Cited by 52Marine animal studies overviewMarine and fisheries researchWildlife Ecology and Conservation

Range-Wide Comparison of Gray Whale Body Condition Reveals Contrasting Sub-Population Health Characteristics and Vulnerability to Environmental Change

Open access
Torres, Leigh G., Bird, Clara N., Rodríguez-González, Fabian, Christiansen, Fredrik, Bejder, Lars, Lemos, Leila, Urban R, Jorge, Swartz, Steven +3 more·2022·Frontiers in Marine Science

Abstract

Climate change is a global phenomenon, yet impacts on resource availability to predators may be spatially and temporally diverse and asynchronous. As capital breeders, whales are dependent on dense, predictable prey resources during foraging seasons. An Unusual Mortality Event (UME) of Eastern North Pacific (ENP) gray whales ( Eschrichtius robustus ) was declared in 2019 due to a dramatic rise in stranded animals, many emaciated. Climate change impacts may have affected prey availability on the primary foraging grounds of ENP gray whales (~20,000 individuals) in the Arctic and sub-Arctic region and in coastal habitats between northern California, USA and British Columbia, Canada where a small sub-group of ENP whales called the Pacific Coast Feeding Group (PCFG; ~230 individuals) forages. To investigate variability of gray whale body condition relative to changing ocean conditions, we compare two datasets of gray whale aerial photogrammetry images collected via Unoccupied Aircraft Systems (UAS) on the ENP wintering grounds in San Ignacio Lagoon, Mexico (SIL; n=111) and on the PCFG feeding grounds in Oregon, USA (n=72) over the same three-year period (2017–2019). We document concurrent body condition improvement of PCFG whales in Oregon while body condition of whales in SIL declined. This result indicates that the UME may have affected ENP whales due to reduced energetic gain on some Arctic/sub-Arctic foraging grounds, while PCFG whales are recovering from poor prey conditions during the NE Pacific marine heatwave event of 2014–2016. Surprisingly, we found that PCFG whales in Oregon had significantly worse body condition than whales in SIL, even when accounting for year and phenology. We derive support for this unexpected finding via photogrammetry analysis of opportunistic aerial images of gray whales on Arctic foraging grounds (n=18) compared to PCFG whales in Oregon (n=30): the body condition of PCFG whales was significantly lower (t=2.96, p=0.005), which may cause PCFG whales to have reduced reproductive capacity or resilience to environmental perturbations compared to ENP whales. Overall, our study elucidates divergent gray whale body condition across sub-groups and time, and we demonstrate the value of UAS to effectively monitor and identify the physiological response of whales to climate change.

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 · 10.3389/fmars.2022.867258

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • PCFG whales had significantly worse body condition than other EBS whales during most years.

    “Torres et al. (2022) compared the body condition of PCFG whales with whales photographed in San Ignacio Lagoon and in the north-western Chukchi Sea, concluding that PCFG whales had significantly worse body condition than other EBS whales during most years.”

    From Update on the status of gray whales since the 2020 Implementation Review (2024) · cites this paper as Torres et al., 2022

    The Discussion (p. 8) says PCFG whales in Oregon were regularly and significantly in worse body condition than whales photographed in San Ignacio Lagoon and the northeastern Chukchi Sea. The Results (p. 7) also report a significant difference from the Chukchi Sea sample. The paper describes the comparison whales as ENP whales, however, not specifically as EBS whales, so that population designation is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Torres et al. (2022) found that body condition of Pacific Coast Feeding Group gray whales improved each year from 2017 to 2019.

    “Torres et al. (2022) also evaluated the drone-derived body condition of PCFG gray whales observed off Oregon and found that their body condition improved each year from 2017 to 2019.”

    From Update on the status of gray whales since the 2020 Implementation Review (2024) · cites this paper as Torres et al., 2022

  • The conclusions of Lemos et al. (2020) and Torres et al. (2022) are somewhat conflicting regarding environmental conditions for gray whales prior to 2017.

    “The conclusions of Lemos et al. (2020) and Torres et al. (2022) are somewhat conflicting, with the latter implying that environmental conditions (namely the marine heat wave) were worse for gray whales prior to 2017, whereas the former reported that upwelling conditions were better for whales in the same area in 2016 than 2017-18.”

    From Update on the status of gray whales since the 2020 Implementation Review (2024) · cites this paper as Torres et al., 2022

  • Although Torres et al. (2022) found that PCFG whales often have poorer body condition than other EBS gray whales and suggested that they have lower reproductive potential, this was already accounted for in the 2020 IR which included trials with an MSYR of 2% for PCFG whales.

    “Although Torres et al. (2022) found that PCFG whales often have poorer body condition than other EBS gray whales and suggested that they have lower reproductive potential, this was already accounted for in the 2020 IR which included trials with an MSYR of 2% for PCFG whales.”

    From Update on the status of gray whales since the 2020 Implementation Review (2024) · cites this paper as Torres et al., 2022

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Torres, L. G., Bird, C. N., Rodríguez-González, F., Christiansen, F., Bejder, L., Lemos, L., Urban R, J., Swartz, S., Willoughby, A., Hewitt, J., & Bierlich, K.
Affiliations
  • Oregon State University (US)
  • Universidad Autónoma de Baja California Sur (MX)
  • Aarhus University (DK)
  • University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa (US)
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (US)
  • Duke University (US)
Corresponding author
Torres, Leigh G.
Venue
Frontiers in Marine Science
Published
2022-04-19
Volume
9
ISSN
2296-7745 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4224251062
Cited by
52
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 2
FWCI
5.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Marine Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • NOAA Institutional Repository (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Oregon State University
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
  • Oregon Sea Grant, Oregon State University (RECO‐40‐PD)
  • Office of Science
  • National Marine Fisheries Service (50-27)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Marine animal studies overview
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Marine and fisheries research
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
Keywords
gray whale, body condition, climate change impacts, unusual mortality event, San Ignacio Lagoon, aerial photogrammetry, marine heatwaves, prey availability, capital breeding, reproductive capacity

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