forests are widely used as a marine example of trophic cascades. Trophic cascades are trigged by the addition/removal of a top predator to/from a system, which causes changes further down the trophic chain. Sea urchins are common inhabitants of kelp forests and in a balanced, healthy system, urchin populations are regulated by predators as they behave cryptically by hiding in crevices in the reef and individual urchins feed passively on drift kelp that breaks off from larger plants. When we think about who controls urchins in kelp forests, we probably think of sea otters first. However, sea otters have been absent from Oregon waters for over a century (Kone et al. 2021), so who controls urchins here? The answer is the sunflower sea star (Figure 2b). Sunflower sea stars are large predators with a maximum arm span of up to 1 m! Unfortunately, a disease epidemic that started in 2013 known as sea star wasting disease caused 80-100% population decline of sunflower sea stars along the coastline between Mexico and Alaska (Harvell et al. 2019). Shortly thereafter, a record-breaking marine heatwave caused warm, nutrient-poor water conditions to persist in the northeast Pacific Ocean from 2014 to 2016 (Jacox et al. 2018). These co-occurring stressors caused unprecedented and long-lasting decline of a previously robust kelp forest in northern California (Rogers-Bennett & Catton 2019), where sea otters are also absent. Given the biogeographical similarity between southern Oregon and northern California and the observation made by Dylan in 2018, we decided to undertake an analysis of the eight years of data collected during the TOPAZ/JASPER project in Port Orford starting in 2016, to investigate the trends of four trophic levels (purple sea urchins, bull kelp, zooplankton, and gray whales) across space and time. The results of our study were published last week in Scientific Reports and I am excited to be able to share them with you today.

**Fig 2a.** Sea urchins actively feeding on kelp stalks. Source: GEMM Lab.

Every day during the TOPAZ/JASPER field season, two teams head out to collect data. One team is responsible for tracking gray whales from shore using a theodolite, while the other team heads out to sea on a tandem research kayak to collect prey data (Figure 3). The kayak team samples prey in multiple ways, including dropping a GoPro camera at each sampling station. When the project was first developed, the original goal of these GoPro videos was to measure the relative abundance of prey. Since the sampling stations occur on or near reefs that are shallow with dense surface kelp, traditional methods to assess prey density, such as using a boat with an echosounder, are not suitable options. Instead, GEMM Lab PI Leigh Torres, together with the first Master’s student on this project Florence Sullivan, developed a method to score still images extracted from the GoPro videos to estimate relative zooplankton abundance. However, after we saw those images of urchins feeding on kelp in 2018, we decided to develop another protocol that allowed us to use these GoPro videos to also characterize sea urchin coverage and kelp condition. Once we had occurrence values for all four species, we were able to dig into the spatiotemporal trends.

**Figure 3.** Map of Port Orford, USA study area showing the 10 kayak sampling stations (white circles) within the two study sites (Tichenor Cove and Mill Rocks). The white triangle represents the cliff top location where theodolite tracking of whales was conducted. Figure and caption taken from Hildebrand et al. 2024.

When we examined the trends for each of the four study species across years, we found that purple sea urchin coverage in both of our study sites within Port Orford increased dramatically within our study period (Figure 4). In 2016, the majority of our sampled stations contained no visible urchins. However, by 2020, we detected urchins at every sampling station. For kelp, we saw the reverse trend; in 2016 all sampling stations contained kelp that was healthy or mostly healthy. But by 2019, there were many stations that contained kelp in poor health or where kelp was absent entirely. Zooplankton and gray whales experienced similar temporal trends as the kelp, with their occurrence metrics (abundance and foraging time, respectively) having higher values at the start of our study period and declining steadily during the eight years. While the rise in urchin coverage across our study area occurred concurrently with the decrease in kelp condition, zooplankton abundance, and gray whale foraging, we wanted to explicitly test how these species are related to one another based on prior ecological knowledge.

**Figure 4.** Temporal trends of purple sea urchin coverage, bull kelp condition, relative zooplankton abundance, and gray whale foraging time by year across the eight-year study period (2016–2023), from the generalized additive models. The colored ribbons represent approximate 95% confidence intervals. Line types represent the two study sites, Mill Rocks (MR; solid) and Tichenor Cove (TC; dashed). All curves are statistically significant (P < 0.05). Figure and caption taken from Hildebrand et al. 2024.

To test whether urchin coverage had an effect on kelp condition, we hypothesized that increased urchin coverage would be correlated with reduced kelp condition based on the decades of research that has established a negative relationship between the two when a trophic cascade occurs in kelp forest systems. Next, we wanted to test whether kelp condition had an effect on zooplankton abundance and hypothesized that increased kelp condition would be correlated with increased zooplankton abundance. We based this hypothesis on several pieces of prior knowledge, particularly as they pertain to mysid shrimp: (1) high productivity within kelp beds provides food for mysids, including kelp zoospores (VanMeter & Edwards 2013), (2) current velocities are one third slower inside kelp beds compared to outside (Jackson & Winant 1983), which might support the retention of mysids within kelp beds since they are not strong swimmers, and (3) the kelp canopy may serve as potential protection for mysids from predators (Coyer 1984). Finally, we wanted to test whether both kelp condition and zooplankton abundance have an effect on gray whales and we hypothesized that increased values for both would be correlated with increased gray whale foraging time. While the reasoning behind our hypothesized correlation between zooplankton prey and gray whales is obvious (whales eat zooplankton), the reasoning behind the kelp-whale connection may not be. We speculated that since kelp habitat may aggregate or retain zooplankton prey, gray whales may use kelp as an environmental cue to find prey patches.

When we tested our hypotheses through generalized additive models, we found that increased urchin coverage was significantly correlated with decreased kelp condition in both study sites, providing evidence that a shift from a kelp forest to an urchin barren may have occurred in the Port Orford area. Additionally, increased kelp condition was correlated with increased zooplankton abundance, supporting our hypothesis that kelp forests are an important habitat and resource for nearshore zooplankton prey. Interestingly, this relationship was bell-shaped in one of our two study sites, suggesting that there are other factors besides healthy bull kelp that influence zooplankton abundance, which likely include upwelling dynamics, habitat structure, and local oceanographic characteristics. For the whale model, we found that increased kelp condition was significantly correlated with increased gray whale foraging time, which may corroborate our hypothesis that gray whales use kelp as an environmental cue to locate prey. Zooplankton abundance was significantly correlated with gray whale foraging time in one of our two sites. Once again, this relationship was bell-shaped, which suggests other factors influence gray whale foraging time, including prey quality (Hildebrand et al. 2022) and density.

**Figure 5.** Effects derived from trophic path generalized additive models of purple sea urchin coverage on kelp condition (A), kelp condition on relative zooplankton abundance (B), and kelp condition and relative zooplankton abundance on gray whale foraging time (C). The colored ribbons represent approximate 95% confidence intervals. Line types represent the two study sites, Mill Rocks (MR; solid) and Tichenor Cove (TC; dashed). Curves with asterisks indicate statistically significant (P < 0.05) relationships. Figure and caption taken from Hildebrand et al. 2024.

Our results highlight the potential larger impacts of reduced gray whale foraging time as a result of these trophic dynamics may cause at the individual and population level. If an area that was once a reliable source of food (like Port Orford) is no longer favorable, then whales likely search for other areas in which to feed. However, if the areas affected by these dynamics are widespread, then individuals may spend more time searching for, and less time consuming, prey, which could have energetic consequences. While our study took place in a relatively small spatial area, the trophic dynamics we documented in our system may be representative of patterns across the PCFG range, given ecological and topographic similarities in habitat use patterns. In fact, in the years with the lowest kelp, zooplankton, and whale occurrence (2020 and 2021) in Port Orford, the GRANITE field team also noted low whale numbers and minimal surface kelp extent in the central Oregon field site off of Newport. However, ecosystems are resilient. We are hopeful that the dynamics we documented in Port Orford are just short-term changes and that the system will return to its former balanced state with less urchins, more healthy bull kelp, zooplankton, and lots of feeding gray whales.

If you are interested in getting a more detailed picture of our methods and analysis, you can read our open access paper here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-59964-x

References

Coyer, J. A. (1984). The invertebrate assemblage associated with the giant kelp, Macrocystis pyrifera, at Santa Catalina Island, California: a general description with emphasis on amphipods, copepods, mysids, and shrimps. Fishery Bulletin, 82(1), 55-66.

Harvell, C. D., Montecino-Latorre, D., Caldwell, J. M., Burt, J. M., Bosley, K., Keller, A., … & Gaydos, J. K. (2019). Disease epidemic and a marine heat wave are associated with the continental-scale collapse of a pivotal predator (Pycnopodia helianthoides). Science advances, 5(1), eaau7042.

Hildebrand, L., Sullivan, F. A., Orben, R. A., Derville, S., & Torres, L. G. (2022). Trade-offs in prey quantity and quality in gray whale foraging. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 695, 189-201.

Jackson, G. A., & Winant, C. D. (1983). Effect of a kelp forest on coastal currents. Continental Shelf Research, 2(1), 75-80.

Jacox, M. G., Alexander, M. A., Mantua, N. J., Scott, J. D., Hervieux, G., Webb, R. S., & Werner, F. E. (2018). Forcing of multi-year extreme ocean temperatures that impacted California Current living marine resources in 2016. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc, 99(1).

Kone, D. V., Tinker, M. T., & Torres, L. G. (2021). Informing sea otter reintroduction through habitat and human interaction assessment. Endangered Species Research, 44, 159-176.

Rogers-Bennett, L., & Catton, C. A. (2019). Marine heat wave and multiple stressors tip bull kelp forest to sea urchin barrens. Scientific reports, 9(1), 15050.

Torres, L. G., Nieukirk, S. L., Lemos, L., & Chandler, T. E. (2018). Drone up! Quantifying whale behavior from a new perspective improves observational capacity. Frontiers in Marine Science, 5, 319.

VanMeter, K., & Edwards, M. S. (2013). The effects of mysid grazing on kelp zoospore survival and settlement. Journal of Phycology, 49(5), 896-901.

First Flight

By Lindsay Wickman, Postdoc, OSU Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Sciences, Geospatial Ecology of Marine Megafauna Lab

I’ve had the privilege of attending several marine mammal surveys aboard ships at sea, but I had never surveyed for marine mammals from the air. So, when given the opportunity to participate in ongoing aerial surveys off the Oregon Coast with the US Coastguard’s helicopter fleet, I enthusiastically said yes. As Craig Hayslip, a Faculty Research Assistant with the Marine Mammal Institute, prepared me for my first helicopter survey, I was all excitement and no nerves. That is, until he explained the seating arrangement.

“There are two types of helicopters you’ll be flying on, and because of the seating arrangement in the Jayhawk, we fly with the door open when surveying for whales – it’s the only way to get a sufficient view,” Craig casually explained. I stared at the iPad I would use for recording data and imagined it flying through that open door and toward the sea, while I looked on flustered and helpless. Sensing my worry, Craig quickly showed me a set of straps that attached to the iPad, so it could be secured to one of my legs.

In addition to ensuring the iPad stayed in the aircraft, the straps also meant my hands would still be free to handle the camera (to aid in species identification), and a small tool called a geometer (developed by Pi Techology). By lining up the whale sighting in the sight of the geometer, the observer can record the angle between the aircraft and the sighting. Since we also know the height of the helicopter (we fly at a constant altitude of 500 feet), this angle can be used to calculate horizontal distance from the aircraft, allowing an accurate location to be estimated for each sighting.

My first flight was from Warrenton, Oregon, a four-hour drive north from the Hatfield Marine Science Center in Newport. Once at the airport, our first stop was to head to the flight operations office (a.k.a. “Ops”), who set us up with proper clothing and headgear for the flight. As we checked in, rock music played on a speaker while uniformed Coast Guardsmen serviced a helicopter in the hangar. I started to feel like a cool insider, until I clumsily donned the canvas flight suit and tried on several helmets. Suddenly several pounds heavier, all my movements became very awkward.

Lindsay outside the hangar wearing flight gear, in front of the survey’s helicopter. Photo by Craig Hayslip.

After my safety briefing, the entire crew gathered for a pre-flight meeting. We discussed weather conditions, did a wellness check, and discussed the flight’s mission. The conversation also included a brief overview of our scientific aims – why exactly were we looking for whales?

Craig briefly described the research project we were contributing to, titled Overlap Predictions About Large whales (OPAL). The main goal of this project is to better understand the overlap between whales and fisheries, with the aim of reducing entanglement risk. Fishing methods that use fixed, vertical lines in the water column, like the Dungeness crab fishery, can entangle whales as they migrate and feed along Oregon’s coastline. Since reports of whale entanglements have increased on the West Coast in the last 10 years, managing this threat is essential to ensure both the health of whale populations and the stability of Oregon’s crab fishery. Preventing these entanglements requires an understanding of where whales are distributed along the coast, as well as the times of year overlap with fisheries is most likely to occur. The OPAL project isn’t just mapping whale sightings, though. By using models to correlate whale sightings with oceanographic conditions, OPAL is also aiming to predict where whales are likely to occur.

After explaining the mission, the crew had to reach a consensus on both the level of “risk” in the mission and its level of “gain.” For a whale survey flight, risk was deemed low, with medium gain. While I initially felt mild offence that our scientific work was deemed to have just “medium” gain, I quickly reminded myself that when the crew is not flying scientists around, they are literally saving human lives. It was also a reminder that our whale surveys could easily be interrupted if necessary – Craig had mentioned several instances where flights were diverted to assist in rescue or medical emergencies.

With the briefing over, each of us had to consent to the flight plan by saying, “I accept this mission.” I’d heard this phrase from secret agents and soldiers in movies, but never from a marine scientist. I felt out of place saying them at first, but the words undeniably helped me establish a self-assured confidence I would give the survey my 100%.

Finally, it was time to head out of the hangar and to the aircraft. With both a pair of earplugs and my flight helmet on, the whirring of the blades was just a soft hum. I couldn’t hear speech, so we all relied on hand signals to communicate until our headsets were connected to the aircraft. The crew helped make sure I correctly put on my seatbelt harness, which had not just one, but five buckles. While I still felt some mild concern for the iPad strapped to my leg, at least I knew I wouldn’t fall out.

Preparing for takeoff. Photo by Craig Hayslip.

Lindsay holds up the geometer during the flight. Photo by Craig Hayslip.

Craig helped ensure I had all the equipment set up properly: the iPad’s survey program, the GPS tracking, and the computer recording the geometer’s measurements. Soon after, the helicopter slowly rose, hovering above the runway, before turning and heading towards the coast at speed. My stomach dropped slightly, my ears popped, and cold air rushed through the open door. I looked out at the Columbia River as it stretched toward the coastline and out to sea, and I couldn’t stop smiling.

A rainbow mid-air. Photo by Craig Hayslip.

As we approached the ocean, my attention shifted back to the mission, and I started scanning the surface for whale blows. With the large helmet on, I noticed the camera and geometer were much more difficult to use, so I also made “practice sightings” of passing boats and buoys. It didn’t take long before my first real whale sighting though – two gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus). Over the next two hours, I saw four more gray whales, and six more whales I was unable to identify due to distance. With each sighting, I had to act fast to make each geometer recording. The helicopter travels at a speed of 90 knots and whales can disappear soon after surfacing.

Two hours of flying with the door open meant my nose was running and my typing skills were worsening due to cold fingers. As exciting as it was to spot whales from the air, I was a little relieved when we arrived back at the airport and I could warm back up. Luckily, my nightmare of losing an iPad from the helicopter did not come true, and I was returning home with another survey to add to over 200 (and counting!) helicopter surveys completed for the OPAL project. Four different flights covering different parts of the Oregon coast are completed each month, so I know I have more flights to look forward to. After a successful first mission, I feel ready to take on my next flight.

The four flight routes completed monthly for the OPAL project. Helicopter flights are enabled through a partnership with the US Coastguard.

If you’d like to learn more about the OPAL research project, check out these past blog posts:

A Matter of Time: Adaptively Managing the Timescales of Ocean Change and Human Response

The pathway to advancing knowledge of rorqual whale distribution off Oregon

From land, sea,… and space: searching for whales in the vast ocean

The ups and downs of the ocean

Recent publications presenting findings from the first two years of OPAL include:

Derville, S., Barlow, D. R., Hayslip, C., & Torres, L. G. (2022). Seasonal, Annual, and Decadal Distribution of Three Rorqual Whale Species Relative to Dynamic Ocean Conditions Off Oregon, USA. Frontiers in Marine Science, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.868566

Derville, S., Buell, T. v., Corbett, K. C., Hayslip, C., & Torres, L. G. (2023). Exposure of whales to entanglement risk in Dungeness crab fishing gear in Oregon, USA, reveals distinctive spatio-temporal and climatic patterns. Biological Conservation, 281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.10998

A MOSAIC of species, datasets, tools, and collaborators

By Dr. Dawn Barlow, Postdoctoral Scholar, OSU Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Sciences, Geospatial Ecology of Marine Megafauna Lab

Imagine you are 50 nautical miles from shore, perched on the observation platform of a research vessel. The ocean is blue, calm, and seems—for all intents and purposes—empty. No birds fly overhead, nothing disturbs the rolling swells except the occasional whitecap from a light breeze. The view through your binoculars is excellent, and in the distance, you spot a disturbance at the surface of the water. As the ship gets closer, you see splashing, and a flurry of activity emerges as a large group of dolphins leap and dive, likely chasing a school of fish. They swim along with the ship, riding the bow-wave in a brief break from their activity. Birds circle in the air above them and float on the water around them. Together with your team of observers, you rush to record the species, the number of animals, their distance to the ship, and their behavior. The research vessel carries along its pre-determined trackline, and the feeding frenzy of birds and dolphins fades off behind you as quickly as it came. You return to scanning the blue water.

Craig Hayslip and Dawn Barlow scan for marine mammals from the crow’s nest (elevated observation platform) of the *R/V Pacific Storm*.

The marine environment is highly dynamic, and resources in the ocean are notoriously patchy. One of our main objectives in marine ecology is to understand what drives these ephemeral hotspots of species diversity and biological activity. This objective is particularly important now as the oceans warm and shift. In the context of rapid global climate change, there is a push to establish alternatives to fossil fuels that can support society’s energy needs while minimizing the carbon emissions that are a root cause of climate change. One emergent option is offshore wind, which has become a hot topic on the West Coast of the United States in recent years. The technology has the potential to supply a clean energy source, but the infrastructure could have environmental and societal impacts of its own, depending on where it is placed, how it is implemented, and when it is operational.

Northern right whale dolphins leap into the air. Photo by Craig Hayslip.

Any development in the marine environment, including alternative energy such as offshore wind, should be undertaken using the best available scientific knowledge of the ecosystem where it will be implemented. The Marine Mammal Institute’s collaborative project, Marine Offshore Species Assessments to Inform Clean energy (MOSAIC), was designed for just this reason. As the name “MOSAIC” implies, it is all about using different tools to compile different datasets to establish crucial baseline information on where marine mammals and seabirds are distributed in Oregon and Northern California, a region of interest for wind energy development.

A MOSAIC of species

The waters of Oregon and Northern California are rich with life. Numerous cetaceans are found here, from the largest species to ever live, the blue whale, to one of the smallest cetaceans, the harbor porpoise, with many species filling in the size range in between: fin whales, humpback whales, sperm whales, killer whales, Risso’s dolphins, Pacific white-sided dolphins, northern right whale dolphins, and Dall’s porpoises, to name a few. Seabirds likewise rely on these productive waters, from the large, graceful albatrosses that feature in maritime legends, to charismatic tufted puffins, to the little Leach’s storm petrels that could fit in the palm of your hand yet cover vast distances at sea. From our data collection efforts so far, we have already documented 16 cetacean species and 64 seabird species.

A Laysan albatross glides over the water’s surface. Photo by Will Kennerley.

A MOSAIC of data and tools

Schematic of the different components of the MOSAIC project. Graphic created by Solene Derville.

Through the four-year MOSAIC project, we are undertaking two years of visual surveys and passive acoustic monitoring from Cape Mendocino to the mouth of the Columbia River on the border of Oregon and Washington and seaward to the continental slope. Six comprehensive surveys for cetaceans and seabirds are being conducted aboard the R/V Pacific Storm following a carefully chosen trackline to cover a variety of habitats, including areas of interest to wind energy developers.

These dedicated surveys are complemented by additional surveys conducted aboard NOAA research vessels during collaborative expeditions in the Northern California Current, and ongoing aerial surveys in partnership with the United States Coast Guard through the GEMM Lab’s OPAL project. Three bottom-mounted hydrophones were deployed in August 2022, and are recording cetacean vocalizations and the ambient soundscape, and these recordings will be complemented by acoustic data that is being collected continuously by the Oceans Observing Initiative. In addition to these methods to collect broad-scale species distribution information, concurrent efforts are being conducted via small boats to collect individual identification photographs of baleen whales and tissue biopsy samples for genetic analysis. Building on the legacy of satellite tracking here at the Marine Mammal Institute, the MOSAIC project is breathing new life into tag data from large whales to assess movement patterns over many years and determine the amount of time spent within our study area.

A curious fin whale approaches the *R/V Pacific Storm* during one of the visual surveys. Photo by Craig Hayslip.

Survey tracklines extending between the Columbia River and Cape Mendocino, designed for the MOSAIC visual surveys aboard the *R/V Pacific Storm*.

The resulting species occurrence data from visual surveys and acoustic monitoring will be integrated to develop Species Distribution Models for the many different species in our study region. Identification photographs of individual baleen whales, DNA profiles from whale biopsy samples, and data from satellite-tagged whales will provide detailed insight into whale population structure, behavior, and site fidelity (i.e., how long they typically stay in a given area), which will add important context to the distribution data we collect through the visual surveys and acoustic monitoring. The models will be implemented to produce maps of predicted species occurrence patterns, describing when and where we expect different cetaceans and seabirds to be under different environmental conditions.

With five visual surveys down, the MOSAIC team is gearing up for one final survey this month. The hydrophones will be retrieved this summer. Then, with data in-hand, the team will dive deep into analysis.

A MOSAIC of collaborators

The MOSAIC-4 team waves from the crow’s nest (observation platform) of the *R/V Pacific Storm*. Photo by Craig Hayslip.

The collaborative MOSAIC team brings together a diverse set of tools. The depth of expertise here at the Marine Mammal Institute spans a broad range of disciplines, well-positioned to provide robust scientific knowledge needed to inform alternative energy development in Oregon and Northern California waters.

I have had the pleasure of participating in three of the six surveys aboard the R/V Pacific Storm, including leading one as Chief Scientist, and have collected visual survey data aboard NOAA Ship Bell M. Shimada and from United States Coast Guard helicopters over the years that will be incorporated in the MOSAIC of datasets for the project. This ecosystem is one that I feel deeply connected to from time spent in the field. Now, I am thrilled to dive into the analysis, and will lead the modeling of the visual survey data and the integration of the different components to produce species distribution maps for cetaceans and seabirds our study region.

This project is funded by the United States Department of Energy. The Principal Investigator is the Institute’s Director Dr. Lisa Ballance, and Co-Principal Investigators include Scott Baker, Barbara Lagerquist, Rachael Orben, Daniel Palacios, Kate Stafford, and Leigh Torres of the Marine Mammal Institute; John Calambokidis of the Cascadia Research Collective; and Elizabeth Becker of ManTech International Corp. For more information, please visit the project website, and stay tuned for updates as we enter the analysis phase.

Did you enjoy this blog? Want to learn more about marine life, research, and conservation? Subscribe to our blog and get a weekly alert when we make a new post! Just add your name into the subscribe box below!

An ‘X’travaganza! Introducing the Marine Mammal Institute’s Center of Drone Excellence (CODEX)

Dr. KC Bierlich, Postdoctoral Scholar, OSU Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, & Conservation Sciences, Geospatial Ecology of Marine Megafauna Lab

Drones are becoming more and more prevalent in marine mammal research, particularly for non-invasively obtaining morphological measurements of cetaceans via photogrammetry to identify important health metrics (see this and this previous blog). For example, the GEMM Lab uses drones for the GRANITE Project to study Pacific Coast Feeding Group (PCFG) gray whales and we have found that PCFG whales are skinnier and morphologically shorter with smaller skulls and flukes compared to the larger Eastern North Pacific (ENP) population. The GEMM Lab has also used drones to document variation in body condition across years and within a season, to diagnose pregnancy, and even measure blowholes.

While drone-based photogrammetry can provide major insight into cetacean ecology, several drone systems and protocols are used across the scientific community in these efforts, and no consistent method or centralized framework is established for quantifying and incorporating measurement uncertainty associated with these different drones. This lack of standardization restricts comparability across datasets, thus hindering our ability to effectively monitor populations and understand the drivers of variation (e.g., pollution, climate change, injury, noise).

We are excited to announce the Marine Mammal Institute’s (MMI) Center of Drone Excellence (CODEX), which focuses on developing analytical methods for using drones to non-invasively monitor marine mammal populations. CODEX is led by GEMM Lab member’s KC Bierlich, Leigh Torres, and Clara Bird and consists of other team members within and outside OSU. We draw from many years of trials, errors, headaches, and effort working with drones to study cetacean ecology in a variety of habitats and conditions on many different species.

Already CODEX has developed several open-source hardware and software tools. We developed, produced, and published LidarBoX (Bierlich et al., 2023), which is a 3D printed enclosure for a LiDAR altimeter system that can be easily attached and swapped between commercially available drones (i.e., DJI Inspire, DJI Mavic, and DJI Phantom) (Figure 1). Having a LidarBoX installed helps researchers obtain altitude readings with greater accuracy, yielding morphological measurements with less uncertainty. Since we developed LidarBoX, we have received over 35 orders to build this unit for other labs in national and international universities.

Figure 1. A ‘LidarBoX’ attached to a DJI Inspire 2. The LidarBoX is a 3D printed enclosure containing a LiDAR altimeter to help obtain more accurate altitude readings.

Additionally, CODEX recently released MorphoMetriX version 2 (v2), an easy-to-use photogrammetry software that provides users with the flexibility to obtain custom morphological measurements of megafauna in imagery with no knowledge of any scripting language (Torres and Bierlich, 2020). CollatriX is a user-friendly software for collating multiple MorphoMetriX outputs into a single dataframe and linking important metadata to photogrammetric measurements, such as altitude measured with a LidarBoX (Bird and Bierlich, 2020). CollatriX also automatically calculates several body condition metrics based on measurements from MorphoMetriX v2. CollatriX v2 is currently in beta-testing and scheduled to be released late Spring 2024.

Figure 2. An example of a Pygmy blue whale imported into MorphoMetriX v2, open-source photogrammetry software.

CODEX also recently developed two automated tools to help speed up the laborious manual processing of drone videos for obtaining morphological measurements (Bierlich & Karki et al., in revision). DeteX is a graphical user interface (GUI) that uses a deep learning model for automated detection of cetaceans in drone-based videos. Researchers can input their drone-based videos and DeteX will output frames containing whales at the surface. Users can then select which frames they want to use for measuring individual whales and then input these selected frames into XtraX, which is a GUI that uses a deep learning model to automatically extract body length and body condition measurements of cetaceans (Figure 4). We found automated measurements from XtraX to be similar (within 5%) of manual measurements. Importantly, using DeteX and XtraX takes about 10% of the time it would take to manually process the same videos, demonstrating how these tools greatly speed up obtaining key morphological data while maintaining accuracy, which is critical for effectively monitoring population health.

Figure 3. An example of an automated body length (top) and body condition (bottom) measurement of a gray whale using XtraX (Bierlich & Karki et al., in revision).

CODEX is also in the process of developing Xcertainty, an R package that uses a Bayesian statistical model to quantify and incorporate uncertainty associated with measurements from different drones (see this blog). Xcertainty is based on the Bayesian statistical model developed by Bierlich et al., (2021b; 2021a), which has been utilized by many studies with several different drones to compare body condition and body morphology across individuals and populations (Bierlich et al., 2022; Torres et al., 2022; Barlow et al., 2023). Rather than a single point-estimate of a length measurement for an individual, Xcertainty produces a distribution of length measurements for an individual so that the length of a whale can be described by the mean of this distribution, and its uncertainty as the the variance or an interval around the mean (Figure 4). These outputs ensure measurements are robust and comparable across different drones because they provide a measure of the uncertainty around each measurement. For instance, a measurement with more uncertainty will have a wider distribution. The uncertainty associated with each measurement can be incorporated into analyses, which is key when detecting important differences or changes in individuals or populations, such as changes in body condition (blog).

Figure 4. An example of a posterior predictive distribution for total length of an individual blue whale produced by the ‘Xcertainty’ R package. The black bars represent the uncertainty around the mean value (the black dot) – the longer black bars represent the 95% highest posterior density (HPD) interval, and the shorter black bars represent the 65% HPD interval.

CODEX has integrated all these lessons learned, open-source tools, and analytical approaches into a single framework of suggested best practices to help researchers enhance the quality, speed, and accuracy of obtaining important morphological measurements to manage vulnerable populations. These tools and frameworks are designed to be accommodating and accessible to researchers on various budgets and to facilitate cross-lab collaborations. CODEX plans to host workshops to educate and train researchers using drones on how to apply these tools within this framework within their own research practices. Potential future directions for CODEX include developing a system for using drones to drop suction-cup tags on whales and to collect thermal imagery of whales for health assessments. Stay up to date with all the CODEX ‘X’travaganza here: https://mmi.oregonstate.edu/centers-excellence/codex.

Huge shout out to Suzie Winquist for designing the artwork for CODEX!

References

Barlow, D.R., Bierlich, K.C., Oestreich, W.K., Chiang, G., Durban, J.W., Goldbogen, J.A., Johnston, D.W., Leslie, M.S., Moore, M.J., Ryan, J.P. and Torres, L.G., 2023. Shaped by Their Environment: Variation in Blue Whale Morphology across Three Productive Coastal Ecosystems. Integrative Organismal Biology, [online] 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/iob/obad039.

Bierlich, K., Karki, S., Bird, C.N., Fern, A. and Torres, L.G., n.d. Automated body length and condition measurements of whales from drone videos for rapid assessment of population health. Marine Mammal Science.

Bierlich, K.C., Hewitt, J., Bird, C.N., Schick, R.S., Friedlaender, A., Torres, L.G., Dale, J., Goldbogen, J., Read, A.J., Calambokidis, J. and Johnston, D.W., 2021a. Comparing Uncertainty Associated With 1-, 2-, and 3D Aerial Photogrammetry-Based Body Condition Measurements of Baleen Whales. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.749943.

Bierlich, K.C., Hewitt, J., Schick, R.S., Pallin, L., Dale, J., Friedlaender, A.S., Christiansen, F., Sprogis, K.R., Dawn, A.H., Bird, C.N., Larsen, G.D., Nichols, R., Shero, M.R., Goldbogen, J., Read, A.J. and Johnston, D.W., 2022. Seasonal gain in body condition of foraging humpback whales along the Western Antarctic Peninsula. Frontiers in Marine Science, 9(1036860), pp.1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.1036860.

Bierlich, K.C., Schick, R.S., Hewitt, J., Dale, J., Goldbogen, J.A., Friedlaender, A.S. and Johnston, D.W., 2021b. Bayesian approach for predicting photogrammetric uncertainty in morphometric measurements derived from drones. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 673, pp.193–210. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps13814.

Bird, C. and Bierlich, K.C., 2020. CollatriX: A GUI to collate MorphoMetriX outputs. Journal of Open Source Software, 5(51), pp.2323–2328. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02328.

Torres, L.G., Bird, C.N., Rodríguez-González, F., Christiansen, F., Bejder, L., Lemos, L., Urban R, J., Swartz, S., Willoughby, A., Hewitt, J. and Bierlich, K.C., 2022. Range-Wide Comparison of Gray Whale Body Condition Reveals Contrasting Sub-Population Health Characteristics and Vulnerability to Environmental Change. Frontiers in Marine Science, 9(April), pp.1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.867258.

Torres, W. and Bierlich, K.C., 2020. MorphoMetriX: a photogrammetric measurement GUI for morphometric analysis of megafauna. Journal of Open Source Software, 5(45), pp.1825–1826. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01825.

Who, where, when: Estimating individual space use patterns of PCFG gray whales

By Lisa Hildebrand, PhD candidate, OSU Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, & Conservation Sciences, Geospatial Ecology of Marine Megafauna Lab

Understanding how baleen whales are affected by human activity is a central goal for many research projects in the GEMM Lab. The overarching goal of the GRANITE (Gray whale Response to Ambient Noise Informed by Technology and Ecology) project is to quantify baleen whale physiological response to different stressors (e.g., boat presence and noise) and model the subsequent impacts of these stressors on the population. We will achieve this goal by implementing our long-term, replicate dataset of Pacific Coast Feeding Group (PCFG) gray whales into a framework called population consequences of disturbance (PCoD). I will not go into the details of PCoD in this blog (but I wrote a post a few years ago that you can revisit). Instead, I will explain the approach I am taking to assess where and when individual whales spend time in our study area, which will form an essential component of PCoD and be one of the chapters of my PhD dissertation.

Individuals in a population are unlikely to be exposed to a stressor in a uniform way because they make decisions differently based on intrinsic (e.g., sex, age, reproductive status) and extrinsic (e.g., environment, prey, predators) factors (Erlinge & Sandell 1986). For example, a foraging female gray whale who is still nursing a calf will need to consider factors that are different to ones that an adult single male might need to consider when choosing a location to feed. These differences in decision-making exist across the whole population, which makes it important to understand where individuals are spending time and how they overlap with stressors in space and time before trying to quantify the impacts of stressors on the population as a whole (Pirotta et al. 2018). I am currently working on an analysis that will determine an individual’s exposure to a number of stressors based on their space use patterns.

We can monitor space use patterns of individuals in a population through time using spatial capture-recapture techniques. As the name implies, a spatial capture-recapture technique involves capturing an individual in a marked location during a sampling period, releasing it back into the population, and then (hopefully) re-capturing it during another sampling period in the future, at either the same or a different location. With enough repeat sampling events, the method should build spatial capture histories of individuals through time to better understand an individual’s space use patterns (Borchers & Efford 2008). While the use of the word capture implies that the animal is being physically caught, this is not necessarily the case. Individuals can be “captured” in a number of non-invasive ways, including by being photographed, which is how we “capture” individual PCFG gray whales. These capture-recapture methods were first pioneered in terrestrial systems, where camera traps (i.e., cameras that take photos or videos when a motion sensor is triggered) are set up in a systematic grid across a study area (Figure 1; Royle et al. 2009, Gray 2018). Placing the cameras in a grid system ensures that there is an equal distribution of cameras throughout the study area, which means that an animal theoretically has a uniform chance of being captured. However, because we know that individuals within a population make space use decisions differently, we assume that individuals will distribute themselves differently across a landscape, which will manifest as individuals having different centers of their spatial activity. The probability of capturing an individual is highest when a camera trap is at that individual’s activity center, and the cameras furthest away from the individual’s activity center will have the lowest probability of capturing that individual (Efford 2004). By using this principle of probability, the data generated from spatial capture-recapture field methods can be modelled to estimate the activity centers and ranges for all individuals in a population. The overlap of an individual’s activity center and range can then be compared to the spatiotemporal distribution of stressors that an individual may be exposed to, allowing us to determine whether and how an individual has been exposed to each stressor.

**Figure 1.** Example of camera trap grid in a study area. Figure taken from Gray (2018).

While capture-recapture methods were first developed in terrestrial systems, they have been adapted for application to marine populations, which is what I am doing for our GRANITE dataset of PCFG gray whales. Together with a team of committee members and GRANITE collaborators, I am developing a Bayesian spatial capture-recapture model to estimate individual space use patterns. In order to mimic the camera trap grid system, we have divided our central Oregon coast study area into latitudinal bins that are approximately 1 km long. Unfortunately, we do not have motion sensor activated cameras that automatically take photographs of gray whales in each of these latitudinal bins. Instead, we have eight years of boat-based survey effort with whale encounters where we collect photographs of many individual whales. However, as you now know, being able to calculate the probability of detection is important for estimating an individual’s activity center and range. Therefore, we calculated our spatial survey effort per latitudinal bin in each study year to account for our probability of detecting whales (i.e., the area of ocean in km² that we surveyed). Next, we tallied up the number of times we observed every individual PCFG whale in each of those latitudinal bins per year, thus creating individual spatial capture histories for the population. Finally, using just those two data sets (the individual whale capture histories and our survey effort), we can build models to test a number of different hypotheses about individual gray whale space use patterns. There are many hypotheses that I want to test (and therefore many models that I need to run), with increasing complexity, but I will explain one here.

Over eight years of field work for the GRANITE project, consisting of over 40,000 km² of ocean surveyed with 2,169 sightings of gray whales, our observations lead us to hypothesize that there are two broad space use strategies that whales use to optimize how they find enough prey to meet their energetic needs. For the moment, we are calling these strategies ‘home-body’ and ‘roamer’. As the name implies, a home-body is an individual that stays in a relatively small area and searches for food in this area consistently through time. A roamer, on the other hand, is an individual that travels and searches over a greater spatial area to find good pockets of food and does not generally tend to stay in just one place. In other words, we except a home-body to have a consistent activity center through time and a small activity range, while a roamer will have a much larger activity range and its activity center may vary more throughout the years (Figure 2).

**Figure 2.** Schematic representing one of the hypotheses we will be testing with our Bayesian spatial capture-recapture models. The schematic shows the activity centers (the circles) and activity ranges (vertical lines attached to the circles) of two individuals (green and orange) across three years in our central Oregon study area. The green individual represents our hypothesized idea of a home-body, whereas the orange individuals represents our idea of a roamer.

While this hypothesis sounds straightforward, there are a lot of decisions that I need to make in the Bayesian modeling process that can ultimately impact the results. For example, do all home-bodies in a population have the same size activity range or can the size vary between different home-bodies? If it can vary, by how much can it vary? These same questions apply for the roamers too. I have a long list of questions just like these, which means a lot of decision-making on my part, and that long list of hypotheses I previously mentioned. Luckily, I have a fantastic team made up of Leigh, committee members, and GRANITE collaborators that are guiding me through this process. In just a few more months, I hope to reveal how PCFG individuals distribute themselves in space and time throughout our central Oregon study area, and hence describe their exposure to different stressors. Stay tuned!

References

Borchers DL, Efford MG (2008) Spatially explicit maximum likelihood methods for capture-recapture studies. Biometrics 64:377-385.

Efford M (2004) Density estimation in live-trapping studies. Oikos 106:598-610.

Erlinge S, Sandell M (1986) Seasonal changes in the social organization of male stoats, Mustela erminea: An effect of shifts between two decisive resources. Oikos 47:57-62.

Gray TNE (2018) Monitoring tropical forest ungulates using camera-trap data. Journal of Zoology 305:173-179.

Pirotta E, Booth CG, Costa DP, Fleishman E, Kraus SD, and others (2018) Understanding the population consequences of disturbance. Ecology and Evolution 8(19):9934–9946.Royle J, Nichols J, Karanth KU, Gopalaswamy AM (2009) A hierarchical model for estimating density in camera-trap studies. Journal of Applied Ecology 46:118-127.

How big, how blue, how beautiful! Studying the impacts of climate change on big, (and beautiful) blue whales

Dr. KC Bierlich, Postdoctoral Scholar, OSU Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, & Conservation Sciences, Geospatial Ecology of Marine Megafauna Lab

The SAPPHIRE Project is in full swing, as we spend our days aboard the R/V Star Keys searching for krill and blue whales (Figure 1) in the South Taranaki Bight (STB) region of Aotearoa New Zealand. We are investigating how changing ocean conditions impact krill availability and quality, and how this in turn impacts blue whale behavior, health, and reproduction. Understanding the link between changing environmental conditions on prey species and predators is key to understanding the larger implications of climate change on ocean food webs and each populations’ resiliency.

Figure 1. The SAPPHIRE team searching for blue whales. Top left) KC Bierlich, top right) Dawn Barlow, bottom left) Dawn Barlow, Kim Bernard (left to right), bottom right) KC Bierlich, Dawn Barlow, Leigh Torres, Mike Ogle (left to right).

One of the many components of the SAPPHIRE Project is to understand how foraging success of blue whales is influenced by environmental variation (see this recent blog written by Dr. Dawn Barlow introducing each component of the project). When you cannot go to a grocery store or restaurant any time you are hungry, you must rely on stored energy from previous feeds to fuel energy needs. Body condition reflects an individual’s stored energy in the body as a result of feeding and thus represents the foraging success of an individual, which can then affect its potential for reproductive output and the individual’s overall health (see this previous blog). As discussed in a previous blog, drones serve as a valuable tool for obtaining morphological measurements of whales to estimate their body condition. We are using drones to collect aerial imagery of pygmy blue whales to obtain body condition measurements late in the foraging season between years 2024 and 2026 of the SAPPHIRE Project (Figure 2). We are quantifying body condition as Body Area Index (BAI), which is a relative measure standardized by the total length of the whale and well suited for comparing individuals and populations (Figure 3).

The GEMM Lab recently published an article led by Dr. Dawn Barlow where we investigated the differences in BAI between three blue whale populations: Eastern North Pacific blue whales feeding in Monterey Bay, California; Chilean blue whales feeding in the Corcovado Gulf; and New Zealand Pygmy blue whales feeding in the STB (Barlow et al., 2023). These three populations are interesting to compare since blue whales that feed in Monterey Bay and Corcovado Gulf migrate to and from these seasonally productive feeding grounds, while the Pygmy blue whales stay in Aotearoa New Zealand year-round. Interestingly, the Pygmy blue whales had higher BAI (were fatter) compared to the other two regions despite relatively lower productivity in their foraging grounds. This difference in body condition may be due to different life history strategies where the non-migratory Pygmy blue whales may be able to feed as opportunities arrive, while the migratory strategies of the Eastern North Pacific and Chilean blue whales require good timing to access high abundant prey. Another interesting and unexpected result from our blue whale comparison was that Pygmy blue whales are not so “pygmy”; they are actually the same size as Eastern North Pacific and Chilean blue whales, with an average size around 22 m. Our findings from this blue whale comparison leads us to more questions about how environmental conditions that vary from year to year influence body condition and reproduction of these “not so pygmy” blue whales.

Figure 2. An aerial image of a Pygmy blue whale in the South Taranaki Bight region of Aotearoa New Zealand collected during the SAPPHIRE 2024 field season using a DJI Inspire 2 drone.

Figure 3. A drone image of a Pygmy blue whale and the length and body width measurements used to estimate Body Area Index (BAI), represented by the shaded blue region. Width measurements will also be used to help identify pregnant individuals.

The GEMM Lab has been studying this population of Pygmy blue whales in the STB since 2013 and found that years designated as a marine heatwave resulted with a reduction in blue whale feeding activity. Interestingly, breeding activity is also reduced during marine heatwaves in the following season when compared to the breeding season following a more productive, typical foraging season. These findings indicate that fluctuations in the environment, such as marine heatwaves, may affect not only foraging success, but also reproduction in Pygmy blue whales.

To help us better understand reproductive patterns across years, we will use body width measurements from drone images paired with hormone concentrations collected from fecal and biopsy samples to identify pregnant individuals. Progesterone is a hormone secreted in the ovaries of mammals during the estrous cycle and gestation, making it the predominant hormone responsible for sustaining pregnancy. Recently, the GEMM Lab’s Dr. Alejandro Fernandez-Ajo wrote a blog discussing his publication identifying pregnant individual gray whales using drone-based body width measurements and progesterone concentrations from fecal samples (Fernandez et al., 2023). While individuals that were pregnant had higher levels of progesterone compared to when they were not pregnant, the body width at 50% of the body length served as a more reliable method for detecting pregnancy in gray whales. We will use similar methods to help identify pregnancy in Pygmy blue whales for the SAPPHIRE Project where will we examine body width measurement paired with progesterone concentrations collected from fecal and biopsy samples to identify pregnant individuals. We hope our work will help to better understand how climate change will influence Pygmy blue whale body condition and reproduction, and thus the overall health and resiliency of the population. Stay tuned!

References

Barlow, D. R., Bierlich, K. C., Oestreich, W. K., Chiang, G., Durban, J. W., Goldbogen, J. A., Johnston, D. W., Leslie, M. S., Moore, M. J., Ryan, J. P., & Torres, L. G. (2023). Shaped by Their Environment: Variation in Blue Whale Morphology across Three Productive Coastal Ecosystems. Integrative Organismal Biology, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/iob/obad039

Fernandez Ajó, A., Pirotta, E., Bierlich, K. C., Hildebrand, L., Bird, C. N., Hunt, K. E., Buck, C. L., New, L., Dillon, D., & Torres, L. G. (2023). Assessment of a non-invasive approach to pregnancy diagnosis in gray whales through drone-based photogrammetry and faecal hormone analysis. Royal Society Open Science, 10(7), 230452. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.230452

Migrating back east

By: Kate Colson, MSc Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia, Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, Marine Mammal Research Unit

With the changing of the season, gray whales are starting their southbound migration that will end in the lagoons off the Baja California Mexico. The migration of the gray whale is the longest migration of any mammal—the round trip totals ~10,000 miles (Pike, 1962)!

*Map of the migration route taken by gray whales along the west coast of North America. (Image credit: Angle, Asplund, and Ostrander, 2017* *https://www.slocoe.org/resources/parent-and-public-resources/what-is-a-california-gray-whale/california-gray-whale-migration/*)

Like these gray whales, I am also undertaking my own “migration” as I leave Newport to start my post-Master’s journey. However, my migration will be a little shorter than the gray whale’s journey—only ~3,000 miles—as I head back to the east coast. As I talked about in my previous blog, I have finished my thesis studying the energetics of gray whale foraging behaviors and I attended my commencement ceremony at the University of British Columbia last Wednesday. As my time with the GEMM Lab comes to a close, I want to take some time to reflect on my time in Newport.

*Me in my graduation regalia (right) and my co-supervisor Andrew Trites holding the university mace (left) after my commencement ceremony at the University of British Columbia rose garden.*

Many depictions of scientists show them working in isolation but in my time with the GEMM Lab I got to fully experience the collaborative nature of science. My thesis was a part of the GEMM Lab’s Gray whale Response to Ambient Noise Informed by Technology and Ecology (GRANITE) project and I worked closely with the GRANITE team to help achieve the project’s research goals. The GRANITE team has annual meetings where team members give updates on their contributions to the project and flush out ideas in a series of very busy days. I found these collaborative meetings very helpful to ensure that I was keeping the big picture of the gray whale study system in mind while working with the energetics data I explored for my thesis. The collaborative nature of the GRANITE project provided the opportunity to learn from people that have a different skill set from my own and expose me to many different types of analysis.

*GRANITE team members hard at work thinking about gray whales and their physiological response to noise.*

This summer I also was able to participate in outreach with the partnership of the Oregon State University Marine Mammal Institute and the Eugene Exploding Whales (the alternate identity of the Eugene Emeralds) minor league baseball team to promote the Oregon Gray Whale License plates. It was exciting to talk to baseball fans about marine mammals and be able to demonstrate that the Gray Whale License plate sales are truly making a difference for the gray whales off the Oregon coast. In fact, the minimally invasive suction cup tags used in to collect the data I analyzed in my thesis were funded by the OSU Gray Whale License plate fund!

Photo of the GEMM Lab promoting Oregon Gray Whale License plates at the Eugene Exploding Whales baseball game. If you haven’t already, be sure to “Put a whale on your tail!” to help support marine mammal research off the Oregon Coast.

Outside of the amazing science opportunities, I have thoroughly enjoyed the privilege of exploring Newport and the Oregon coast. I was lucky enough to find lots of agates and enjoyed consistently spotting gray whale blows on my many beach walks. I experienced so many breathtaking views from hikes (God’s thumb was my personal favorite). I got to attend an Oregon State Beavers football game where we crushed Stanford! And most of all, I am so thankful for all the friends I’ve made in my time here. These warm memories, and the knowledge that I can always come back, will help make it a little easier to start my migration away from Newport.

*Me and my friends outside of Reser Stadium for the Oregon State Beavers football game vs Stanford this season. Go Beavs!!!*

*Me and my friends celebrating after my defense.*

Did you enjoy this blog? Want to learn more about marine life, research, and
conservation? Subscribe to our blog and get a weekly message when we post a new
blog. Just add your name and email into the subscribe box below

References

Pike, G. C. (1962). Migration and feeding of the gray whale (Eschrichtius gibbosus). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 19(5), 815–838. https://doi.org/10.1139/f62-051

A smaller sized gray whale: recent publication finds PCFG whales are smaller than ENP whales

Dr. KC Bierlich, Postdoctoral Scholar, OSU Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, & Conservation Sciences, Geospatial Ecology of Marine Megafauna (GEMM) Lab

A recent blog post by GEMM Lab’s PhD Candidate Clara Bird gave a recap of our 8^th consecutive GRANITEfield season this year. In her blog, Clara highlighted that we saw 71 individual gray whales this season, 61 of which we have seen in previous years and identified as belonging to the Pacific Coast Feeding Group (PCFG). With an estimated population size of around 212 individuals, this means that we saw almost 1/3 of the PCFG population this season alone. Since the GEMM Lab first started collecting data on PCFG gray whales in 2016, we have collected drone imagery on over 120 individuals, which is over half the PCFG population. This dataset provides incredible opportunity to get to know these individuals and observe them from year to year as they grow and mature through different life history stages, such as producing a calf. A question our research team has been interested in is what makes a PCFG whale different from an Eastern North Pacific (ENP) gray whale, which has a population size around 16,000 individuals and feed predominantly in the Arctic during the summer months? For this blog, I will highlight findings from our recent publication in Biology Letters (Bierlich et al., 2023) comparing the morphology (body length, skull, and fluke size) between PCFG and ENP populations.

Body size and shape reflect how an animal functions in their environment and can provide details on an individual’s current health, reproductive status, and energetic requirements. Understanding how animals grow is a key component for monitoring the health of populations and their vulnerability to climate change and other stressors in their environment. As such, collecting accurate morphological measurements of individuals is essential to model growth and infer their health. Collecting such morphological measurements of whales is challenging, as you cannot ask a whale to hold still while you prepare the tape measure, but as discussed in a previous blog, drones provide a non-invasive method to collect body size measurements of whales. Photogrammetry is a non-invasive technique used to obtain morphological measurements of animals from photographs. The GEMM Lab uses drone-based photogrammetry to obtain morphological measurements of PCFG gray whales, such as their body length, skull length (as snout-to-blowhole), and fluke span (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Morphological measurements obtained via photogrammetry of a Pacific Coast Feeding Group (PCFG) gray whale. These measurements were used to compare to individuals from the Eastern North Pacific (ENP) population.

As mentioned in this previous blog, we use photo-identification to identify unique individual gray whales based on markings on their body. This method is helpful for linking all the data we are collecting (morphology, hormones, behavior, new scarring and skin conditions, etc.) to each individual whale. An individual’s sightings history can also be used to estimate their age, either as a ‘minimum age’ based on the date of first sighting or a ‘known age’ if the individual was seen as a calf. By combining the length measurements from drone-based photogrammetry and age estimates from photo-identification history, we can construct length-at-age growth models to examine how PCFG gray whales grow. While no study has previously examined length-at-age growth models specifically for PCFG gray whales, another study constructed growth curves for ENP gray whales using body length and age estimates obtained from whaling, strandings, and aerial photogrammetry (Agbayani et al., 2020). For our study, we utilized these datasets and compared length-at-age growth, snout-to-blowhole length, and fluke span between PCFG and ENP whales. We used Bayesian statistics to account and incorporate the various levels of uncertainty associated with data collected (i.e., measurements from whaling vs. drone, ‘minimum age’ vs. ‘known age’).

We found that while both populations grow at similar rates, PCFG gray whales reach smaller adult lengths than ENP. This difference was more extreme for females, where PCFG females were ~1 m (~3 ft) shorter than ENP females and PCFG males were ~0.5 m (1.5 ft) shorter than ENP males (Figure 2, Figure 3). We also found that ENP males and females have slightly larger skulls and flukes than PCFG male and females, respectively. Our results suggest PCFG whales are shaped differently than ENP whales (Figure 3)! These results are also interesting in light of our previous published study that found PCFG whales are skinnier than ENP whales (see this previous blog post).

Figure 2. Growth curves (von Bertalanffy–Putter) for length-at-age comparing male and female ENP and PCFG gray whales (shading represents 95% highest posterior density intervals). Points represent mean length and median age. Vertical bars represent photogrammetric uncertainty. Dashed horizontal lines represent uncertainty in age estimates.

Figure 3. Schematic highlighting the differences in body size between Pacific Coast Feeding Group (PCFG) and Eastern North Pacific (ENP) gray whales.

Our results raise some interesting questions regarding why PCFG are smaller: Is this difference in size and shape normal for this population and are they healthy? Or is this difference a sign that they are stressed, unhealthy and/or not getting enough to eat? Larger individuals are typically found at higher latitudes (this pattern is called Bergmann’s Rule), which could explain why ENP whales are larger since they feed in the Arctic. Yet many species, including fish, birds, reptiles, and mammals, have experienced reductions in body size due to changes in habitat and anthropogenic stressors (Gardner et al., 2011). The PCFG range is within closer proximity to major population centers compared to the ENP foraging grounds in the Arctic, which could plausibly cause increased stress levels, leading to decreased growth.

The smaller morphology of PCFG may also be related to the different foraging tactics they employ on different prey and habitat types than ENP whales. Animal morphology is linked to behavior and habitat (see this blogpost). ENP whales feeding in the Arctic generally forage on benthic amphipods, while PCFG whales switch between benthic, epibenthic and planktonic prey, but mostly target epibenthic mysids. Within the PCFG range, gray whales often forage in rocky kelp beds close to shore in shallow water depths (approx. 10 m) that are on average four times shallower than whales feeding in the Arctic. The prey in the PCFG range is also found to be of equal or higher caloric value than prey in the Arctic range (see this blog), which is interesting since PCFG were found to be skinnier.

It is also unclear when the PCFG formed? ENP and PCFG whales are genetically similar, but photo-identification history reveals that calves born into the PCFG usually return to forage in this PCFG range, suggesting matrilineal site fidelity that contributes to the population structure. PCFG whales were first documented off our Oregon Coast in the 1970s (Figure 4). Though, from examining old whaling records, there may have been PCFG gray whales foraging off the coasts of Northern California to British Columbia since the 1920s.

Figure 4. First reports of summer-resident gray whales along the Oregon coast, likely part of the Pacific Coast Feeding Group. Capital Journal, August 9, 1976, pg. 2.

Altogether, our finding led us to two hypotheses: 1) the PCFG range provides an ecological opportunity for smaller whales to feed on a different prey type in a shallow environment, or 2) the PCFG range is an ecological trap, where individuals gain less energy due to energetically costly feeding behaviors in complex habitat while potentially targeting lower density prey, causing them to be skinnier and have decreased growth. Key questions remain for our research team regarding potential consequences of the smaller sized PCFG whales, such as does the smaller body size equate to reduced resilience to environmental and anthropogenic stressors? Does smaller size effect fecundity and population fitness? Stay tuned as we learn more about this unique and fascinating smaller sized gray whale.

References

Agbayani, S., Fortune, S. M. E., & Trites, A. W. (2020). Growth and development of North Pacific gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus). Journal of Mammalogy, 101(3), 742–754. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyaa028

Bierlich, K. C., Kane, A., Hildebrand, L., Bird, C. N., Fernandez Ajo, A., Stewart, J. D., Hewitt, J., Hildebrand, I., Sumich, J., & Torres, L. G. (2023). Downsized: gray whales using an alternative foraging ground have smaller morphology. Biology Letters, 19(8). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2023.0043

Gardner, J. L., Peters, A., Kearney, M. R., Joseph, L., & Heinsohn, R. (2011). Declining body size: A third universal response to warming? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 26(6), 285–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.03.005

The whales keep coming and we keep learning: a wrap up of the eighth GRANITE field season.

Clara Bird, PhD Candidate, OSU Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Sciences, Geospatial Ecology of Marine Megafauna Lab

As you may remember, last year’s field season was a remarkable summer for our team. We were pleasantly surprised to find an increased number of whales in our study area compared to previous years and were even more excited that many of them were old friends. As we started this field season, we were all curious to know if this year would be a repeat. And it’s my pleasure to report that this season was even better!

We started the season with an exciting day (6 known whales! see Lisa’s blog) and the excitement (and whales) just kept coming. This season we saw 71 individual whales across 215 sightings! Of those 71, 44 were whales we saw last year, and 10 were new to our catalog, meaning that we saw 17 whales this season that we had not seen in at least two years! There is something extra special about seeing a whale we have not seen in a while because it means that they are still alive, and the sighting gives us valuable data to continue studying health and survival. Another cool note is that 7 of our 12 new whales from last year came back this year, indicating recruitment to our study region.

Included in that group of 7 whales are the two calves from last year! Again, indicating good recruitment of new whales to our study area. We saw both Lunita and Manta (previously nick-named ‘Roly-poly’) throughout this season and we were always happy to see them back in our area and feeding on their own.

We had an especially remarkable encounter with Lunita at the end of this season when we found this whale surface feeding on porcelain crab larvae (video 1)! This is a behavior that we rarely observe, and we’ve never seen a juvenile whale use this behavior before, inspiring questions around how Lunita knew how to perform this behavior.

Not only did we resight our one-year-old friends, but we found two new calves born to well-known mature females (Clouds and Spotlight). We had previously documented Clouds with a calf (Cheetah) in 2016 so it was exciting to see her with a new calf and to meet Cheetah’s sibling! Cheetah has become one of our regulars so we’re curious to see if this new calf joins the regular crew as well. We’re also hoping that Spotlight’s calf will stick around; and we’re optimistic since we observed it feeding alone later in the season.

Collage of new calves from 2023! Left: Clouds and her calf, Center: Spotlight and her calf, Right: Spotlight’s calf independently foraging

Of course, 71 whales means heaps of data! We spent 226 hours on the water, conducted 132 drone flights (a record!), and collected 61 fecal samples! Those 132 flights were over 64 individual whales, with Casper and Pacman tying for “best whale to fly over” with 10 flights each. We collected 61 fecal samples from 26 individual whales with a three-way tie for “best pooper” between Hummingbird, Scarlett, and Zorro with 6 fecal samples each. And we continued to collect valuable prey and habitat data through 80 GoPro drops and 79 zooplankton net tows.

Above: (left) drone image of the team on our boat next to Pacman, (right) KC piloting the drone. Below: the team celebrating good fecal samples!

And if you were about to ask, “but what about tagging?!”, fear not! We continued our suction cup tagging effort with a successful window in July where we were joined by collaborators John Calambokidis from Cascadia Research Collective and Dave Cade from Hopkins Marine Station and deployed four suction-cup tags.

The team during our tagging effort this season.

It’s hard to believe all the work we’ve accomplished in the past five months, and I continue to be honored and proud to be on this incredible team. But as this season has come to a close, I have found myself reflecting on something else. Learning. Over the past several years we have learned so much about not only these whales in our study system but about how to conduct field work. And while learning is continuous, this season in particular has felt like an exciting time for both. In the past year our group has published work showing that we can detect pregnancy in gray whales using fecal samples and drone imagery (Fernandez Ajó et al., 2023), that PCFG gray whales are shorter and smaller than ENP whales (Bierlich et al., 2023), and that gray whales are consuming high levels of microplastics (Torres et al., 2023). We also have several manuscripts in review focused on our behavior work from drones and tags. While this information does not directly affect our field work, it does mean that while we’re observing these whales live, we better understand what we’re observing and we can come up with more specific, in-depth questions based on this foundation of knowledge that we’re building. I have enjoyed seeing our questions evolve each year based on our increasing knowledge and I know that our collaborative, inquisitive chats on the boat will only continue inspiring more exciting research.

On top of our gray whale knowledge, we have also learned so much about field work. When I think back to the early days compared to now, there is a stark difference in our knowledge and our confidence. We do a lot on our little boat! And so many steps that we once relied on written lists to remember to do are now just engrained in our minds and bodies. From loading the boat, to setting up at the dock, to the go pro drops, fecal collections, drone operations, photo taking, and photo ID, our team has become quite the well-oiled machine. We were also given the opportunity to reflect on everything we’ve learned over the past years when it was our turn to train our new team member, Nat! Nat is a new PhD student in the GEMM lab who is joining team GRANITE. Teaching her all the ins and outs of our fieldwork really emphasized how much we ourselves have learned.

On a personal note, this was my third season as a drone pilot, and honestly, I was pleasantly surprised by my experience this season. Since I started piloting, I have experienced pretty intense nerves every time I’ve flown the drone. From stress dreams, to mild nausea, and an elevated heart rate, flying the drone was something that I didn’t necessarily look forward to. Don’t get me wrong – it’s incredibly valuable data and a privilege to watch the whales from a bird’s eye view in real time. But the responsibility of collecting good data, while keeping the drone and my team members safe was something that I felt viscerally. And while I gained confidence with every flight, the nerves were still as present as ever and I was starting to accept that I would never be totally comfortable as a pilot. Until this season, when the nerves finally cleared, and piloting became as innate as all the other field work components. While there are still some stressful moments, the nerves don’t come roaring back. I have finally gone through enough stressful situations to not be fazed by new ones. And while I am fully aware that this is just how learning works, I write this reflection as a reminder to myself and anyone going through the process of learning any new skill to push through that fear. Remember there can be a disconnect between the time when you know how to do something well, or well-enough, and the time when you feel comfortable doing it. I am just as proud of myself for persevering as I am of the team for collecting so much incredible data. And as I look ahead to my next scary challenge (finishing my PhD!), this is a feeling that I am trying to hold on to.

Stay tuned for updates from team GRANITE!

References

Bierlich, K. C., Kane, A., Hildebrand, L., Bird, C. N., Fernandez Ajo, A., Stewart, J. D., Hewitt, J., Hildebrand, I., Sumich, J., & Torres, L. G. (2023). Downsized: Gray whales using an alternative foraging ground have smaller morphology. Biology Letters, 19(8), 20230043. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2023.0043

Torres, L. G., Brander, S. M., Parker, J. I., Bloom, E. M., Norman, R., Van Brocklin, J. E., Lasdin, K. S., & Hildebrand, L. (2023). Zoop to poop: Assessment of microparticle loads in gray whale zooplankton prey and fecal matter reveal high daily consumption rates. Frontiers in Marine Science, 10. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2023.1201078

Fishing lines are hard to detect underwater

Distracted driving?

More whales, more heat waves, and more entanglements

References

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

A MOSAIC of species

A MOSAIC of data and tools

A MOSAIC of collaborators

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

References

Share this:

References

Share this:

Share this:

References

Share this: