Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40102967›Full record

ArticleMovement ecology2025

Ecological drivers of movement for two sympatric marine predators in the California current large marine ecosystem.

Ladd M Irvine, Barbara A Lagerquist, Gregory S Schorr, Erin A Falcone, Bruce R Mate, Daniel M Palacios

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Movement ecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors.

Ladd M IrvineMarine Mammal Institute, Oregon State University, Newport, OR, USA. ladd.irvine@oregonstate.edu.
Barbara A LagerquistMarine Mammal Institute, Oregon State University, Newport, OR, USA.
Gregory S SchorrMarine Ecology and Telemetry Research, Seabeck, WA, USA.
Erin A FalconeMarine Ecology and Telemetry Research, Seabeck, WA, USA.
Bruce R MateMarine Mammal Institute, Oregon State University, Newport, OR, USA.
Daniel M PalaciosMarine Mammal Institute, Oregon State University, Newport, OR, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAn animal's movement reflects behavioral decisions made to address ecological needs; specifically, that movement will become less directional in regions with high prey availability, indicating foraging behavior. In the marine realm, animal behavior occurs below the sea surface and is difficult to observe. We used an extensive satellite tagging dataset to explore how physical and biological habitat characteristics influence blue (Balaenoptera musculus) and fin (B. physalus) whale movement and foraging behavior in the California Current Ecosystem across four known bioregions.

methodsWe fitted movement models to 14 years of blue whale satellite tracking data and 13 years of fin whale data to characterize their movement persistence, with higher move persistence values representing more directional movement and lower move persistence values representing less directional movement. Models were evaluated against a range of physical and biological environmental predictors to identify significant correlates of low move persistence (i.e., presumed intensified foraging behavior). We then used data from a subset of sensor-equipped tags that monitored vertical behavior (e.g., dive and feeding), in addition to movement, to test the relationship between vertical behavior and movement persistence.

resultsLow move persistence was strongly correlated with shallower water depth and sea surface height for both species, with additional effects of chlorophyll-a concentration, vorticity and marine nekton biomass for blue whales. Data from sensor-equipped tags additionally showed that low move persistence occurred when whales made more numerous feeding dives. Temporal patterns of bioregion occupancy coincided with seasonal peaks in productivity. Most blue whale low-move-persistence movements occurred in the northern, nearshore bioregion with a late-season peak in productivity and were evenly distributed across all bioregions for fin whales.

conclusionsWe demonstrated that low move persistence is indicative of increased feeding behavior for both blue and fin whales. The environmental drivers of low move persistence were similar to those previously identified for survey-based species distribution models, linking environmental metrics to subsurface behavior. Occupancy and movement behavior patterns across bioregions indicate both species moved to exploit seasonal and spatial variability in productivity, with blue whales especially focusing on the bioregion of highest productivity during late summer and fall.

Indexed as

BiologgingBlue WhaleCalifornia currentFeeding behaviorFin WhaleMovement behaviorMove persistenceSatellite tags

Identifiers

PMID40102967
PMCPMC11917063

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.