Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 255

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

ABUNDANCE OF BLUE AND HUMPBACK WHALES IN THE EASTERN NORTH PACIFIC ESTIMATED BY CAPTURE‐RECAPTURE AND LINE‐TRANSECT METHODS

Calambokidis, John, Barlow, Jay·2004·Marine Mammal Science

Abstract

We estimated humpback and blue whale abundance from 1991 to 1997 off the west coast of the U. S. and Mexico comparing capture‐recapture models based on photographically identified animals and line‐transect methods from ship‐based surveys. During photo‐identification research we obtained 4,212 identifications of 824 humpback whales and 2,403 identifications of 908 blue whales primarily through non‐systematic small‐boat surveys along the coast of California, Oregon, and Washington. Line‐transect surveys from NOAA ships in 1991, 1993, and 1996 covered approximately 39,000 km along the coast of Baja California, California, Oregon, and Washington out to 555 km from shore. The nearshore and clumped distribution of humpback whales allowed photographic identification from small boats to cost‐effectively sample a substantial portion of the population, but made it difficult to obtain effective samples in the line‐transect surveys covering broad areas. The humpback capture‐recapture estimates indicated humpback whale abundance increased over the six years (from 569 to 837). The broader more offshore distribution of blue whales made it harder to obtain a representative sample of identification photographs, but was well suited to the line‐transect estimates. The line‐transect estimates, after correction for missed animals, indicated approximately 3,000 blue whales (CV = 0.14). Capture‐recapture estimates of blue whales were lower than this: approximately 2,000 when using photographs obtained from the line‐transect surveys as one of the samples. Comparison of the results from the two methods provides validation, as well as insight into potential biases associated with each method.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1748-7692.2004.tb01141.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 255

Metadata

Authors
Calambokidis, J., & Barlow, J.
Venue
Marine Mammal Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-01
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
63-85
ISSN
  • 0824-0469 (ISSN-L)
  • 1748-7692
OpenAlex
W2127773215
Cited by
255
References
1
FWCI
8.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: ABUNDANCE OF BLUE AND HUMPBACK WHALES IN THE EASTERN NORTH PACIFIC ESTIMATED BY CAPTURE‐RECAPTURE AND LINE‐TRANSECT METHODS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2004.tb01141.x
The paper
Calambokidis, J., & Barlow, J. (2004). ABUNDANCE OF BLUE AND HUMPBACK WHALES IN THE EASTERN NORTH PACIFIC ESTIMATED BY CAPTURE‐RECAPTURE AND LINE‐TRANSECT METHODS. Marine Mammal Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2004.tb01141.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.