Assessing the abundance of Bristol Bay belugas with genetic mark‐recapture methods

Citta, John J.; O’Corry‐Crowe, Gregory; Quakenbush, Lori T.; Bryan, Anna; Ferrer, Tatiana; Olson, Myra J.; Hobbs, Roderick C.; Potgieter, Brooke

doi:10.1111/mms.12472

Cited by 16 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In conclusion, these data provide an initial population level audiogram for Bristol Bay belugas [26 of ca. 2000 animals (Allen and Angliss, 2012;Citta et al, 2018)] and are the first populationsubset audiograms for a healthy wild odontocete population. Animals overall showed sensitive hearing, with average hearing thresholds not exceeding mild hearing loss; this sensitivity is perhaps indicative of a relatively quiet habitat.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variation in hearing within a wild population of beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas)

Mooney

Castellote

Quakenbush

et al. 2018

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Documenting hearing abilities is vital to understanding a species' acoustic ecology and for predicting the impacts of increasing anthropogenic noise. Cetaceans use sound for essential biological functions such as foraging, navigation and communication; hearing is considered to be their primary sensory modality. Yet, we know little regarding the hearing of most, if not all, cetacean populations, which limits our understanding of their sensory ecology, population level variability and the potential impacts of increasing anthropogenic noise. We obtained audiograms (5.6-150 kHz) of 26 wild beluga whales to measure hearing thresholds during capture-release events in Bristol Bay, AK, USA, using auditory evoked potential methods. The goal was to establish the baseline population audiogram, incidences of hearing loss and general variability in wild beluga whales. In general, belugas showed sensitive hearing with low thresholds (<80 dB) from 16 to 100 kHz, and most individuals (76%) responded to at least 120 kHz. Despite belugas often showing sensitive hearing, thresholds were usually above or approached the low ambient noise levels measured in the area, suggesting that a quiet environment may be associated with hearing sensitivity and that hearing thresholds in the most sensitive animals may have been masked. Although this is just one wild population, the success of the method suggests that it should be applied to other populations and species to better assess potential differences. Bristol Bay beluga audiograms showed substantial (30-70 dB) variation among individuals; this variation increased at higher frequencies. Differences among individual belugas reflect that testing multiple individuals of a population is necessary to best describe maximum sensitivity and population variance. The results of this study quadruple the number of individual beluga whales for which audiograms have been conducted and provide the first auditory data for a population of healthy wild odontocetes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variation in hearing within a wild population of beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas)

Mooney

Castellote

Quakenbush

et al. 2018

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Earlier studies revealed that the eight hypervariable microsatellite loci were highly informative in determining individual identity, assessing gene flow and population structure, and estimating first and second-order relationships in beluga whales 40 , 84 , 85 , 87 . These earlier studies also determined minimum allowable thresholds for missing data and genotyping errors and found that individual identity required a minimum of four of these loci 87 while accurate relatedness ( r ) estimation required a minimum of six loci genotyped per individual 40 . In the current study, we continued such tests by conducting analyses on datasets with individuals scored at ≥ six loci, ≥ seven loci, and all 8 nuclear loci.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Group structure and kinship in beluga whale societies

O’Corry‐Crowe

Suydam

Quakenbush

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evolutionary explanations for mammalian sociality typically center on inclusive-fitness benefits of associating and cooperating with close kin, or close maternal kin as in some whale societies, including killer and sperm whales. Their matrilineal structure has strongly influenced the thinking about social structure in less well-studied cetaceans, including beluga whales. in a cross-sectional study of group structure and kinship we found that belugas formed a limited number of distinct group types, consistently observed across populations and habitats. certain behaviours were associated with group type, but group membership was often dynamic. MtDNA-microsatellite profiling combined with relatedness and network analysis revealed, contrary to predictions, that most social groupings were not predominantly organized around close maternal relatives. they comprised both kin and non-kin, many group members were paternal rather than maternal relatives, and unrelated adult males often traveled together. the evolutionary mechanisms that shape beluga societies are likely complex; fitness benefits may be achieved through reciprocity, mutualism and kin selection. At the largest scales these societies are communities comprising all ages and both sexes where multiple social learning pathways involving kin and non-kin can foster the emergence of cultures. We explore the implications of these findings for species management and the evolution of menopause. Interpreting gregarious behaviour in terms of cooperative strategies that maximize individual fitness, Hamilton 1 developed the theory of kin selection. This theory uses the concept of inclusive fitness to explain the evolution of social organization and cooperation where individuals indirectly enhance their fitness through positive effects on the reproduction of relatives. However, individuals can also derive benefits from associations with unrelated individuals where cooperation is conditional on the behaviour of the companion (i.e., reciprocity 2,3), always yields the highest benefit (i.e., mutualism 4,5) or results in shared fitness advantages from helping increase group size (i.e., group augmentation 6,7) which, for example, could lead to more effective group defense. In fluid aggregations, such as herds or flocks, benefits to the individual alone (e.g., reducing personal predation risk at the expense of other group members) may drive the tendency to associate with conspecifics 8,9. Thus, resolving the genetic relationships among group members is central to understanding the advantages of group living, the emergence of cooperative behaviour, and the evolution of social organization. The recent re-emergence of arguments for group selection theory, where kinship plays a minor role in social evolution 10,11 , and the debate these arguments have elicited 12 , as well as the growing evidence for culture in non-primate species 13-15 (defined as the acquisition or inheritance of knowledge or behaviours from conspecifics through social learning 13), has further heightened the intere...

show abstract

“…This value approximates one individual (95% confidence interval: 0–8 individuals) over the last two generations, or roughly 58 years, based on a population of 300 individuals and a generation time of 29 years [ 86 ], although this estimate is rough due to uncertainty in all three estimates (migration rate, generation time, and population abundance), which compound in this calculation. Similarly, it is estimated from population genetic data that in the last ~ 60 years the Bristol Bay population may have received six immigrants from Cook Inlet (95% confidence interval 0–22 individuals) based on a population of 2000 individuals [ 35 ]. With connectivity this low between the two populations, their microbial communities are almost entirely isolated, which facilitates both random and adaptive divergence between them.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While the size of the beluga population in Bristol Bay is approximately 2000 individuals and has been steady or increasing [ 35 – 37 ], the population of beluga whales in Cook Inlet, Alaska, declined severely in the 1990s, attributed to unrestricted hunting by Alaska Natives [ 38 , 39 ]. It has not begun to recover despite a regional moratorium on hunting beginning in 2006 and was listed as Endangered under the U.S.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Skin microbiome of beluga whales: spatial, temporal, and health-related dynamics

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Host-specific microbiomes play an important role in individual health and ecology; in marine mammals, epidermal microbiomes may be a protective barrier between the host and its aqueous environment. Understanding these epidermal-associated microbial communities, and their ecological- or health-driven variability, is the first step toward developing health indices for rapid assessment of individual or population health. In Cook Inlet, Alaska, an endangered population of beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) numbers fewer than 300 animals and continues to decline, despite more than a decade of conservation effort. Characterizing the epidermal microbiome of this species could provide insight into the ecology and health of this endangered population and allow the development of minimally invasive health indicators based on tissue samples. Results We sequenced the hypervariable IV region of bacterial and archaeal SSU rRNA genes from epidermal tissue samples collected from endangered Cook Inlet beluga whales (n = 33) and the nearest neighboring population in Bristol Bay (n = 39) between 2012 and 2018. We examined the sequences using amplicon sequence variant (ASV)-based analyses, and no ASVs were associated with all individuals, indicating a greater degree of epidermal microbiome variability among beluga whales than in previously studied cetacean species and suggesting the absence of a species-specific core microbiome. Epidermal microbiome composition differed significantly between populations and across sampling years. Comparing the microbiomes of Bristol Bay individuals of known health status revealed 11 ASVs associated with potential pathogens that differed in abundance between healthy individuals and those with skin lesions or dermatitis. Molting and non-molting individuals also differed significantly in microbial diversity and the abundance of potential pathogen-associated ASVs, indicating the importance of molting in maintaining skin health. Conclusions We provide novel insights into the dynamics of Alaskan beluga whale epidermal microbial communities. A core epidermal microbiome was not identified across all animals. We characterize microbial dynamics related to population, sampling year and health state including level of skin molting. The results of this study provide a basis for future work to understand the role of the skin microbiome in beluga whale health and to develop health indices for management of the endangered Cook Inlet beluga whales, and cetaceans more broadly.

show abstract

Assessing the abundance of Bristol Bay belugas with genetic mark‐recapture methods

Cited by 16 publications

References 29 publications

Variation in hearing within a wild population of beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas)

Variation in hearing within a wild population of beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas)

Group structure and kinship in beluga whale societies

Skin microbiome of beluga whales: spatial, temporal, and health-related dynamics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About