Sound and human impacts on beluga whales in Cook Inlet, Alaska

Thesis (Ph.D.) University of Alaska Fairbanks, 2015Cook Inlet beluga whales (CIBs) are a geographically and genetically isolated population residing in Cook Inlet, Alaska year round. The population declined by approximately 50% between 1994 and 1998 and was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act in 2008. The original decline was attributed to overharvest; however, the population has failed to rebound despite the virtual absence of harvest since 1998. This suggests that other factors, such as declining prey availability, increased predation, contaminants, disease, climate change, catastrophic events, habitat loss, unauthorized take, and underwater noise pollution, may be limiting the population's recovery. The goal of this dissertation research was to study the potential impacts of underwater noise on the CIB population. The objective of Chapter 1 was to study CIB acoustic behavior to gain a greater understanding of how CIBs utilize sound. The objective of Chapter 2 was to measure underwater sound levels in Cook Inlet to understand the background noise levels with which CIBs must cope. The objective of Chapter 3 was to document reactions of CIBs to noise disturbance utilizing local ecological knowledge to allow insight into the potential impacts of noise on beluga behavior. The results of Chapter 1 showed that belugas exhibit significant seasonal and spatial variation in calling behavior which suggested differences in habitat usage or differences in the surrounding environment, including background noise levels. The results of Chapter 2 showed that root mean square sound pressure levels exhibited high variation with the highest levels recorded in the 100 Hz frequency band. The seasonal differences in sound levels observed in this study were likely due to greater small vessel traffic and oil and gas development activities in the summer than the winter. In Chapter 3, participants reported observations of CIBs exhibiting avoidance reactions to noise sources including boats, planes, explosions, pile driving, construction, and cars. The results of this chapter showed that noise is perceived to alter beluga behavior and possibly beluga distribution in Cook Inlet. This dissertation research showed that underwater noise has the potential to affect CIBs, however the cost of this impact remains unclear and warrants further study. In light of the lack of support for many of the proposed factors limiting the population and the need for further research for many of these factors, it would be valuable to consider the cumulative effects of these multiple stressors. While their potential impact may be small individually, when combined, these factors may have a synergistic and significant impact on individual whales and, in turn, on the CIB population. Management of cumulative effects may be necessary to ensure the recovery of this endangered population.Introduction -- References -- Chapter 1 : Spatial and temporal patterns in the acoustic behavior of beluga whales, Delphinapterus leucas, in Cook Inlet, Alaska -- Chapter 2: Underwater ambient sound levels in Trading Bay and Eagle Bay in Cook Inlet, Alaska and possible implications for beluga whales

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health