4.3 Article

Humpback whale abundance in the North Pacific estimated by photographic capture-recapture with bias correction from simulation studies

Journal

MARINE MAMMAL SCIENCE
Volume 27, Issue 4, Pages 793-818

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-7692.2010.00444.x

Keywords

humpback whale; Megaptera novaeangliae; North Pacific; abundance; photo-identification; capture-recapture; bias; simulation model

Funding

  1. NOAA Fisheries Service
  2. NOAA National Marine Sanctuary
  3. National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
  4. Pacific Life Foundation
  5. Fisheries and Oceans Canada
  6. Commission for Environmental Cooperation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We estimated the abundance of humpback whales in the North Pacific by capture-recapture methods using over 18,000 fluke identification photographs collected in 2004-2006. Our best estimate of abundance was 21,808 (CV = 0.04). We estimated the biases in this value using a simulation model. Births and deaths, which violate the assumption of a closed population, resulted in a bias of +5.2%, exclusion of calves in samples resulted in a bias of -10.5%, failure to achieve random geographic sampling resulted in a bias of -0.4%, and missed matches resulted in a bias of +9.3%. Known sex-biased sampling favoring males in breeding areas did not add significant bias if both sexes are proportionately sampled in the feeding areas. Our best estimate of abundance was 21,063 after accounting for a net bias of +3.5%. This estimate is likely to be lower than the true abundance due to two additional sources of bias: individual heterogeneity in the probability of being sampled (unquantified) and the likely existence of an unknown and unsampled breeding area (-8.7%). Results confirm that the overall humpback whale population in the North Pacific has continued to increase and is now greater than some prior estimates of prewhaling abundance.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available