Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37554011›Full record

ArticleBiology letters2023

Downsized: gray whales using an alternative foraging ground have smaller morphology.

K C Bierlich, A Kane, L Hildebrand, C N Bird, A Fernandez Ajo, J D Stewart, J Hewitt, I Hildebrand, J Sumich, L G Torres

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biology letters, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Closing the air gap: the use of drones for studying wildlife ecophysiology.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

K C BierlichGeospatial Ecology of Marine Megafauna Lab, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9724-6055
A KaneGeospatial Ecology of Marine Megafauna Lab, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.
L HildebrandGeospatial Ecology of Marine Megafauna Lab, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5688-1116
C N BirdGeospatial Ecology of Marine Megafauna Lab, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7763-7761
A Fernandez AjoGeospatial Ecology of Marine Megafauna Lab, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7249-974X
J D StewartOcean Ecology Lab, Marine Mammal Institute, Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6851-2289
J HewittDepartment of Statistical Science, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0844-7769
I HildebrandGeospatial Ecology of Marine Megafauna Lab, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.
J SumichMarine Mammal Institute, Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1654-2077
L G TorresGeospatial Ecology of Marine Megafauna Lab, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2643-3950

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Describing individual morphology and growth is key for identifying ecological niches and monitoring the health and fitness of populations. Eastern North Pacific ((ENP), approximately 16 650 individuals) gray whales primarily feed in the Arctic/sub-Arctic regions, while a small subgroup called the Pacific Coast Feeding Group (PCFG, approximately 212 individuals) instead feeds between northern California, USA and British Columbia, Canada. Evidence suggests PCFG whales have lower body condition than ENP whales. Here we investigate morphological differences (length, skull, and fluke span) and compare length-at-age growth curves between ENP and PCFG whales. We use ENP gray whale length-at-age data comprised of strandings, whaling, and aerial photogrammetry (1926-1997) for comparison to data from PCFG whales collected through non-invasive techniques (2016-2022) to estimate age (photo identification) and length (drone-based photogrammetry). We use Bayesian methods to incorporate uncertainty associated with morphological measurements (manual and photogrammetric) and age estimates. We find that while PCFG and ENP whales have similar growth rates, PCFG whales reach smaller asymptotic lengths. Additionally, PCFG whales have relatively smaller skulls and flukes than ENP whales. These findings represent a striking example of morphological adaptation that may facilitate PCFG whales accessing a foraging niche distinct from the Arctic foraging grounds of the broader ENP population.

Indexed as

EcosystemWhalesAnimalsArctic RegionsBayes TheoremSeasonsBayesianecological nichegray whalesmorphologyphotogrammetryvon Bertalanffy growth curve

Identifiers

PMID37554011
PMCPMC10410206

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.