A Test of Computer-assisted Matching Using the North Pacific Humpback Whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, Tail Flukes Photograph Collection

Testing was conducted of a computer-assisted system for matching humpback whale tail flukes photographs. Trials with a 12,000-photographs database found no differences in match success between matching by computer and matching by comparing smaller catalogs ranging in size from 200 to 400 photographs. Tests with a 24,000-photographs database showed that, on average, the first match was found after examining about 130 photographs whether the photograph quality was excellent, good, or poor. Match success did not appear to be strongly related to whether the tail flukes had especially distinctive markings or pigment patterns (recognition quality). An advantage of computer-assisted matching is the ability to compare new photographs to the entire North Pacific collection, where no bias is introduced based on expectation of resightings within or between specific areas, or based on expectation of behavioral role (e.g. matching “known” females to “known” females)

Killer whales and marine mammal trends in the North Pacific : a re-examination of evidence for sequential megafauna collapse and the prey-switching hypothesis

This paper is not subject to U.S. copyright. The definitive version was published in Marine Mammal Science 23 (2007): 766–802, doi:10.1111/j.1748-7692.2006.00093.x.Springer et al. (2003) contend that sequential declines occurred in North Pacific populations of harbor and fur seals, Steller sea lions, and sea otters. They hypothesize that these were due to increased predation by killer whales, when industrial whaling's removal of large whales as a supposed primary food source precipitated a prey switch. Using a regional approach, we reexamined whale catch data, killer whale predation observations, and the current biomass and trends of potential prey, and found little support for the prey-switching hypothesis. Large whale biomass in the Bering Sea did not decline as much as suggested by Springer et al., and much of the reduction occurred 50–100 yr ago, well before the declines of pinnipeds and sea otters began; thus, the need to switch prey starting in the 1970s is doubtful. With the sole exception that the sea otter decline followed the decline of pinnipeds, the reported declines were not in fact sequential. Given this, it is unlikely that a sequential megafaunal collapse from whales to sea otters occurred. The spatial and temporal patterns of pinniped and sea otter population trends are more complex than Springer et al. suggest, and are often inconsistent with their hypothesis. Populations remained stable or increased in many areas, despite extensive historical whaling and high killer whale abundance. Furthermore, observed killer whale predation has largely involved pinnipeds and small cetaceans; there is little evidence that large whales were ever a major prey item in high latitudes. Small cetaceans (ignored by Springer et al.) were likely abundant throughout the period. Overall, we suggest that the Springer et al. hypothesis represents a misleading and simplistic view of events and trophic relationships within this complex marine ecosystem

Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) mitogenomics: A cautionary tale of defining sub-species from mitochondrial sequence monophyly

The advent of massive parallel sequencing technologies has resulted in an increase of studies based upon complete mitochondrial genome DNA sequences that revisit the taxonomic status within and among species. Spatially distinct monophyly in such mitogenomic genealogies, i.e., the sharing of a recent common ancestor among con-specific samples collected in the same region has been viewed as evidence for subspecies. Several recent studies in cetaceans have employed this criterion to suggest subsequent intraspecific taxonomic revisions. We reason that employing intra-specific, spatially distinct monophyly at non-recombining, clonally inherited genomes is an unsatisfactory criterion for defining subspecies based upon theoretical (genetic drift) and practical (sampling effort) arguments. This point was illustrated by a re-analysis of a global mitogenomic assessment of fin whales, Balaenoptera physalus spp., published by Archer et al. (2013), which proposed to further subdivide the Northern Hemisphere fin whale subspecies, B. p. physalus. The proposed revision was based upon the detection of spatially distinct monophyly among North Atlantic and North Pacific fin whales in a genealogy based upon complete mitochondrial genome DNA sequences. The extended analysis conducted in this study (1676 mitochondrial control region, 162 complete mitochondrial genome DNA sequences and 20 microsatellite loci genotyped in 380 samples) revealed that the apparent monophyly among North Atlantic fin whales reported by Archer et al. (2013) to be due to low sample sizes. In conclusion, defining sub-species from monophyly (i.e., the absence of para- or polyphyly) can lead to erroneous conclusions due to relatively 'trivial' aspects, such as sampling. Basic population genetic processes (i.e., genetic drift and migration) also affect the time to the most recent common ancestor and hence the probability that individuals in a sample are monophyletic

Movements and Population Structure of Humpback Whales in the North Pacific

Despite the extensive use of photographic identification methods to investigate humpback whales in the North Pacific, few quantitative analyses have been conducted. We report on a comprehensive analysis of interchange in the North Pacific among three wintering regions (Mexico, Hawaii, and Japan) each with two to three subareas, and feeding areas that extended from southern California to the Aleutian Islands. Of the 6,413 identification photographs of humpback whales obtained by 16 independent research groups between 1990 and 1993 and examined for this study, 3,650 photographs were determined to be of suitable quality. A total of 1,241 matches was found by two independent matching teams, identifying 2,712 unique whales in the sample (seen one to five times). Site fidelity was greatest at feeding areas where there was a high rate of resightings in the same area in different years and a low rate of interchange among different areas. Migrations between winter regions and feeding areas did not follow a simple pattern, although highest match rates were found for whales that moved between Hawaii and southeastern Alaska, and between mainland and Baja Mexico and California. Interchange among subareas of the three primary wintering regions was extensive for Hawaii, variable (depending on subareas) for Mexico, and low for Japan and reflected the relative distances among subareas. Interchange among these primary wintering regions was rare. This study provides the first quantitative assessment of the migratory structure of humpback whales in the entire North Pacific basin

Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) mitogenomics: A cautionary tale of defining sub-species from mitochondrial sequence monophyly

© The Authors, 2019. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. The definitive version was published in Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution (2019), doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2019.02.003.The advent of massive parallel sequencing technologies has resulted in an increase of studies based upon complete mitochondrial genome DNA sequences that revisit the taxonomic status within and among species. Spatially distinct monophyly in such mitogenomic genealogies, i.e., the sharing of a recent common ancestor among con-specific samples collected in the same region has been viewed as evidence for subspecies. Several recent studies in cetaceans have employed this criterion to suggest subsequent intraspecific taxonomic revisions. We reason that employing intra-specific, spatially distinct monophyly at non-recombining, clonally inherited genomes is an unsatisfactory criterion for defining subspecies based upon theoretical (genetic drift) and practical (sampling effort) arguments. This point was illustrated by a re-analysis of a global mitogenomic assessment of fin whales, Balaenoptera physalus spp., published by Archer et al. (2013), which proposed to further subdivide the Northern Hemisphere fin whale subspecies, B. p. physalus. The proposed revision was based upon the detection of spatially distinct monophyly among North Atlantic and North Pacific fin whales in a genealogy based upon complete mitochondrial genome DNA sequences. The extended analysis conducted in this study (1,676 mitochondrial control region, 162 complete mitochondrial genome DNA sequences and 20 microsatellite loci genotyped in 358 samples) revealed that the apparent monophyly among North Atlantic fin whales reported by Archer et al. (2013) to be due to low sample sizes. In conclusion, defining sub-species from monophyly (i.e., the absence of para- or polyphyly) can lead to erroneous conclusions due to relatively “trivial” aspects, such as sampling. Basic population genetic processes (i.e., genetic drift and migration) also affect the time to the most recent common ancestor and hence the probability that individuals in a sample are monophyletic.We are grateful to Hanne Jørgensen, Anna Sellas, Mary Beth Rew and Christina Færch-Jensen for technical assistance. We thank Drs. P. E. Rosel and K. D. Mullin (U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Fisheries Science Center) and members of the U.S. Northeast and Southeast Region Marine Mammal Stranding Network and its response teams, including the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Marine Mammal Stranding Center, Mystic Aquarium, the Riverhead Foundation for Marine Research and Preservation (K. Durham) and the Marine Mammal Stranding Program of the University of North Carolina Wilmington for access to fin whale samples from the western North Atlantic. We thank Gisli Vikingsson for providing samples. We are indebted to Dr. Eduardo Secchi for facilitating data sharing. Data collection in the Southern Ocean was conducted under research projects Baleias (CNPq grants 557064/2009-0 and 408096/2013-6), INTERBIOTA (CNPq 407889/2013-2) and INCT-APA (CNPq 574018/2008-5), of the Brazilian Antarctic Program and a contribution by the research consortium ‘Ecology and Conservation of Marine Megafauna – EcoMega-CNPq’. MAS was supported through a FCT Investigator contract funded by POPH, QREN European Social Fund, and Portuguese Ministry for Science and Education. Data collection in the Azores was funded by TRACE-PTDC/MAR/74071/2006 and MAPCET-M2.1.2/F/012/2011 [FEDER, COMPETE, QREN European Social Fund, and Proconvergencia Açores/EU Program]. Fin whale illustration herein is used with the permission of Frédérique Lucas. We acknowledge the Center for Information Technology of the University of Groningen for IT support and access to the Peregrine high performance-computing cluster

Evidence of a Feeding Aggregation of Humpback Whales (\u3ci\u3eMegaptera novaeangliae\u3c/i\u3e) Around Kodiak Island, Alaska

The known summer feeding range of the North Pacific humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) extends from California, along the coasts of Oregon, Washington, and Alaska, into the Bering Sea, along the Aleutian Islands, the Sea of Okhotsk (Tomilin 1957), and to northern Japan (Rice 1977). In feeding areas of the northeastern Pacific Ocean, humpback whale photoidentification research has been concentrated off California (Calambokidis et al. 1993), southeastern Alaska (Darling and McSweeney 1985, Baker et al. 1986, 1992; Perry et al. 1990), Prince William Sound in Alaska (von Ziegesar 1992), the Oregon and Washington coasts (Calambokidis et al. 1993), and British Columbia (Darling and McSweeney 1985; Graerne Ellis, unpublished data). Results of these photoidentification studies have documented that individual whales tend to return to the same general areas in subsequent years (Darling and McSweeney 1985, Baker et al. 1986, Calambokidis et a(. 1996, von Ziegesar et al. 1994)

How vulnerable is the Sea of Cortez fin whale population?

Previous genetic analyses have demonstrated that the fin whales in the Sea of Cortez likely are genetically (and presumably demographically) isolated from North Pacific fin whales. Consequently the Sea of Cortez fin whale population is likely more vulnerable to anthropogenic effects and habitat changes. Here we extend previous work by genetic analyses of microsatellite and mtDNA nucleotide sequences in 375 and 24 fin whale samples from the Sea of Cortez and North Pacific, respectively. We will estimate long- and short-term effective population sizes in these two populations and compare the estimates with data from the much larger North Atlantic fin whale population(s). The objective of the analysis is to assess how vulnerable the Sea of Cortez fin whale population is to random genetic effects, such as loss of adaptive potential and inbreeding