Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Mar 27;19(3):e0295861. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295861

Gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) post-mortem findings from December 2018 through 2021 during the Unusual Mortality Event in the Eastern North Pacific

Stephen Raverty 1,¤,*,#, Pádraig Duignan 2,#, Denise Greig 3,4,#, Jessica L Huggins 5, Kathy Burek Huntington 6, Michael Garner 7, John Calambokidis 5, Paul Cottrell 8, Kerri Danil 9, Dalin D’Alessandro 10, Deborah Duffield 10, Moe Flannery 4, Frances MD Gulland 11, Barbie Halaska 2, Dyanna M Lambourn 12, Taylor Lehnhart 8, Jorge Urbán R 13, Teri Rowles 14, James Rice 15, Kate Savage 16, Kristin Wilkinson 17, Justin Greenman 18, Justin Viezbicke 18, Brendan Cottrell 19, P Dawn Goley 20, Maggie Martinez 2, Deborah Fauquier 14
Editor: Vitor Hugo Rodrigues Paiva21
PMCID: PMC10971505  PMID: 38536874

Abstract

Beginning in December 2018, increased numbers of gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) strandings were reported along the west coast of Mexico, the United States, and Canada, prompting declaration of a gray whale Unusual Mortality Event (UME) by the United States National Marine Fisheries Service. Although strandings declined in 2020 and 2021 from a peak in 2019, the UME is still ongoing as of fall 2023. Between 17 December 2018 and 31 December 2021, 503 animals stranded along the west coast of North America, with 226 strandings in Mexico, 71 in California, 12 in Oregon, 56 in Washington, 21 in British Columbia, and 117 in Alaska. These included 187 males, 167 females, and 149 whales of undetermined sex; and 193 adults, 194 subadults, 40 calves, 1 fetus, and 75 whales of undetermined age class. We report on 61 of the 503 carcasses (12%) that had external and internal gross necropsy and/or histopathology data: of these 61 whales, findings that contributed to death were identified in 33 (54%) whales. Sixteen of the 61 (26%) were severely emaciated. Gross lesions of blunt force trauma consistent with vessel strike were identified in 11 of the 61 animals (18%), only two of which were emaciated. Two whales (3%) were entangled at time of death, and one died from entrapment. Signs of killer whale (Orcinus orca) interaction were documented in 19 of the 61 animals; five were deemed from recent interactions and three (5%) likely contributed to mortality. A specific cause of death could not be identified in 28 of 61 whales (46%). Additionally, logistical challenges and the advanced state of decomposition of most examined carcasses precluded detection of potential infectious or toxic causes of morbidity or mortality. Up to 2016, the eastern North Pacific population of gray whale population had generally been increasing since the cessation of historic whaling and a prior UME in 1999–2000. However, recent abundance and calf production estimates have declined, a trend that overlaps the current UME. The relative contributions of carrying capacity, environmental change, prey shifts, and infectious, toxic, and other processes to the increased gray whale mortalities have not yet been resolved. Nevertheless, the marked temporal increase in strandings, including findings of malnutrition in some of the whales, along with low calf production, likely represent consequences of complex and dynamic ecological interactions in the ocean impacting the population.

Introduction

There are two genetically distinct gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) populations: the eastern north Pacific (ENP) and the western north Pacific (WNP) [1]. The ENP whales range seasonally from wintering grounds off Mexico to primary feeding areas in Arctic waters, with the exception of a small subset, the Pacific Coast Feeding Group (PCFG). The latter are often observed feeding in summer and fall from northern California to southeastern Alaska [2]. The endangered WNP population has been observed feeding off Sakhalin Island, Russia [1]. Historically, gray whales were thought to fast during their migration and while resident on the wintering grounds [3]; however, more recent field observations indicate some animals actively forage during the southward and northward migrations [47]. Whales from both populations have been observed on the wintering grounds in Mexico and along the ENP migratory corridor, but the extent of mixing is not clear [1, 2, 810]. Heavily exploited during the 1800s and 1900s by commercial whaling, the ENP population has made a strong recovery, with abundance estimated in the mid-2010s at approximately 27,000 [11, 12], the largest number documented for this population [13]. Models of gray whale abundance and mortality estimated carrying capacity in recent years approximating 25,000 [14].

Gray whale abundance in the 1850s was probably less than 30,000 [15], although genetic studies have estimated that higher numbers existed through evolutionary time [16, 17]. The 2015/2016 gray whale abundance estimate was 26,960 individuals, which declined to 20,580 in 2019/2020 and further to 16,650 in 2021/2022 [18]. Since 1967, similar decreases in estimated abundance were detected between 1987/1988 and 1992/1993 and between 1997/1998 and 2000/2001, which coincided with the 1999–2001 Unusual Mortality Event (UME) [18].

Transformative changes in the summer Bering Strait feeding grounds [19], with reported local declines in prey abundance and quality [20], may have a direct impact on gray whale bioenergetics, fecundity, health, and homeostasis [21]. Diet varies, by geographic location and whether foraging in shallow mud flats or deeper waters, and consists primarily of benthic and epibenthic invertebrates, including amphipods, crustaceans, mysids, and plankton [20, 21]. Variability in calf production in the ENP gray whale population over a 23-year period was associated with the extent of seasonal ice cover in the Bering Sea in the previous feeding season and thought to reflect the greater spatial and temporal access to benthic feeding provided by reduced ice cover [18, 22, 23]. For the WNP gray whales, a correlation was observed between decreased calf production and a shorter foraging season (i.e., fewer ice-free days) off Sakhalin Island [24]. Decreased body condition was documented for PCFG whales in years following poor upwelling conditions [25]. Periods of low calf production occurred during periods of increased mortality [4, 18, 26], and the most recent estimate of calf production for the ENP population was the lowest of the time series, with 217 calves in 2022 [27].

In addition to the impacts of a changing environment, increased vessel traffic and extensive commercial fisheries along migratory corridors throughout the western seaboard of North America have been associated with vessel strikes and entanglements of gray whales [28, 29]. These traumatic events may be immediately lethal or incapacitate animals due to pain, secondary infection, and the incurred energetic costs of wound repair and resolution [30]. In a review of gray whale entanglements and vessel strikes in the North Pacific between 1924 and 2015, 40% of injuries and mortalities were due to net fisheries, 17% to pot fisheries, 22% were from unknown fisheries entanglements, and 19% were from vessel strike [29]. Other potential threats include acute or chronic noise exposure, physical disturbances, disruption of feeding habitats, infectious diseases, harmful algal blooms, toxic spills, pollutants, predation, subsistence harvest, and scientific research [14].

The earlier 1999/2001, gray whale UME resulted in 283 confirmed strandings in 1999 and 368 in 2000 [31], however, only three whales were necropsied during this event and while the cause of death for most whales was not determined, malnutrition was considered a prime contributor to the UME [31]. Of the three whales necropsied, one animal had encephalitis, another had a heavy intestinal helminth infection, and a third had high levels of domoic acid, a biotoxin, in the gut contents [31, 32]. However, the combination of thin and emaciated stranded animals, migrating whales in poor body condition, reduced calf production, a population suspected to be nearing carrying capacity, and reduced prey densities in these years, likely contributed to this earlier event [31, 3336].

Beginning in December 2018, increased numbers of gray whale strandings were reported in Mexico (MX) and the continental United States (US), including California (CA), Oregon (OR), and Washington (WA). In response to this, the United States National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) declared an UME in 2019 (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2019-2023-gray-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-west-coast-and). Designation of the UME facilitated coordination of stranding and necropsy responses in three countries, enhanced communication amongst stranding response teams, and heightened public awareness through increased reporting by the media. Here we present the pathology findings from a subset of the gray whales that stranded along the North American west coast between December 2018 and December 2021.

Materials and methods

Marine mammal mortalities observed by the public, biologists, enforcement, and indigenous community members were reported to Canadian, Mexican, or US regional marine mammal stranding response networks, and when feasible, trained personnel were mobilized to examine stranded whales. The teams typically included experienced field biologists and veterinarians who collected basic data on these animals [e.g., NMFS Level A data (NOAA Form 89–864; OMB Control No.0648-017)] including species, date, sex, age class, stranding location, and signs of human interaction (e.g., entanglement, vessel strike).

Photographs of the carcasses from different perspectives were used to assess the nutritional status, cyamid load, identifying features of individual animals, evidence of fisheries interactions, killer whale attacks, and any other external lesions. Interpretation of vessel strike was based on photographs plus internal and external examination.

Age class was initially determined based on a combination of length from tip of the snout to the fluke notch (calf <7–8 m, yearling 8–9 m, subadult 9–11.1 m for males and 9–11.7 m for females, adult ≥11.1 m for males and ≥ 11.7 m for females). This was subsequently modified depending on date and latitude of stranding, baleen plate length, and barnacle size, as calves and subadults in the lower latitudes were often shorter than the previously reported length ranges [3, 3741]. Yearling and subadult age classes were combined because. Outside Mexico, 1–2 year-olds could not be distinguished from 2–3 year olds, therefore final age classes were calf/fetus (0–12 months), subadult (12 months-sexual maturity), and adult. The calf cohort includes fetuses from the calving lagoons in MX and a single fetus documented in British Columbia (BC), Canada in 2021 [42].

Defining emaciation for fasting migratory whales is complicated (for example, blubber depth, while easily measured at post mortem examination (PME), is not a sensitive measure of nutritional status in gray whales [31]). Because of a lack of available quantitative tests to assess nutritional condition, and to avoid applying different measures of nutrition in different locations, a protocol was developed during this investigation and standardized across all stranding response networks to ensure consistent interpretation of post-mortem nutritional condition (S1 Appendix). The protocol used external features (e.g. the concavity of the epaxial muscle), internal features (e.g. epicardial and mesenteric fat stores), and microscopic evaluation of full thickness blubber sections (e.g. for evidence of adipocyte atrophy or stromal collapse). As body position or posture, the stage of putrefaction, bloat, scavenging, and post mortem oil seepage from the blubber may alter the gross appearance and thickness of the blubber, microscopic findings of a disproportionate increase in stroma to adipocytes and fat atrophy were interpreted in context of the gross observations to assign the overall nutritional score for an animal. For the more challenging cases, gross and histopathology findings were reviewed by pathologists, biologists and prosectors, to derive the nutritional score. Carcasses were assigned into one of four nutritional scores: Emaciated (1), thin (2), average (3) and fat (4). Furthermore, the carcass condition was defined as alive (1), fresh dead (2), moderate decomposition (3), advanced decomposition (4), mummified (5), or undetermined (6) [43]. Carcass code was assigned at the time of examination or, if the carcass was not examined, at the time of reporting. Where the carcass code was scored as between decomposition states (e.g. 2.5 or 3.5), [40], the post-mortem state was assigned to the more advanced decomposition state for tabulation and analysis.

PMEs were performed as thoroughly and systematically as possible and was contingent on multiple variables including, but not limited to, carcass access (eg. beach cast or floating), state of decomposition, human safety (including restrictions imposed by the Covid19 pandemic in 2020), tides, available daylight, and weather. For fresher floating carcasses or those with external evidence of traumatic injuries, efforts were made to tow the animal ashore to a secure and accessible site. In some instances, examination of floating animals was limited to photographs above and below water levels using submerged waterproof cameras, and sampling of skin and blubber for genetics and histopathology. Criteria for inclusion in this study were a full gross PME and, for most cases, sampling for histopathology. Exclusions were based on incomplete PMEs or microscopic assessment of sampled tissues, even if they were confirmed, probable, or suspect cases of human or killer whale interaction. As such, the numbers reported herein are a minimum and represent a subset of the full UME response and investigation.

Depending on the orientation of the animal, typically the skin and blubber from the flanks was flensed, reflected, and the blubber was assessed for nutritional status and trauma. Trauma was inferred by evidence of epidermal lacerations or incisions, hemorrhage, edema and necrosis or maceration of skeletal muscle, and skeletal fractures. Whereas entanglement was documented based on presence of foreign material attached to the carcass and determined to have been present at the time of death [44]. The abdominal and thoracic cavities were then incised, the ribs removed, body cavities examined, and appropriate tissue samples harvested. Response level varied by geographic location and in some cases, access to internal organs was limited to “windows” or small incised portals that facilitated access to specific viscera [45].

Killer whale predation as a cause of death was determined based on lesions that have been documented during observed predation events including missing portions of the tongue or the mandibles, semilunar tissue defects (bite wounds), detached of sheets of blubber and skin, tooth impressions (“rake marks”), and fractured or avulsed bones, subcutaneous and muscular contusions, and frank hemorrhage within the thoracic or abdominal cavities and associated tissues [4648]. Predation was differentiated from post-mortem scavenging by the presence of associated superficial or deep hemorrhage and edema in the tissues and abrupt margins associated with the rake marks and on histology, lack of imbibed water or melanocyte degranulation.

A case definition of killer whale predation was formulated based on the literature to consistently evaluate the gross lesions and assign a level of diagnostic certainty (S2 Appendix). Four levels of certainty were attributed: confirmed, probable, suspect, improbable, and could not be determined.

Pigment deposition along the wound margins, second intention healing, and varying degrees of re-epithelialization were used to discriminate a peracute injury, from a more chronic and resolving process that we considered incidental to mortality. In cases that presented with advanced autolysis, the wound margins were more closely scrutinized and if assessments were inconclusive, were not considered predation events. Other factors associated with the strandings (clinical history), field observations or reports of transient killer whales in the vicinity and near the time of the mortality, and exclusion of vessel strike and other disease processes were included in diagnosis of a predation event.

For histopathologic examination and ancillary testing of selected cases, 10% formalin-fixed and fresh tissue samples were collected, and forwarded to a diagnostic laboratory for analysis, or frozen and retained for follow up investigations. Fixed tissues were trimmed, placed in cassettes, and processed using conventional histologic methodology. Tissues were stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and when indicated, Tort’s Gram stain, Periodic Acid Schiff (PAS) and Perl’s stain (for iron) for review by veterinary pathologists. When feasible, baleen, ear plug (wax), stomach contents, full thickness blubber, and ovaries were archived for future studies.

For this review of stranding and post-mortem records, the stranding location, demographic data (e.g., NMFS Level A), and necropsy reports were uploaded to a shared Google drive and a spreadsheet of cases was maintained by responders. A team of veterinary pathologists and field personal experiences with post mortem examination of large cetaceans reviewed each of the 61 cases to assign a cause of death. Where discrepancies occurred, the field personnel involved with the necropsy and tissue sampling were consulted and photographs at the time of necropsy reviewed. The gross and histologic findings were compiled by a research scientist and two veterinary pathologists with summary tables forwarded to regional stranding responders and investigative team members to review for accuracy. Reported stranding locations (in decimal degrees) were mapped using ArcGIS Pro 2.8.0 with Natural Earth base maps (naturalearthdata.com).

Results

Stranding response and demographics

Between 17 December 2018 and 31 December 2021, 503 gray whale strandings were reported along the Pacific coast of MX (n = 226, 44.9% of total), the US (n = 256, 50.9%) and Canada (n = 21, 4.2%) (Table 1, Fig 1). Strandings occurred in each month of the year, with peak numbers in April (n = 99, 19.7%) (Table 2). The proportion of strandings by region included 71 in CA (14.1%), 56 in WA (11.1%), 12 in OR (2.4%), 21 in BC (4.2%) and 117 in AK (23.3%) (Table 1). In contrast to BC, WA, OR, CA and MX where dead whales were reported by the public, biologists, fisheries officers, or Indigenous community members, most of the reports for AK were from aerial surveys or opportunistic aerial sightings of floating or beach cast animals. PMEs from 21 of 71 (29.6%) animals that stranded in CA, 1 of 12 (8.3%) animals in OR, 26 of 56 (46.4%) animals in WA, 9 of 21 (42.8%) animals in BC, and 4 of 117 (3.4%) animals stranded in AK are reported here (Table 1). There were no PME data from the 226 animals stranded in MX.

Table 1. Gray whale strandings by location and year (17 December 2018 to 31 December 2021).

MX = Mexico, CA = California, OR = Oregon, WA = Washington, BC = British Columbia, AK = Alaska. The number in parentheses is the subset of whales for which a full PME and sampling were conducted.

Location Number of Strandings per Year (Number of Post-mortem Exams)
2019 2020 2021 Total % Strandings
MX 83* 88 55 226 44.9%
CA 34 (12) 18 (2) 19 (7) 71 (21) 14.1%
OR 6 (1) 3 3 12 (1) 2.4%
WA 34 (16) 13 (8) 9 (2) 56 (26) 11.2%
BC 11 (3) 5 (4) 5 (2) 21 (9) 4.2%
AK 48 (4) 45 24 117 (4) 23.1%
Total 216 (36) 172 (14) 115 (11) 503 (61) 100%

*2 whales from December 2018 in Mexico are included in the 2019 tally

Fig 1. Map of gray whale strandings from Dec 2018 through 2021.

Fig 1

The map shows the locations of all 503 whales reported, and the vessel strike and emaciation cases among the 61 whales included in this study. Inset maps show area details around Puget Sound and San Francisco Bay.

Table 2. Gray whales stranded by month in Mexico, the United States and Canada (17 December 2018 to 31 December 2021).

MX = Mexico, CA = California, OR = Oregon, WA = Washington, BC = British Columbia, AK = Alaska. The number in the parentheses is the subset of whales examined and sampled.

Number of Strandings (Number of Post-mortem Exams)
Month MX CA OR WA BC AK Total
January 31 1 0 1 0 0 33
February 60 4 1 2 (1) 0 0 67 (1)
March 61 19 (4) 1 4 (3) 0 0 85 (7)
April 55 21 (10) 4 14 (7) 4 (3) 1 99 (21)
May 11 21 (4) 2 19 (10) 5 (1) 13 (2) 71 (17)
June 0 1 (1) 3 (1) 6 (2) 4 (1) 32 (1) 46 (6)
July 0 0 0 4 (2) 4 (3) 36 (1) 44 (6)
August 0 1 1 4 (1) 1 14 21 (1)
September 0 1 0 0 0 15 16
October 0 0 0 1 1 (1) 5 7 (1)
November 0 1 (1) 0 0 2 1 4 (1)
December 8 1 (1) 0 1 0 0 10 (1)

The demographics of all the reported gray whales, as well as the subset discussed in this paper (in parentheses) are described in Tables 3 and 4 by location and year. The only newborn noted outside of Mexico was a fetus reported in BC [42].

Table 3. Gray whales stranded in Mexico, the United States and Canada (17 December 2018 to 31 December 2021) by age class and geographic location from south to north.

MX = Mexico, CA = California, OR = Oregon, WA = Washington, BC = British Columbia, AK = Alaska. The number in the parentheses is the subset of whales included in this study.

Location Age Class
Calf/Fetus Subadult Adult Unknown Totals
MX 22 98 103 3 226
CA 6 (2) 32 (8) 27 (11) 6 71 (21)
OR 1 9 (1) 1 1 12 (1)
WA 3 27 (10) 22 (16) 4 56 (26)
BC 1* (1) 5 (2) 9 (6) 6 21 (9)
AK 8 23 (2) 31 (2) 55 117 (4)
Total 41 (3) 194 (22) 193 (35) 75 503 (61)

*Indicates the one fetus, the other 40 whales were calves.

Table 4. Gray whale strandings by sex and year (17 December 2018 to 31 December 2021).

MX = Mexico, CA = California, OR = Oregon, WA = Washington, BC = British Columbia, AK = Alaska. The number in the parentheses is the subset of whales with a full post mortem examination (PME).

Location Number of Strandings per Year (PME))
2019 2020 2021 Total
Male
MX 20 34 32 86
CA 10 (3) 7 (1) 10 (3) 27 (7)
OR 2 3 2 7
WA 14 (8) 5 (3) 3 (1) 22 (12)
BC 1 (1) 4 (3) 2 (2) 7 (6)
AK 9 (3) 20 10 39 (3)
Female
MX 52 25 16 92
CA 14 (9) 9 (1) 7 (4) 30 (14)
OR 3 (1) 0 0 3 (1)
WA 14 (8) 4 (4) 4 (1) 22 (13)
BC 6 (2) 0 1 7 (2)
AK 6 (1) 6 1 13 (1)
Unknown
MX 11 29 7 47
CA 10 2 2 14
OR 1 0 1 2
WA 6 4 (1) 2 12 (1)
BC 4 1 (1) 2 7 (1)
AK 33 19 13 65
Total 216 (35) 172 (14) 115 (11) 503 (61)

*2 whales from December 2018 in Mexico are included in the 2019 tally

Carcass decomposition varied with 10 mummified animals (2.0%), 251 (50.0%) in advanced decomposition, 175 (34.8%) in moderate decomposition, 51 (10.1%) fresh dead, and 3 (0.6%) that were initially observed alive (Table 5).

Table 5. Gray whales stranded in Mexico, the United States and Canada (17 December 2018 to 31 December 2021) by decomposition state and geographic location from south to north.

MX = Mexico, CA = California, OR = Oregon, WA = Washington, BC = British Columbia, AK = Alaska. Decomposition state is recorded at the time of examination, however for whales that were not examined, decomposition state at is recorded at first observation. The number in the parentheses is the subset of whales included in this study.

Location First observed alive Fresh Dead Moderate Decomposition Advanced Decomposition Mummified Unknown
MX 1 11 71 137 6 226
CA 1 16 (7) 38 (13) 16 (1) 71 (21)
OR 1 7 3 (1) 1 12 (1)
WA 3 (2) 27 (19) 24 (5) 2 56 (26)
BC 1 4 (3) 1 (2) 7 (4) 8 21(9)
AK 16 (2) 31 (1) 64 (1) 2 4 117 (4)
Total 3 51 (14) 175 (35) 251 (12) 10 13 503 (61)

Gross findings

Of the 61 selected whales, a cause of death was attributed for 33 cases (54%, Table 6, Figs 1 and 2). This included 16 whales with emaciation as the only post mortem finding, 11 whales with evidence of vessel strike (including two that were also emaciated), three whales with pre-mortem killer whale attack (two probable, one suspect), two entanglement cases, and one entrapment.

Table 6. Causes of death and location of stranded gray whales (n = 61).

CA = California, OR = Oregon, WA = Washington, BC = British Columbia, AK = Alaska.

Causes of Death CA OR WA BC AK Total
Emaciation 2 1 13 16
Vessel strike 7 3 1 11
Active entanglements 2 2
Entrapment 1 1
Killer whale attack 1 1 1 3
Undetermined 11 7 7 3 28
Total 21 1 26 9 4 61

Fig 2. Examples of gross pathology findings.

Fig 2

(A) Adult female gray whale category 1 emaciation showing loss of nuchal adipose tissue (white arrow) and severe epaxial muscle atrophy (black arrow); (B) Sub-adult male gray whale with blubber flensed from the right side to reveal severely atrophied hypaxial muscle (white arrow) and epaxial muscle (black arrow); (C) Sub-adult female gray whale with concave rostral deformity (arrow) caused by blunt force trauma; (D) Comminuted fracture of the rostral bones of whale C, arrow shows subjacent hypodermal contusion; (E) Adult male gray whale with exposed thoracic vertebrae showing transverse fractures of the dorsal vertebral processes (indicated by knife point) and muscular hemorrhage (arrow); (F) Gray whale calf predated by killer whales with loss of the tongue and soft tissue from the mandibles; (G) Flukes from the same calf showing acute epidermal lacerations consistent with killer whale tooth rakes (arrows); (H) Subadult gray whale pectoral flipper showing killer whale tooth rakes on the leading edge (arrow).

Nutritional condition

Using the standardized nutritional condition protocol (S1 Appendix), there were sufficient data to assess the nutritional condition of 55 of 61 examined whales (Table 7). Nutritional scores for five animals could not be determined for various reasons including limited photographic documentation, post-mortem bloat, posture when beach cast (e.g. dorsal recumbency), substrate contour and other on-site variables. In five cases, the addition of microscopic evaluation of the blubber changed the nutritional status assigned grossly: two cases were changed from average to thin, two cases changed from thin to emaciated, and one case that could not be determined grossly was categorized as thin (Fig 3).

Table 7. Nutritional Score of stranded gray whales (n = 61).

CA = California, OR = Oregon, WA = Washington, BC = British Columbia, AK = Alaska. CBD = Could not be determined.

Location Nutritional Score
Emaciation (Poor) Thin (Fair) Average (moderate) Fat (Excellent) CBD
CA 2 9 6 1 3
OR 1 0 0 0 0
WA 15 10 0 1 0
BC 0 5 2 0 2
AK 0 3 1 0 0
Total 18 27 9 2 5
Fig 3. Blubber sample topography and histologic features.

Fig 3

(A) Gray whale blubber full depth sample including the epidermis and panniculus muscle. White bars indicate sampling locations for the superficial, mid and deep blubber; (B1) Superficial blubber, adult female, showing marked adipose atrophy (star) and relative abundance of connective tissue (arrowhead); (B2) Mid blubber layer from the same whale; (B3) deep blubber layer from the same whale; (C1) Superficial blubber layer, adult female, good body condition; (C2) Mid blubber layer and C3, deep blubber layer from the same well-conditioned whale.

Additional reported gross observations included diffuse salmon pink blubber (12 cases in WA and two in BC), as well as subcutaneous edema in two animals each stranded in WA, CA, and BC and one animal stranded in AK (Fig 4). The reason for the color variation of the blubber was not determined but was observed in the more severely malnourished animals (seven were emaciated and seven were thin). Stomach contents were not consistently present and/or recorded, but wood chips, bark, eel grass, kelp, and some prey were identified in a few animals (Fig 5).

Fig 4. Gray whale blubber cut section.

Fig 4

(A) Adult female in emaciated condition with pale pink blubber. (B) Adult female gray whale in thin condition stranded in Washington State with diffusely salmon pink blubber.

Fig 5. Adult female gray whale ingesta.

Fig 5

Stomach from an adult female gray whale opened to show content composed predominantly of plant-based fibers and a few amphipod-like crustaceans.

The primary cause of death was starvation in 16 of 18 (89%) of the emaciated whales, with no apparent pre-existing pathology that would have contributed to suboptimal nutritional condition. The other two emaciated whales had signs of blunt force trauma, which was the primary cause of death. Among the animals with thin and average nutritional condition, there were other processes which may have contributed to or resulted in the death of the animal including blunt force trauma attributed to ship strike (n = 8), suspect propeller wound (n = 1), possible killer whale attack (n = 2), entrapment (n = 1), gear entanglement (n = 1), and historic inactive entanglement (n = 1).

Vessel strike

Vessel strike was the cause of death in 11 of 61 cases (Table 7, Fig 2C–2E). Seven vessel strike cases were identified in CA, primarily in the San Francisco Bay area, three in WA and one in BC. Nutritional status varied for these cases: two were emaciated, three were thin, five were average and one was fat. One additional whale had a suspected propeller wound on its flipper, but the contribution of this injury to stranding could not be determined. Another whale had healed propeller scars that likely did not contribute to stranding.

Gear interactions and entrapment

One whale was reported entrapped in wharf pilings, and this contributed to its death. Five whales had evidence of active and inactive gear entanglements. Two stranded with active entanglements that contributed to death (one entanglement that may have resulted in drowning and one with a pectoral flipper amputation and gear present). The proximate cause of death of these animals has not yet been fully resolved but may be associated with exertional or capture type myopathy [49, 50].

In three whales, the entanglements did not lead to death (one whale had a partially healed entanglement scar, and two had healed entanglement scars). These animals presented with superficial linear furrows, often with corrugated to well delineated margins circumferentially involving the axilla or fluke. At PME, the cutaneous defects were chronic with second intention healing and in one animal, there was focal secondary subcutaneous abscessation. Advanced autolysis and position of the carcass at the time of examination may have obscured similar lesions in other whales. While these lesions were not associated with the stranding, they may have impacted the health or nutritional state of the animal.

An adult male had been satellite tagged seven years prior to death and at necropsy, an appropriate granulation tissue response was associated with a fragment of the tag that remained in the blubber. While this whale was in thin body condition, the cause of death could not be determined [51].

Interactions with killer whales and sharks

Nineteen cases, eight adults and 11 subadults, had lesions consistent with killer whale interaction characterized by acute lacerations or chronic (healed) scars. The latter were observed on 14 whales predominantly on the tips of the fins, flukes, or more rarely along the rostrum. Five carcasses had more acute active lesions consistent with recent killer whale predation, and the likelihood that predation contributed to mortality was categorized as probable for two cases (eg. Fig 2F and 2G), suspect for one case, and could not be determined in two cases (Fig 2H). Nutritional condition scores for these five whales were variable: one emaciated, two thin, one average and one that could not be determined. For the 14 animals with chronic non-lethal killer whale interaction, 10 were emaciated, and four were thin. Also observed in three gray whales were smaller and more round to oval superficial cutaneous defects circumscribed by regular serrated margins, consistent with agonal or post-mortem shark bites.

Histologic findings

Although post-mortem decomposition and bacterial overgrowth frequently hampered microscopic assessment of various tissues, especially internal viscera, histologic findings substantiated the gross observations of emaciation and trauma and revealed significant findings in 33 of 61 (54%) examined animals. Microscopic findings were categorized by organ system (Table 8). The most common findings included blubber atrophy (n = 40, Fig 3B), hepatic hemosiderosis (n = 15, Fig 6A), ulcerative or erosive dermatitis (n = 14), muscle atrophy (n = 10, Fig 6B), muscle edema (n = 11), muscle necrosis (n = 8), muscle degeneration (n = 6, Fig 6C), muscle hemorrhage (n = 5), and pulmonary edema (4), aspiration (n = 3), and pneumonia (n = 3). Sporadic and incidental diagnoses included adrenal and myocardial hemorrhage, penile papilloma, myocellular sarcocystosis (Fig 6D), glossitis and lingual mucosal inclusions (Fig 6E and 6F), gastric erosions and enteric cestodiasis (Table 8). Histologic assessment of blubber showed a gradient in atrophy from the deepest to more superficial layers and featured prominent variation in the size and shape of adipocytes, and cytoplasmic condensation (atrophy or lipid depletion) with a disproportionate abundance of stroma (Fig 3).

Table 8. Gross and microscopic lesions identified in stranded gray whale tissues from 53 of 61 whales.

The data were generated by reviewing histopathology reports and compiling frequency of morphologic diagnoses. CA = California, OR = Oregon, WA = Washington, BC = British Columbia, AK = Alaska. Multiple morphologic diagnoses in individual tissue sections accounted for a total number of diagnoses greater than the 53 of 61 animals that were evaluated microscopically.

Morphologic diagnoses CA OR WA BC AK Totals
Skin and Blubber
Dermatitis 3 0 5 3 1 12
Ulcerative or erosive dermatitis 1 0 6 6 2 15
Fat necrosis 0 0 0 0 0 0
Blubber atrophy 13 0 19 7 1 40
Skeletal Muscle
Muscle atrophy 7 0 0 3 0 10
Muscle edema 6 0 1 4 0 11
Muscle necrosis 4 0 2 1 1 8
Muscle degeneration 3 0 0 2 1 6
Muscle hemorrhage 5 0 0 0 0 5
Muscle Sarcocysts 1 0 0 0 1 2
Lung
Pulmonary edema 1 0 1 2 0 4
Pulmonary aspiration 1 0 1 1 0 3
Pneumonia 1 0 0 1 1 3
Myocardial hemorrhage 1 0 0 0 0 1
Gastrointestinal and Liver
Gastric erosions 0 0 1 0 0 1
Enteric cestodes 0 0 1 0 0 1
Tongue cytoplasmic inclusions 1 0 0 0 0 1
Liver hemosiderosis 2 0 11 2 0 15
Liver atrophy 0 0 0 1 0 1
Miscellaneous
Adrenal hemorrhage 1 0 0 0 0 1
Penile papilloma 0 0 1 0 0 1
Liver inclusions 1 0 0 0 0 1

Fig 6. Representative histopathology of stranded gray whales.

Fig 6

(A) Liver, adult female gray whale, emaciated body condition, marked diffuse hemosiderosis, H&E stain, x400 magnification, bar = 20μm; (B) Skeletal muscle, subadult male gray whale, thin body condition, moderate diffuse myocyte atrophy. H&E stain, x200 magnification, bar = 50μm; (C) Skeletal muscle, adult female gray whale, emaciated, severe diffuse myocyte degeneration. H&E stain, x200 magnification, bar = 50μm; (D) Skeletal muscle, adult male gray whale, thin body condition, moderate diffuse myocyte atrophy and protozoal tissue cyst, Sarcocystis spp. presumptive. H&E stain, x200 magnification, bar = 50μm; (E) Tongue, gray whale calf, glossitis with epidermal hyperkeratosis, hydropic change and necrosis of acanthocytes with neutrophilic infiltration (intraepithelial pustules, blue arrow head) and intralesional bacterial colonies (black arrow). H&E stain, x100 magnification, bar = 100μm; (F) Tongue, gray whale calf, glossitis as in E, acanthocytes with intracytoplasmic and intranuclear eosinophilic inclusion bodies (arrows). H&E stain, x200 magnification, bar = 50μm.

Discussion

In December of 2018, increased numbers of dead gray whales were first reported stranded in Mexico, with subsequent increases in mortality in 2019 over the northward migration spanning from CA to OR, WA, BC, and ultimately, AK. The resulting UME declaration by the NMFS enhanced the response and pathologic assessment of stranded whales. While emaciation was speculated to have had a role in the previous 1999/2000 gray whale UME, this investigation confirmed its significant role in the 2019/2021 event. Despite standardization achieved through the nutritional condition protocol (S1 Appendix), further work is needed to characterize the nutritional status of dead gray whales. Microscopic evaluation of blubber and other tissues was found to be of value in this investigation and when combined with validated quantitative biomarker measurements should be invaluable with future nutritional health assessments.

The gradation in atrophy of adipose tissue through the blubber layer reported here suggests that greater effort is required to differentiate atrophy associated with physiologic fasting from atrophy of malnutrition. This would better inform decisions on body condition and enable researchers to factor it into the nutritional condition score matrix in the future (S1 Appendix). Because of logistical challenges at the time of PME and varying states of tissue decomposition, not all organs or tissues were systematically examined or collected, so histologic lesions were likely underrepresented.

Interpretation of nutritional status of stranded whales can be further improved by the integration of ecologic and environmental parameters as well as body condition indices from live gray whales; for example, photogrammetry has detected a decrease in body condition in 2018 compared to previous years [25]. In addition, these methods were used to describe reduced body condition in live gray whales in Mexico in 2018 and 2019 compared to 2017 [52]. Both studies coincide with our investigation: 2019 is the year when we detected the greatest number of emaciated whales (n = 14).

As gray whales are usually thin during the northward migration because they have been fasting, it is difficult to assign thin or emaciated body condition as a cause of death; however, in more severely emaciated animals (code 1 nutritional status, Fig 2A and 2B), malnutrition would presumably have contributed to antemortem morbidity, dehydration, loss of buoyancy and eventual live or dead stranding [31]. Ectoparasite (Cyamidae, whale lice) infestations (Fig 7) and secondary cutaneous ulcers and erosions were consistently noted in emaciated animals in this case series and the loss of buoyancy in more extreme cases of malnutrition may have resulted in carcasses lost at sea, rather than potentially submerged, refloated, beach cast, and thus available for necropsy [53].

Fig 7. Emaciated subadult male gray whale with ectoparasitic copepods.

Fig 7

View of genital and perineal area showing massive infestation with cyamids (whale lice). Inset shows closer view of cyamids surrounding attached cirripedes (barnacles) on the skin surface.

Important sequelae to loss of blubber mass or insufficient caloric consumption in the summer feeding grounds may also include infertility (anestrous), early embryonic loss and fetal resorption, abortion, premature birth, death of dependent calves, live stranding, a reduced ability to refloat and possible death due to asphyxiation or a compartmental-type syndrome [50]. In live stranding situations, animal welfare considerations and consultation with appropriately experienced clinical veterinarians is warranted [54]. In the longer term, malnourished females may experience reduced fecundity, prolonged inter-calving interval, or decreased life longevity, which can lead to low calf recruitment as documented in the recent calf production surveys [27].

In many cases, the physiologic demands associated with prolonged migration, parturition, lactation, and reproduction may account for the decline in nutritional condition in females; however, the increased proportion of emaciated whales documented in WA relative to Mexico, CA, and OR suggests metabolic consequences due to depleted fat stores, prolonged inappetence, possible anorexia and other factors during the northward migrations along the west coast. Unidentified environmental or infectious factors may have also contributed to the higher incidence of emaciated animals in this region. Dietary factors may include relative abundance and nutritive quality of prey species [20]. In multiple animals, wood chips, bark, eel grass, kelp and inorganic debris were identified as gastric contents suggesting foraging attempts in sub-optimal habitat. Based on available data and the lack of historic use of a standard nutritional condition protocol, it is difficult to determine whether stranded whales with severe emaciation represent a novel process unique to this UME or if these animals represent typical nutritional status during this phase of the northbound migration in non-UME years as well. More work would be needed to assess historic cases using the nutritional condition protocol developed for this UME for comparison.

In this case series it is difficult to infer a direct association between the salmon coloration of the blubber observed in WA whales and malnutrition and hepatocellular hemosiderosis. The salmon coloration was distinct from jaundice and was most likely due to exogenous pigment deposition, possibly related to prey shifts and consumption of a diet richer in carotenoids. The subcutaneous edema noted in a few cases of discolored blubber may be secondary to hypoproteinemia, localized trauma, or impaired vascular perfusion as a consequence of live stranding. The accumulation of hepatic iron and atrophy of skeletal muscle in animals stranded in WA and CA substantiated the gross diagnosis of thin or emaciated animals. Hepatocellular hemosiderosis can also be associated with acute infections (due to iron sequestration), chronic inflammation, a maladaptive type syndrome, excessive dietary iron consumption, and other factors. However, significant inflammatory lesions were not observed in these cases.

Vessel strikes were important causes of mortality in this case series. In the 1999–2000 UME, only one confirmed case of vessel strike was documented; however, it is important to note that only three stranded animals were necropsied during the previous UME [31]. Most of the stranded gray whales with gross lesions consistent with vessel strike (Fig 2) were recovered near the shipping channels leading into San Francisco Bay, CA and Puget Sound, WA, which are areas of high relative risk for gray whale vessel strike [28]. Three whales in more remote areas (BC and AK) also had injuries consistent with ship strikes outside of large shipping channels. Some known vessel strike cases reported during the UME were not included in this case study because carcasses were not examined, or due to advanced decomposition at the time they were accessed, as such, the vessel strike numbers reported here are an underestimate. Analysis of all the vessel strike cases during UME and non-UME years could determine if there has been a change in the rate of vessel strike mortality between UME and non-UME years.

We did not observe an association between suboptimal nutritional status and increased propensity for traumatic injury. Rather, extralimital foraging efforts on the northern migration and increased residence time in coastal bays and sounds on the west coast (e.g. San Francisco Bay, CA, Puget Sound, WA and Port of Los Angeles, CA) prolongs the time spent in shipping lanes and may increase the risk of vessel strike, exposure to sound disturbances, and possible disorientation. During this UME, gray whales were observed foraging in San Francisco Bay for periods of time up to a month [55]. A cluster of increased strandings was observed in San Francisco Bay during the 1999/2000 UME and it is possible that migrating whales were stopping to feed in the bay during this event as well [31]. The increased overlap between whales and shipping lanes is concerning from species conservation and individual animal health and welfare perspectives. Ongoing monitoring of gray whale use of San Francisco Bay may be able to predict whether risk is increased during high mortality years.

Rake marks or scars from killer whale attacks are quite common in a variety of baleen whale species. In a photographic study of free ranging blue, humpback, and gray whales in the eastern north Pacific, gray whales had the highest incidence of killer whale rake marks with 42% affected [56]. For fatal predation cases documented in AK, complete loss of the soft tissues (mucocutaneous junction and mucosa) from either or both mandibles and separation of the mandibular symphysis have been reported [47]. In addition, there may also be segmental detachment of the skin and blubber from the underlying fibroelastic sheath with smooth abrupt linear or curvilinear margins and more rarely, abdominal perforations and evisceration [46]. In presumptive non-lethal attacks, there were superficial linear to curvilinear laminated cutaneous furrows, or rake marks, on the appendages, and bite wounds on the margins of the pectoral flippers and flukes. Development of the case definition for killer whale predation as a cause of death for this and future events was an important step towards evaluating these cases consistently throughout the gray whale range. These criteria will help differentiate vessel strike from killer whale predation in AK, where increased vessel traffic through the Bering Strait and pods of transient killer whales that predate gray whale calves occur simultaneously (C. Matkin, pers comm). External examinations of gray whales that did not meet selection criteria for this study, particularly those stranded in OR where full PME was not always feasible, often revealed substantial evidence of killer whale interactions. Future efforts are underway to evaluate all the gray whale UME cases for signs of killer whale interactions which may illuminate previously undescribed patterns in killer whale behavior.

Carcass decomposition severely limited the ability to conduct comprehensive necropsies on whales with full sampling for histologic examination to rule out primary or secondary involvement of infectious disease, toxins or other disease processes in this UME [32]. Incidental and solitary cases of myocellular sarcocystosis, penile papilloma, pneumonia, enteric cestodiasis and gastric erosions were interesting and valuable observations (Table 8) but did not appear to contribute substantially to the individual health of stranded animals. One of the two calves examined, live stranded in CA and died spontaneously. before the network was able to respond. At necropsy, there were no significant gross lesions, but histopathology revealed mild acute sub-endocardial and adrenal cortical hemorrhage consistent with agonal catecholamines release (as described in [57]). These lesions may also be associated with septic or hypovolemic shock and other processes but there was no histological evidence for systemic infection. An additional histologic finding was mild bacterial glossitis with cytoplasmic inclusions in the lingual mucosa. Follow up transmission electron microscopy revealed that the cytoplasmic inclusions were composed of keratin filaments and glycogen and were considered incidental findings.

Internal examinations were not pursued on all strandings, however, the gross and microscopic findings we documented did not suggest that infectious agents were a cause of death or stranding during this UME. Based on the lack of inflammation and degree of pulmonary edema, the aspirated debris in lung sections in a few whales was most likely agonal and associated with live stranding. As mortality due to infectious disease can be associated with complex interactions with environmental factors, poor body condition, and etiologic agent, testing of existing samples from this UME for pathogens and biotoxins is on-going, and prospective investigations on rare fresh carcasses should focus on collecting appropriate samples for more advanced analyses.

The northward migration of gray whales along the US West Coast in spring is an annual event that for decades has been documented and reported by generations of biologists and naturalists [18]. Many urban and rural areas of the coast are populated and well-traveled, so that large cetacean strandings are likely observed and reported. In contrast, in AK, carcass discovery is more dependent upon targeted aerial surveys. For this reason, it is unlikely that the large peaks in mortality recorded in 1999–2000 and 2019–2021 are due to increased observational effort. Beach cast and near-shore floating animals represent a small percentage of the overall mortality of large whale populations [5860]. Factors that impact the stranding event include that the whale dies close enough to shore to eventually strand, that the oceanographic conditions propel the animal to come ashore, that the stranded animal is detected, and that a response team can access the carcass [53]. Because of the extensive nature of the North American coastline, the stark differences in population density, the distribution of response groups, and the often-remote stranding locations of whales, this sample of gray whale strandings is an underestimate of the mortality during this period. Data collection from this study’s subset of whales was further limited by decomposition and logistics. The contribution of travel restrictions and the lack of public shore usage associated with the COVID-19 pandemic is unknown; however, in some regions along the coast, responses were curtailed or restricted.

During the UME, the population of eastern north Pacific gray whales declined from approximately 28,000 animals to 14,000 of which 503 were reported stranded along the western seaboard of Mexico, the United States and Canada. A new analysis modeling the long term periodicity of the gray whale calf production, mortality, and nutritional condition with environmental drivers [26] found that periodic reductions in gray whale numbers were associated with prey availability and access to feeding areas in the Arctic. This model fits with malnutrition as the primary finding in investigations of the 1999–2000 and 2019–2021 events. As the Arctic continues to change, the synergy between environmental influences, prey availability, nutritional condition, calf production, and mortality are increasingly important for understanding the fate of the ENP gray whale population. In particular, the impact of oceanic thermal anomalies in the North Pacific [61], unprecedented loss of winter sea ice and extreme summer sea surface temperatures in the Bering and Chukchi marine shelf ecosystems between 2017 and 2019, and changes in infaunal, benthic and pelagic prey abundance and nutritive quality to the morbidity and mortality of gray whales [19, 20, 25] require further research. The current data and review of the 2019–2021 strandings, as well as comparison with the epidemiologic and necropsy findings from the 1999–2000 UME, support the hypothesis that these events are likely recurring and transitory.

The roles of infectious disease, or intoxication (e.g., biotoxins), as examples of stochastic mortality [62], cannot be ruled out by the current investigation and additional testing of samples will be pursued in the future. The review of gray whale health and disease findings from this investigation, coupled with a recent overview of gray whale pathology literature [32], will better inform future studies of stranded animals.

The data presented here are a small contribution to the overall UME investigation and other teams are working on evaluating environmental and population changes that may be impacting the gray whale population. A better understanding of the manifestations and mechanisms involved in atrophy of blubber during the migration will assist in the determination of normal physiologic atrophy versus malnutrition for this migratory species. Ongoing efforts to document changes in the nutritional status and behavior of free ranging animals, calf recruitment, and foraging behavior will further contribute to understanding the recurrent stranding events of the Eastern North Pacific gray whale population.

In conclusion, the declaration of the UME was invaluable in establishing effective channels of communication and developing and standardizing response protocols across stranding response networks, as well as regional, national, and international governmental partners and agencies which enhanced surveillance and reporting of floating and stranded dead gray whales. The preliminary findings from the subset of 61 whales in this study have shown that malnutrition, vessel strikes, killer whale predation, gear entanglement and entrapment were variably implicated. Our necropsy findings of malnutrition complement the observations of poor body condition in live free ranging whales and low calf recruitment observed during the UME period and support ongoing study of the environmental drivers that are impacting the Eastern North Pacific gray whale population.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. Dead whale nutritional condition protocol_Nov2023.

Gray Whale UME Dead Whale Nutritional Condition Protocol & Table.

(DOCX)

pone.0295861.s001.docx (14.2MB, docx)
S2 Appendix. Case definition_ GW KW predation 2023.06.15.

Case Definition: Killer Whale Predation as the Cause of Death in Gray Whales in Alaska.

(DOCX)

pone.0295861.s002.docx (37.1KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

All marine mammal stranding activities in the US were conducted under authorization by the NMFS through Stranding Agreements issued to the Marine Mammal Stranding Network Organizations involved in this UME. We acknowledge the assistance of numerous staff and volunteers within the U.S. Marine Mammal Stranding Networks in CA, OR, WA and AK and especially The Marine Mammal Center (TMMC) and the California Academy of Sciences with specific mention of Dr. C. Field, E. Whitmer and J. Isbell (TMMC). We thank C. Matkin for comments regarding killer predation of gray whales in AK and Dr. S. Moore for invaluable insights. The First Nations communities, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Fisheries Officers of BC and staff at the BC Animal Health Center, Abbotsford, BC are gratefully acknowledged. Funds for many stranding responses were provided by the Prescott Grants and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Tissue collection and processing was conducted under NMFS Stranding Agreements or the Marine Mammal Stranding Response Program Permit number 18768, issued under Section 104 (16 U.S.C. 1374) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. In MX, the gray whale stranding field work was conducted under the permit from the Secretaría del medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales No. SGPA/DGVS/013210/18. We thank Steven Swartz, Sergio Martínez A., Lorena Viloria G. and the personnel of Laguna San Ignacio Ecosystem Science Program, PRIMMA-UABCS and the Reserva de la Biósfera El Vizcaino of CONANP. The scientific results and conclusions, as well as any views or opinions expressed herein, are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA.

Data Availability

Third party data are publicly available from NOAA (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2019-2023-gray-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-west-coast-and). Additional data is available as Supporting Information.

Funding Statement

National Marine Fisheries Service provided support in the form of salaries for authors DF and PC, respectively, but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Lang AR, Weller DW, Burdin AM, Robertson K, Sychenko O, Urbán RJ, et al. Population structure of North Pacific gray whales in light of trans-Pacific movements. Mar Mamm Sci. 2022; 38:433–468. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Harris J, Calambokidis J, Perez A, Mahoney P J. Recent trends in the abundance of seasonal gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) in the Pacific Northwest, 1996–2020. 2022; AFSC Processed Rep. 2022. –05, 22 pp. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Rice DW, Wolman AA. The life history of the gray whale, (Eschrichtius robustus). American Society of Mammologists. 1971; Special Publication 3. 142pp. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Stewart JD, Weller DW. Abundance of Eastern North Pacific gray whales 2-19/2020. U.S. Dept. Comm., NOAA Technical Memorandum. 2021; NMFS-SWFSC-639. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Dailey M, Gulland FMD, Lowenstein L, Silvagni P, Howard D. Prey, parasites and pathology associated with the mortality of a juvenile gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) stranded along the northern California coast. Dis Aquat Organ. 2000; 42, 111–117. doi: 10.3354/dao042111 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Benson SR, Croll DA, Marinovic BB, Chavez FP, Harvey JT. Changes in the cetacean assemblage of a coastal upwelling ecosystem during El Niño 1997–98 and La Niña 1999. Prog Oceanogr. 2002; 54(1): 279–291. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Caraveo-Patiño J, Soto LA. Stable carbon isotope ratios for the gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) in the breeding grounds of Baja California Sur, Mexico. Hydrobiologia. 2005; 539(1): 99–104. doi: 10.1007/s10750-004-3370-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Weller DW, Klimek A, Bradford AL, Calambokidis J, Lang AR, Gisborne B, et al. Movements of gray whales between the western and eastern North Pacific. Endanger Species Res. 2012; 18:193–199. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Calambokidis J, Laake J, Pérez A. Updated analysis of abundance and population structure of seasonal gray whales in the Pacific Northwest, 1996–2015. 2017; Paper SC/A17/GW/05 presented to the International Whaling Commission. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Mate BR, Ilyashenko VY, Bradford AL, Vertyankin VV, Tsidulko GA, Rozhnov VV, et al. Critically endangered western gray whales migrate to the eastern North Pacific. Biol Lett. 2015; 11(4), 20150071. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2015.0071 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Durban J, Weller D, Lang A, Perryman W. Estimating gray whale abundance from shore-based counts using a multilevel Bayesian model. J Cetacean Res Manag. 2015; 15: 61–68. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Durban J, Weller DW, Perryman WL. Gray whale abundance estimates from shore-based counts off California in 2014/2015 and 2015/2016. 2017. Paper SC/A17/GW/06 presented to the International Whaling Commission. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Carretta JV, Forney KA, Oleson EM, Weller DW, Lang AR, Baker J, et al. U.S. Pacific marine mammal stock assessments: 2018. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. 2019; NMFS-SWFSC-617. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Gavrilchuk K, Doniol-Valcroze T. Recovery potential assessment for the grey whale (Eschrichtius robustus): Pacific Coast Feeding Group and Western Pacific Population in Canadian Waters. DFO Can Sci Advis Sec Res Doc. 2021; 2021/020. iv + 52 p. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Scammon CM. The Marine Mammals of the North-Western Coast of North America, Described and Illustrated: Together with an Account of The American Whale-Fishery. John H. Carmany and Company. San Francisco. 1874. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Bruniche-Olsen A, Westerman R, Kazmierczyk Z, Vertyankin VV, Godard-Codding C, Bickham JW, et al. The inference of gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) historical population attributes from whole-genome sequences. BCM Evol Biol. 2018; 18(1):87. doi: 10.1186/s12862-018-1204-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Alter SE, Newsome SD, Palumbi SR. Pre-whaling genetic diversity and population ecology in eastern Pacific gray whales: insights from ancient DNA and stable isotopes. PLoS One. 2012; 7(5):e35039. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035039 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Eguchi T, Lang AR, Weller DW. Abundance and migratory phenology of eastern North Pacific gray whales 2021/2022. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-668. 2022. 10.25923/x88y-8p07 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Huntington H, Danielson S, Wiese F, Baker M, Boveng P, Citta J, et al. Evidence suggests potential transformation of the Pacific Arctic ecosystem is underway. Nat Clim Chang. 2020; doi: 10.1038/s41558-020-0695-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Moore SE, Clarke JT, Okkonen SR, Grebmeier JM, Berchok CL, Stafford KM. Changes in gray whale phenology and distribution related to prey variability and ocean biophysics in the north Bering and eastern Chukchi seas. PLoS ONE. 2022; 17(4):e0265934. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Darling JD, Keogh IE, Streeves TE. Gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) habitat utilization and prey species off Vancouver Island B.C. Mar Mamm Sci. 1998. 14: 692–720. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Perryman WL, Joyce T, Weller DW, Durban JW. Environmental factors influencing eastern North Pacific gray whale calf production 1994–2016. Mar Mamm Sci. 2021; 37(2), 448–462. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Perryman WL, Donahue MA, Perkins PC, Reilly SB. Gray whale calf production 1994–2000: Are observed fluctuations related to changes in seasonal ice cover? Mar Mamm Sci. 2002; 18, 121–144. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Gailey G, Sychenko O, Tyurneva O, Yakovlev Y, Vertyankin V, van der Wolf P, et al. Effects of sea ice on growth rates of an endangered population of gray whales. Sci Rep. 2020; 10:1553. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-58435-3 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Soledade Lemos L, Burnett JD, Chandler TE, Sumich JL, Torres LG. Intra- and inter-annual variation in gray whale body condition on a foraging ground. Ecosphere. 2020; 11(4): doi: 10.1002/ecs2.3094 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Stewart JD, Joyce TW, Durban JW, Calambokidis J, Fauquier D, Fearnbach H, et al. Boom-bust cycles in gray whales associated with dynamic and changing Arctic conditions. Sci. 2023; 382, 207–211. doi: 10.1126/science.adi1847 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Eguchi T, Lang AR, Weller DW. Eastern North Pacific Gray Whale Calf Production 1994–2022. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. 2022. NMFS-SWFSC-667. 10.25923/4g6h-9129. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Silber GK, Weller DW, Reeves RR, Adams JD, Moore TJ. Co-occurrence of gray whales and vessel traffic in the North Pacific Ocean. Endanger Species Res. 2021; 44, 177–201. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Scordino J, Carretta J, Cottrell P, Greenman J, Savage K, Scordino J, et al. Ship strikes and entanglements of gray whales in the North Pacific Ocean, 1924–2015. 2017. Paper SC/67A/HIM/06 presented at the 18th meeting of the Western Gray Whale Advisory Panel. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Moore MJ, van der Hoop JM. The painful side of trap and fixed net fisheries: chronic entanglement of large whales. J of Mar Biol. 2012; Article ID 230653, doi: 10.1155/2012/230653 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Gulland FMD, Pérez-Cortes M, Urgán J, Rojas-Bracho RL, Ylitalo G, Weir J, et al. Eastern North Pacific gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) unusual mortality events, 1999–2000. U.S. Dept of Commerce, NOAA tech. Memo. 2005; NMFS-AFSC-150, 33 pp. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Stimmelmayr R, Gulland FMD. Gray Whale (Eschrichtius robustus) health and disease: review and future directions. Front in Mar Sci. 2020; 7:588820. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Moore SE, Urban R, Perryman W, Gulland FMD, Perez-Cortes MH, Wade P, et al. Are gray whales hitting “K” hard? 2001 Mar Mamm Sci. 2001; 71: 954–958. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Moore SE, Grebmeier JM, Davies JR. Gray whale distribution relative to forage habitat in the northern Bering Sea: current conditions and retrospective summary. Can J of Zool. 2003; 81(4): 734–742. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Punt AE, Wade PR. Population status of the eastern North Pacific stock of gray whales in 2009. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech Memo. 2010; NMFS-AFSC–207, 43 p. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.LeBoeuf BJ, Perez Cortes MH, Urban RJ, Mate BR, Ollervides UF. High gray whale mortality and low recruitment in 1999: potential causes and implications. J Cetacean Res Manag. 2000; 2:85–99 [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Sumich JL. Growth in young gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus). Mar Mamm Sci. 1986; 2(2): 145–152. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Sumich JL, Goff T, Perryman WL. Growth of two captive gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus). Aquat Mamm. 2001; 27(3): 231–233. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Sumich JL, Blokin SA, Tiupeleyev PA. Revised estimates of foetal and post-natal growth in young gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus). J Cetacean Res Manage. 2013; 13(2): 89–96. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Bradford AL, Weller DW, Burdin AM, Brownell RL. Using barnacle and pigmentation characteristics to identify gray whale calves on their feeding grounds. Mar Mamm Sci. 2011; 27(3):644–651. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Agbayani S, Fortune SME, Trites AW. Growth and development of North Pacific gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus). J Mammal. 2020; 101(3):742–754. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Cottrell P, Cottrell B, Dowdall T, Hoyland Al, Hoyland AS, Raverty S. Recovery of a mid-gestational gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) fetus near Tofino, British Columbia. Aquat Mamm. 2022; 48(6), 626–633, doi: 10.1578/AM.48.6.2022.626 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Geraci J, Lounsbury V 2005. Evaluating a carcass. In: Geraci J, Lounsbury VJ, editors. Marine mammals ashore: a field guide for strandings. 2nd ed, Baltimore: National Aquarium; 2005. Pp. 182–194. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Raverty S, Duignan PJ, Jepson P, Morel M. Necropsy procedures and sampling for marine mammal gross necropsy. In Gulland FMD, Dierauf LA, Whitman K.L, editors. The CRC handbook of marine mammal medicine, 3rd ed. Boca Rotan: CRC Press; 2018. pp. 249–266. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Moore-Touhey K, Barco SG. Handbook for recognizing, evaluating, and documenting human interaction in stranded cetaceans and pinnipeds. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC. 2013; 510; NOAA technical memorandum NMFS; URL: https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/4429 [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Lowry L, Nelson R, Frost K. Observations of killer whales, Orcinus orca, in western Alaska: sightings, strandings, and predation on other marine mammals. Can Field Nat 1987; 101:6–12. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Melnikov VV, Zagrebin IA. Killer whale predation in coastal water of the Chukotka Peninsula. Mar Mammal Sci. 2005; 21:550–556. 10.1111/j.1748-7692.2005.tb01248.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Barrett-Lennard L, Matkin C, Durban J, Saulitis E, Elfret, D. Predation on gray whales and prolonged feeding on submerged carcasses by transient killer whales in Unimak Island, Alaska. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2011; 421:229–241. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Câmara N, Sierra E, Fernández-Maldonado C, Espinosa de los Monteros A, Arbelo M, Fernández A, Herráez P. Stress cardiomyopathy in stranded cetaceans: a histological, histochemical and immunohistochemical study. Vet. Rec. 2019. 185(22):694–704. doi: 10.1136/vr.105562 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Herráez P, Espinosa de los Monteros A, Fernández A, Edwards JF, Sacchini S, Sierra E. Capture myopathy in live-stranded cetaceans. Vet. J. 2013. 196(2):181–188. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2012.09.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Goley PD., Calambokidis J, Duignan P, Gulland FMD, Halaska B, Lui A, et al. Observations of tissue healing around a consolidated radio tag in a Pacific coast feeding group gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus). Mar Mamm Sci. Forthcoming
  • 52.Christiansen F, Rodriguez-Gonzalez F, Martinez-Aguilar S, Urban J, Swartz S, Warick H, et al. Poor body condition associated with an unusual mortality event in gray whales. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2021; 658: 237–252 10.3354/meps13585. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Moore M, Mitchell G, Rowles T, Early D. Dead cetacean? beach, bloat, float, sink. Front in Mar Sci. 2020; 7, 333 doi: 10.3389/fmars.2020.00333 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Boys RM, Beausoleil NJ, Pawley MDM, Littlewood KE, Betty EL, Stockin KA. 2022. Identification of potential welfare and survival indicators for stranded cetaceans through international, interdisciplinary expert opinion. R. Soc. Open Sci. 9: 220646 doi: 10.1098/rsos.220646 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Markowitz TM, Szczepaniak ID, Keener W, Lane R, Payne A, Halaska B, et al. Foraging behavior of gray whales during extended migratory stopovers in San Francisco Bay. Proceedings of the 24th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, Palm Beach, FL. 2022; 397–398. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Corsi E, Calambokidis J, Flynn KR, Steiger GH. 2021. Killer Whale Predatory Scarring on Mysticetes: A comparison of rake marks among blue, humpback, and gray whales in the Eastern North Pacific. Mar Mamm Sci. 2021; 38(1): 223–234. doi: 10.1111/mms.12863 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Harruff RC. Subendocardial hemorrhages in forensic pathology autopsies. Am J Forensic Med and Path. 1993; 14(4), 284–288. doi: 10.1097/00000433-199312000-00003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Carretta JV, Danil K, Chivers S, Weller DW, Janiger DS, Berman-Kowalewski M, et al. Recovery rates of bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) carcasses estimated from stranding and survival rate data. Mar Mamm Sci. 2016; 32(1):349–362. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Wells RS, Allen JB, Lovewell G, Gorzelany J, Delynn RE, Fauquier DA, Barros NB. Carcass-recovery rates for resident bottlenose dolphins in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Mar Mamm Science. 2015; 31:355–368. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Williams R, Gero S, Bejder L, Calambokidis J, Krais, SD, Lusseau, D, et al. Underestimating the damage: Interpreting cetacean carcass recoveries in the context of the Deepwater Horizon/BP incident. Conserv Lett. 2011; 4:228–233. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Cornwall W. A new blob menaces Pacific ecosystems. Science. 2019; 365 (6459): 1233. doi: 10.1126/science.365.6459.1233 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Lefebvre KA, Quakenbush L, Frame E, Burek Huntington K, Sheffield G, Stimmelmayr R, et al. Prevalence of algal toxins in Alaskan marine mammals foraging in a changing arctic and subarctic environment. Harmful Algae. 2016; 55:13–24. doi: 10.1016/j.hal.2016.01.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Vitor Hugo Rodrigues Paiva

6 Sep 2023

PONE-D-23-22593Gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) post-mortem findings from 2018-2021 during the Unusual Mortality Event in the Eastern North PacificPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Raverty,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 21 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Vitor Hugo Rodrigues Paiva, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests/Financial Disclosure section:

“Dr Kathy Burek owns and operations the Alaska Veterinary Pathology Services, Eagle River, AK and Dr Michael Garner owes the Northwest ZooPath, Monroe, WA”

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Alaska Veterinary Pathology Services, Eagle River

a.            Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

b. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc. 

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

 a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

 We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Review of ‘Gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) post-mortem findings from 2018-2021 during the Unusual Mortality Event in the Eastern North Pacific’

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. It is well written and provides detailed , important information on some of the individuals stranded as part of the currently declared UME. The authors should be commended on the detailed step by step appendices provided for defining nutritional state and orca interactions. These will be very valuable for marine mammal science going forwards and will be applicable across species. I have few suggestions but have provided some line-by-line comments below.

I am surprised to see no mention of animal welfare throughout the manuscript, especially in light of some of the causes of death focused on here. Consideration of marine mammal welfare lags behind that of conservation and I believe that careful and considerate mention of it in such a paper as this would be beneficial to marine mammal science and policy. I have included a couple of comments in areas where I believe this could be included with minimal additional interpretation of the findings.

There are some sections in the discussion where additional citations should and could be added, not only to support the points made, but also to direct further reading. For example, the discussion of possible etiologies for hemosiderosis and blubber discoloration. There also seems to be a lack of discussion regarding the entanglement and entrapment cases which I think deserve further attention.

Methods

Line 161-162: Were these human interactions noted based on necropsy of animals or solely on external indicators of potential interaction?

Line 173: Were fetuses considered in the data if they were only found at necropsy of the mother?

Line 193: Due to this, do you think there is bias low numbers of animals with death related to infectious or toxic causes?

Line 197-198: Seeking clarification on this point, it seems that this study focused on these 61 animals only due to them being externally and internally evaluated. This suggests that the other carcasses were not examined in this way, but the next sentence then suggests that there were many others that had been assess extensively enough to suggest human or killer whale interaction. So, how and why were these 61 animals chosen for inclusion in this study?

Line 203: Previous explanation was given on how blubber was used to assess nutritional status, but what was examined in the blubber specifically to assess trauma?

Line 242: What stains were applied to the tissues for histological evaluation?

Results

Line 258: I assume those in other regions were reported by public finding carcasses at sea or beach cast? It might be worth stating this since for AK you have highlighted the main ‘method’ of finding the animals.

Line 262: Here you mention 225 animals stranded in MX but at the start of this paragraph and in Table 1 it states 226?

Line 263: Interested to know if this means that none of the 225 animals stranded in MX underwent any kind of internal gross examination or samples were not sent for histological analysis? Or is this due to the fact that there is a separate study being conducted specifically on the animals in this region? I am surprised as it seems a high proportion of the total strandings to have not been extensively evaluated and included here for overall understanding of findings from this UME.

Line 264 Table 1: As written it is not immediately clear that the number in parentheses refers to the whales with finding reported in this paper, it reads as potentially clarifying that the reported strandings are only those whales with findings being reported. I would suggest re-writing this table legend and others with the same construction to state “Number of whales with findings reported in this paper in parentheses” or something similar:

For example, Table 1. Reported strandings by location and year (17 December 2018 to 31 December 2021). Number of whales with findings reported in this paper in parentheses. MX = Mexico, CA=California, OR=Oregon, WA=Washington, BC=British Columbia, AK=Alaska.

Line 299 Table 4: Misaligned number in 2020 Males for AK.

Line 310: It is surprising that none of the animals initially observed alive underwent PME. Was there a reason for this?

Line 333: Were all these gross findings used for likely cause of death evaluated alongside histology? Did this have any impact on findings when only examined grossly?

Line 341 Figure 2: Images could be of higher resolution (in PDF these are not very clear/some pixelation) but may be an issue with the PDF maker.

Line 394: Does this refer only to external lesions related to vessel strike or orca interactions?

Line 412-423: Not sure why this figure legend appears here for a second time?

Line 426: Could the authors provide further information on this entrapment? And how it contributed to the animal’s death?

Line 455-466: Not sure why this figure legend appears here for a third time?

Line 468: Consider adding ‘likely’ before cause of death, since these results included gross examination only and no histology (thus far, as written).

Discussion

Line 550: Please add ‘as’ after as well and before body condition.

Line 559: This is an example of where consideration of welfare could be adopted.

Line 561: Based on histology of these cutaneous erosions were these ante or post-mortem?

Line 569: This paragraph is an example of where the links among welfare of individuals and conservation of the populations could be highlighted.

Lines 576-579: It would be interesting to know if during this UME there have been any potentially associated out of habitat incidents?

Line 589: Are there any environmental or fisheries data available across this time period to consider modelling such changes alongside the UME?

Line 591: This brings up the question again of whether any animals were considered out of habitat? Or whether this is due to their typical habitat being degraded?

Line 615: Was there any relation with the discoloration of the blubber and unusual gastric contents?

Line 619: It would be interesting to have further discussion of the vessel strike injuries in this paragraph and related welfare and conservation issues.

Line 623: Are these common/typical habitats for these animals to be in?

Line 649: Is there a reference available for this information?

Line 658: Was there any live stranding response effort with this calf and relevant live data collected? This would also be an example for discussion of potential welfare implications associated with this UME.

Line 661: Is it therefore presumed that this was likely related to the live stranding event? If no other underlying causes for stranding appeared present, is it possible that stranding was due to maternal-filial separation?

Line 677: Could you provide some references as suggested further reading

Line 686: Suggestion t include the Moore et al., 2020 paper as a reference for further reading https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2020.00333/full

Line 689: Can you give any indication as to the likely population impact of this UME?

Line 696: With the current El Niño do you expect UME strandings may begin to increase again?

Reviewer #2: Review comments

This manus describes necropsy findings and death causes of 61 stranded gray whales Eschrichtius robustus along the west coast of North America and review the number of strandings of 503 gray whales geographically, seasonally, and due to life stage. Mortality causes are related to human interactions and carrying capacity is mentioned as a cause of increased mortality in gray whales. The paper is descriptive and contains no tested hypotheses but contributes valuable knowledge of mortalities in gray whales although based on relatively few individuals.

In general, the manus is well written. However, considering the descriptive and relatively few necropsy data and that only theoretical thoughts of possible environmental cause for the decline in population and calf production of gray whales the manus should be shortened. Some may be done by omitting sentences with spoken language, by avoiding repetitions especially in the discussion and deleting adjectives which do not contribute with exact knowledge.

Some suggestions and questions:

Line 54-83 Abstract is too long and should be no longer than 300 words, reduce some of the background information and focus on purpose and results the review.

95: “greatest” – I would prefer “highest.”

99: “genetic studies have estimated higher numbers existed through evolutionary time” how high numbers would be interesting to compare with later models?

104-106: “Transformative ecosystem changes have occurred in the summer Bering Strait feeding

grounds [14] with reported local declines in prey abundance and quality [15] which may have a

direct impact on gray whale bioenergetics, fecundity, health, and homeostasis [16]”. Could be written shorter and contain the same information “Changes in the summer Bering Strait feeding

grounds with reported local declines in prey abundance and quality may influence gray whales’ bioenergetics, fecundity, health, and homeostasis [14,15,16]”.

105: What are gray whales basic diet?

107: How is calf production measured- by random or systematic sightings?

264: “Reported strandings (including whales with findings reported in this paper)”

284: This ads up to 544 is it because calves and fetuses are not included?

320: Gross findings- I would prefer -External findings

531-535: Much is repetition- may even be deleted.

717-721: “UME was invaluable in establishing effective channels of communication and developing and standardizing response protocols across stranding response networks, as well as regional, national, and international governmental partners and agencies which enhanced surveillance and reporting of floating and stranded dead gray whales”. Delete this section. To me this is not a biological conclusion and should not be part of the conclusion. After the biological conclusion it could be mentioned that in future protocols should be standardised and national and international neworks improved.

Reviewer #3: Thank you for letting me reviews this paper. This manuscript studies a very important topic, which is the relevant information that the identification and monitoring of Unusual Mortality Event (UME) are important as they allow scientists and conservation organizations to collect data on possible causes of mortality, assess the impact on the gray whale population, and take measures to protect this endangered species.

The study focuses on the analysis of post-mortem results of gray whales, which means it examines the characteristics and observations made after the death of these animals. The mentioned unusual mortality event refers to a period when an abnormally high number of gray whales died in the Northeast Pacific region.

The purpose of this study is therefore to analyze these post-mortem results in order to better understand this phenomenon of unusual mortality in gray whales. This could help determine the possible causes of these deaths and develop conservation and protection measures for this endangered species.

I have directly written my comments and some corrections in the manuscript.

Reviewer #4: The authors present an analysis of the recent and ongoing gray whale unusual mortality event (UME) in the Eastern North Pacific. They compare this UME to a previous UME and highlight a south to north gradient in potential causes of mortality. I think this work is interesting, and the potential approximately 23 periodicity in these events is especially interesting and insightful to future conservation efforts for this species.

However, the manuscript as it currently stands is poorly written. There are many verbose sections that are written in the passive voice that need to be converted to the active voice. UME is referenced in the text before it is defined. Portions of the text feel like they conflict each other, especially when discussing what samples are considered regarding orca-related mortality. The text needs to be consolidated and written concisely.

Furthermore, the results are quickly lost in the jargon of the manuscript, which currently feels like it was written as an internal report rather than a broader audience. It is very difficult to follow along with the conclusions drawn by the authors as a result. Most of the results describe diseases and conditions that are not understood by a general audience and there is no attempt to define most of, if not all, of these terms. These intricate details may be better suited for a supplement.

Most of the results are simply regurgitating the tables presented (some of which are duplicated in my copy of the manuscript). I feel like 1) the results text should not simply restate the tables and 2) that the results would be easier to comprehend using maps to illustrate the spatial distribution of causes of mortality. This would better help illustrate the S-N gradient the authors discuss. The current figures (images of biopsy samples) are not useful to a broader audience without a background in pathology or marine mammals, and also don’t translate well to grayscale.

There is also no attempt to perform any statistical analysis on these data. The authors state that they do not have enough sample points to perform statistical analysis but do not perform any power calculations to back this up. Statistical analysis should be performed and would strengthen the manuscript considerably.

I think the most interesting part of this paper is the potential 23 periodicity in UME and unfortunately, this or any other environmental drivers of the UME are not discussed. I understand the division of labor across a diverse research team such as this one and the desire to publish results sooner rather than later. However, I think the manuscript would be strengthened significantly if these mortality results were correlated to the environmental variables in the same manuscript.

Based on these comments, I am recommending to reject this manuscript and encourage the authors to resubmit their manuscript when the environmental analysis is complete and can be added to these results.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: POLS ONE-D-23-22593_reviewer - Comments.pdf

pone.0295861.s003.pdf (2.2MB, pdf)
PLoS One. 2024 Mar 27;19(3):e0295861. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295861.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


8 Nov 2023

Reviewer #1: Review of ‘Gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) post-mortem findings from 2018-2021 during the Unusual Mortality Event in the Eastern North Pacific’

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. It is well written and provides detailed , important information on some of the individuals stranded as part of the currently declared UME. The authors should be commended on the detailed step by step appendices provided for defining nutritional state and orca interactions. These will be very valuable for marine mammal science going forwards and will be applicable across species. I have few suggestions but have provided some line-by-line comments below.

I am surprised to see no mention of animal welfare throughout the manuscript, especially in light of some of the causes of death focused on here. Consideration of marine mammal welfare lags behind that of conservation and I believe that careful and considerate mention of it in such a paper as this would be beneficial to marine mammal science and policy. I have included a couple of comments in areas where I believe this could be included with minimal additional interpretation of the findings.

There are some sections in the discussion where additional citations should and could be added, not only to support the points made, but also to direct further reading. For example, the discussion of possible etiologies for hemosiderosis and blubber discoloration. There also seems to be a lack of discussion regarding the entanglement and entrapment cases which I think deserve further attention.

Thank you for your comments, they are informative and have been addressed in the responses below and added to the text of the manuscript. The lines identified in the responses refer to the revised manuscript in Track Changes.

Methods

Line 161-162: Were these human interactions noted based on necropsy of animals or solely on external indicators of potential interaction?

Human interactions were based on internal and external examinations. Additional details provided in lines 164-165.

Line 173: Were fetuses considered in the data if they were only found at necropsy of the mother?

Other than a single fetus that was recovered from during the Unusual Mortality Event (UME) that was described in this manuscript and a separate publication, (Cottrell et al, 2022), there were no pregnant adult females necropsied. This likely represents the stage of fetal development at the time of southern migration of the whales.

Reference 41: Cottrell, P, Cottrell, B, Dowdall, T, Hoyland, Al, Hoyland, AS, and Raverty, S. Recovery of a mid-gestational gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) fetus near Tofino, British Columbia. Aquatic Mammals. Aquatic Mammals 2022, 48(6), 626-633, DOI 10.1578/AM.48.6.2022.626

Line 193: Due to this, do you think there is bias low numbers of animals with death related to infectious or toxic causes?

Due to the remoteness of many strandings and delays in arranging travel and logistics to conduct a necropsy, many animals presented with moderate to advanced autolysis (code 3.5-4), which precluded ancillary diagnostic studies to screen for infectious disease. Rather than stage of fetal development or age of the animal, post mortem decomposition may have been among the most significant limiting factors in screening for infectious disease. Harmful algal bloom toxin screening was performed in a few cases, but feces, urine or stomach contents were not consistently sampled or screened; additionally, it is not generally known what toxin levels mean in fluids from large whales. The designation of biotoxin as a cause of death is based on timing and location of stranding, toxin levels in prey species and the environment with documented toxin blooms in the same time and place of the strandings. Because we do not think toxins were the cause of this mortality event, we excluded the partial results from our subset of examined whales; once the UME is closed, a separate summary manuscript including HABs levels is planned. Ultimately, we don’t know if we are biased against infectious or toxic causes or if gray whales are resilient to the diseases processes, when compared to other cetaceans. Responding to fresh gray whale carcasses is a priority throughout their range. Unfortunately, this is a rare occurrence.

Line 197-198: Seeking clarification on this point, it seems that this study focused on these 61 animals only due to them being externally and internally evaluated. This suggests that the other carcasses were not examined in this way, but the next sentence then suggests that there were many others that had been assess extensively enough to suggest human or killer whale interaction. So, how and why were these 61 animals chosen for inclusion in this study?

With a decline from 26,000-27,000 animals to approximately 14,000 during the span of the UME, level A data was compiled for 501 stranding events. In these cases, the lay public, biologists or researchers would have recorded the geographic location, signalment (age, sex), date, and in some cases, photographs were obtained. However, in many cases there were insufficient data to assign a specific cause of death. Without an internal and internal examination, we could not confirm whether some observed or photographed injuries may have been incurred ante versus post mortem (impact with the substrate) or differentiate attempted predation or post mortem scavenging. Post mortem decomposition, particularly with widespread skin sloughing and seepage of blubber oil impeded and in cases with more advanced autolysis, precluded gross assessment of internal and external lesions. The case definition we developed (and agreed upon as a group) for inclusion as a case in this study included gross internal and external examination of the carcass and/or microscopic evaluation of the tissues for evidence of hemorrhage (vital response), blunt force injury and other disease entities.

Lines 197-208 in the revised version with Track Changes explain our inclusion criteria.

Line 203 was reworded to “The cases discussed in this paper are for those carcasses where an external and internal gross necropsy was performed and tissues for histopathology were evaluated.”

The following sentence in line 239 to 245 was reworded to “Criteria for inclusion in this study were a full gross PME and, for most cases, sampling for histopathology. Exclusions were based on incomplete PMEs or microscopic assessment of sampled tissues, even if the case was confirmed by external examination as a probable or suspect case of human or killer whale interaction. As such, the numbers reported herein are a minimum and represent a subset of the full UME response and investigation”.

Line 203: Previous explanation was given on how blubber was used to assess nutritional status, but what was examined in the blubber specifically to assess trauma?

Trauma was assessed by evidence of hemorrhage, laceration or incision in soft tissues and fractures of skeletal elements. On gross examination, this was inferred by red discoloration of the blubber with possible edema (tissue fluid accumulation) and often featured subcutaneous or hypodermal hemorrhage and possible hematoma formation, particularly below the fibroelastic sheath. In some cases of cryptic trauma, there may be no discernible external lesions with hemorrhage limited to the blubber and subcutaneous tissue. Microscopically, trauma was assessed by a combination of tissue necrosis, hemorrhage, edema and nature and extent of the inflammatory infiltrate. With acute hemorrhage, red blood cells would predominate and with resolution (in nonlethal cases) hemosiderin laden macrophages admixed with varying amount of other more chronic inflammatory infiltrates predominate.

In lines 250-255, an additional sentence describing the gross features of trauma has been added for clarification. Trauma was inferred by evidence of epidermal lacerations hemorrhage, edema and necrosis or maceration of skeletal muscle, and skeletal fractures.

Line 242: What stains were applied to the tissues for histological evaluation?

The tissues were routinely stained with Hematoxylin and Eosin (H&E). An additional sentence has been added in line 298, “ Tissues were stained with hematoxylin and eosin and when indicated, Tort’s Gram stain, Periodic Acid Schiff (PAS) and Perl’s stain (for iron) and reviewed by a veterinary pathologist.”

Results

Line 258: I assume those in other regions were reported by public finding carcasses at sea or beach cast? It might be worth stating this since for AK you have highlighted the main ‘method’ of finding the animals.

In lines 324-325, a statement has been added to clarify the difference between reporting or detecting dead whales in different geographic regions. The sentence now reads “In contrast to BC, WA, OR, CA and MX where dead whales were reported by the public, biologists, fisheries officers, First Nations or Indigenous community members, most of the reports for AK were from aerial surveys or opportunistic aerial sightings of floating or beach cast animals.”

Line 262: Here you mention 225 animals stranded in MX but at the start of this paragraph and in Table 1 it states 226?

The number in the table is correct and the number in the text in line 330 has been revised from 225 to 226. Thank you

Line 263: Interested to know if this means that none of the 225 animals stranded in MX underwent any kind of internal gross examination or samples were not sent for histological analysis? Or is this due to the fact that there is a separate study being conducted specifically on the animals in this region? I am surprised as it seems a high proportion of the total strandings to have not been extensively evaluated and included here for overall understanding of findings from this UME.

Yes, this is a deficiency. In general, the carcasses are in remote areas where it is difficult to mobilize gear and people to conduct a full exam. There are dedicated surveys to count and measure them, but these surveys are not frequent enough to find fresh carcasses. We would all like to collect more information from the wintering grounds (particularly the near term fetal and neonate mortality cohorts). Necropsy gear has been sent from the US to Mexico. There were three necropsies conducted, but as their results did not change our conclusions, our Mexican co-authors opted not to include them in this paper.

Line 264 Table 1: As written it is not immediately clear that the number in parentheses refers to the whales with finding reported in this paper, it reads as potentially clarifying that the reported strandings are only those whales with findings being reported. I would suggest re-writing this table legend and others with the same construction to state “Number of whales with findings reported in this paper in parentheses” or something similar:

For example, Table 1. Reported strandings by location and year (17 December 2018 to 31 December 2021). Number of whales with findings reported in this paper in parentheses. MX = Mexico, CA=California, OR=Oregon, WA=Washington, BC=British Columbia, AK=Alaska.

Line 333-233, thank you. We added “The number in the parentheses is the subset of whales with findings reported in this paper.” to the captions of Tables 1-5.

Line 310: It is surprising that none of the animals initially observed alive underwent PME. Was there a reason for this?

There are multiple limitations, but the most important was coordinating and getting the whale and people to a location where we were permitted to perform a necropsy. Roadblocks are listed lines 229-235, but often we are desperately trying to get to the carcass or figure out where it will float to next. As described in Michael Moore’s paper, in some instances a fresh dead whale has been reported, but we think they sink initially, then we have to wait for the carcass to bloat, before it floated and could be relocated.

Line 333: Were all these gross findings used for likely cause of death evaluated alongside histology? Did this have any impact on findings when only examined grossly?

Yes, we included both gross and microscopic evaluation of the tissues included in the assignment of cause of death. In some cases, where catastrophic injuries were apparent, a cause of death could be determined without histopathology.

A sentence has been added to line 309. “A group of veterinary pathologists and field personal experiences with post mortem examination of large cetaceans reviewed each of the 61 cases to assign a cause of death. Where discrepancies occurred, the field personnel involved with the necropsy and tissue sampling were consulted and photographs at the time of necropsy reviewed.”

Line 341 Figure 2: Images could be of higher resolution (in PDF these are not very clear/some pixelation) but may be an issue with the PDF maker.

The images and figures have been reformatted to TIF files and the quality should be improved. Thank you!

Line 394: Does this refer only to external lesions related to vessel strike or orca interactions?

The statement refers specifically to the cause of death by starvation. Suboptimal nutritional condition may be associated with a variety of disease processes including poor quality or low caloric dietary intake, intercurrent or pre-existing disease, particularly within the gastrointestinal (lack of nutritional resorption) or urogenital (excess protein excretion) and other factors (physiologic, associated with the prolonged migration, reproductive status and others). In this case series, there were no apparent lesions which may have contributed to the emaciation.

The sentence in line 503-505 has been reworded to

“The primary cause of death was starvation in 16 of 18 (89%) of the emaciated whales, with no apparent pre-existing pathology that would have contributed to suboptimal nutritional condition.”.

Line 412-423: Not sure why this figure legend appears here for a second time?

The repeated text has been removed from lines 444 and 455. Thank you

Line 426: Could the authors provide further information on this entrapment? And how it contributed to the animal’s death?

The animals typically swim under a pier or wharf between pilings and are unable to escape. Animals have been observed to become agitated with repeat efforts to escape. A specific cause of death has not yet been determined for these mortalities, but we hypothesize that an exertional or capture type myopathy (related to metabolic acidosis and low oxygen levels, hypoxia) may be contributing factors.

A statement has been added to line 541-543 “The proximate cause of death of this animal has not yet been fully resolved but may be associated with exertional or capture type myopathy.” And references 48 and 49 added.

Line 455-466: Not sure why this figure legend appears here for a third time?

The legend text has been removed from line 494-505, thank you

Line 468: Consider adding ‘likely’ before cause of death, since these results included gross examination only and no histology (thus far, as written).

Histopathology would have been conducted in these cases, but with post mortem decomposition or incomplete tissue sampling, determination of a specific cause of death may have been hindered. “Likely” has been added. Thank you

Discussion

Line 550: Please add ‘as’ after as well and before body condition.

added, thank you

Line 559: This is an example of where consideration of welfare could be adopted.

Thank you, a statement has been added to line 725-726

“In live strandings, animal welfare considerations and consultation with clinical veterinarians is warranted. “ A citation has been added to the text, reference 53, Boys et al, 2022.

Line 561: Based on histology of these cutaneous erosions were these ante or post-mortem?

Based on the historical information, clinical signs and gross findings, these ulcers were considered antemortem. Not all ulcers were sampled for histologic review and in many cases, defects in the skin result in osmotic breach, imbibed water, and bacterial overgrowth which may hinder microscopic evaluation of the tissues. The histopathology typically features lysis of the exposed dermis, which can be difficult to differentiate between ante and post mortem.

Line 569: This paragraph is an example of where the links among welfare of individuals and conservation of the populations could be highlighted.

The following statement has been added to line In live stranding situations, animal welfare considerations and consultation with appropriately experienced clinical veterinarians is warranted . Boys et al reference has been added to line 723, reference 53.

Lines 576-579: It would be interesting to know if during this UME there have been any potentially associated out of habitat incidents?

There have not been any out of habitat incidents associated with this UME. It is normal for these animals to travel close to shore, but spending days to weeks in SF Bay to forage is new behavior which puts them in the shipping channels for extended periods of time.

Interestingly there was an increase in gray whale in SF Bay in 1999/2000 as well as this UME. We have added information about this lines 790-801 with references 30 and 54 added.

Line 589: Are there any environmental or fisheries data available across this time period to consider modelling such changes alongside the UME?

Yes, and looking at the longer gray whale stranding record. A recent manuscript has just been published (Stewart et al 2023 Boom-bust cycles in gray whales associated with dynamic and changing Arctic conditions). A team of investigators modelled the effects of sea ice loss, duration of access to foraging areas, and benthic fauna abundance and biomass and demonstrated a significant association with whale mortality and reproductive output.

We purposely focused on the pathology in this paper, and work to combine nutritional condition and cause of death information in UME and non-UME years will be much bigger effort.

Line 591: This brings up the question again of whether any animals were considered out of habitat? Or whether this is due to their typical habitat being degraded?

The distribution of reported dead whales is along the migratory corridor. There have been anecdotal reports of individual adult or cow calf pairs foraging in shallow mud flats, but not associated with mortality. In the past, individual gray whales have migrated up the Sacramento River in California but there have been no out of habitat cases documented during this UME (please refer to response above and lines 790-801 in the track changes manuscript.

Line 615: Was there any relation with the discoloration of the blubber and unusual gastric contents?

There were no consistent relations between gastric contents and discoloration of the blubber. With discolorations of this type, we consider either endogenous or exogenous pigments. Endogenous pigments may include jaundice or another metabolic byproduct. In this case, we think exogenous pigments are more likely, possibly related to prey shifts and increased consumption of crustaceans (carotenoids); however, due to inconsistencies in post mortem state, examination of gastric contents, stranding locations, and body condition, it was difficult to infer a specific mechanism for the discoloration.

Line 619: It would be interesting to have further discussion of the vessel strike injuries in this paragraph and related welfare and conservation issues.

This is an important consideration and, we have added text to highlight the need for animal welfare considerations with the live animal strandings and the increased risk of vessel strike if malnourished animals are spending more time foraging within high traffic areas along the migration route.

We are very concerned about the animal welfare issues, this year (2023 - beyond the timeline of this paper), a vessel strike whale was observed alive and injured in San Francisco Bay prior to stranding dead. That is helping us to mobilize various interests within the bay to think about how to avoid hitting whales.

Line 623: Are these common/typical habitats for these animals to be in?

Yes, the gray whales transit a series of shipping lanes in more populated areas along the coast San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Seattle. They hug the coastline (maybe to avoid killer whales?) and shipping lanes going in and out of ports are a concern.

Line 649: Is there a reference available for this information?

This statement was added at the request of a coauthur (JR) in Oregon. Although only a small number of dead whales are reported in OR, there were multiple individuals with gross evidence of rake marks, attributed to killer whales. Similar observations have more recently been observed in the ocean trench off Santa Barbara, CA. Unfortunately, these reports are anecdotal and to the best of our knowledge, have not yet been published. As part of cohort of animals that presented with evidence of killer whale predation, there has been some discussion of drafting manuscript, but there is still insufficient necropsy data to confirm ante versus post mortem attacks and whether evasive flight from killer whales may result in live strandings and subsequent deaths.

Line 658: Was there any live stranding response effort with this calf and relevant live data collected? This would also be an example for discussion of potential welfare implications associated with this UME.

Yes there was, however, the calf was dead by the time responders arrived.

Line 661: Is it therefore presumed that this was likely related to the live stranding event? If no other underlying causes for stranding appeared present, is it possible that stranding was due to maternal-filial separation?

Yes, this may be a consideration, but the separation may be related to maternal loss, neglect or mismothering. Without direct field observation it is difficult to specify a cause of the stranding. Lack of colostral consumption and nursing may have resulted in hypoglycemia and with generalized weakness or debilitation, the neonate or calf may have live stranded and subsequently died.

Line 677: Could you provide some references as suggested further reading

The references below provide a good historical perspective. Both references have been added to the text and list.

Eguchi, T, Lang, AR, Weller, DW. Abundance and migratory phenology of eastern North Pacific gray whales 2021/2022. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-668. 2022. https://doi.org/10.25923/x88y-8p07

Also the recent paper from Steward et al as been added:

Stewart JD, Joyce TW, Durban JW, Calambokidis J, Fauquier D, Fearnbach H, et al. Boom-bust cycles in gray whales associated with dynamic and changing Arctic conditions. Sci. 2023; 382, 207-211

Line 686: Suggestion t include the Moore et al., 2020 paper as a reference for further reading https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2020.00333/full

Reference added, thank you

Line 689: Can you give any indication as to the likely population impact of this UME?

Please refer to comments provided for Lines 871-882. Gray whales have recovered from similar mortality events before, but there is a lot of uncertainty going forward because of the rapidity of change in the Arctic.

Line 696: With the current El Niño do you expect UME strandings may begin to increase again?

Please refer to comments provided for Lines 871-882. Honestly, we’re in new territory with all the changes in the Arctic, plus marine heatwaves, plus a shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation from cold regime to warm regime. We don’t know whether the current El Niño will exacerbate or mitigate any of these impacts on gray whale environment and prey.

Reviewer #2: Review comments

This manus describes necropsy findings and death causes of 61 stranded gray whales Eschrichtius robustus along the west coast of North America and review the number of strandings of 503 gray whales geographically, seasonally, and due to life stage. Mortality causes are related to human interactions and carrying capacity is mentioned as a cause of increased mortality in gray whales. The paper is descriptive and contains no tested hypotheses but contributes valuable knowledge of mortalities in gray whales although based on relatively few individuals.

In general, the manus is well written. However, considering the descriptive and relatively few necropsy data and that only theoretical thoughts of possible environmental cause for the decline in population and calf production of gray whales the manus should be shortened. Some may be done by omitting sentences with spoken language, by avoiding repetitions especially in the discussion and deleting adjectives which do not contribute with exact knowledge.

Some suggestions and questions:

Line 54-83 Abstract is too long and should be no longer than 300 words, reduce some of the background information and focus on purpose and results the review.

The text in lines 54-83 provide a historic perspective of the epidemiology and pathologic findings of a past UME, we have included this information to provide some context about the current study. If possible, we would like to retain this information, but if requested by the editor, can remove the content. As far as we can tell, PLOSONE does not limit abstracts to 300 words. Thank you for your comment and recommendation.

95: “greatest” – I would prefer “highest.”

In line we have changed greatest to largest. Thank you, now line 103 in Track Changes

99: “genetic studies have estimated higher numbers existed through evolutionary time” how high numbers would be interesting to compare with later models?

A separate modeling manuscript on gray whale abundance which takes long term stranding data into consideration is scheduled to publish this month. In this review, we are focused specifically on describing the signalment (age, sex, etc), demographics and post mortem findings (cause of death) of stranded animals.

104-106: “Transformative ecosystem changes have occurred in the summer Bering Strait feeding

grounds [14] with reported local declines in prey abundance and quality [15] which may have a

direct impact on gray whale bioenergetics, fecundity, health, and homeostasis [16]”. Could be written shorter and contain the same information “Changes in the summer Bering Strait feeding

grounds with reported local declines in prey abundance and quality may influence gray whales’ bioenergetics, fecundity, health, and homeostasis [14,15,16]”.

The sentence has been replaced with the suggested text in lines 114-116. Transformative has been retained at the start of the sentence due to the profound changes which have occurred in the region.

105: What are gray whales basic diet?

The primary prey are benthic and epibenthic invertebrates, including amphipods, mysids, crustaceans and plankton. The diet will vary by geographic location and in the north Pacific amphipods and isopods are the primary prey

In lines 119-121, the following statement has been added for additional background information and citations 18, 23, and 24 have been added. Thank you.

The diet varies by geographic location and whether gray whales forage in shallow mud flats or deeper waters and consists primarily of benthic and epibenthic invertebrates, including amphipods, crustaceans, mysids, and plankton.

107: How is calf production measured- by random or systematic sightings?

Systematic sightings, please refer to citation 18 and 60, which has been added to the text, line 130. Thank you.

264: “Reported strandings (including whales with findings reported in this paper)”

Yes. The table refers specifically to data derived by this study.

284: This ads up to 544 is it because calves and fetuses are not included?

The total in the table is 503 and includes 2 whales that stranded in December 2018. There may be some confusion related to the numbers in the parentheses, which reflect the subset of animals that were necropsied (post mortem exam). Per the request of reviewer 1, text has been added to line 353-354 in Track Changes for clarification. Thank you

320: Gross findings- I would prefer -External findings

We respectfully disagree, external findings would be limited to only the appearance of the skin and confirmation of the carcass with some indication of nutritional condition. Gross findings infers both internal and external observations, which are critical to assess ante versus postmortem changes (vital response such as hemorrhage and edema to injuries which may manifest as internal lesions and not readily apparent on external examination). We retained the term Gross findings because it is standard anatomic pathology terminology, and this paper focuses on descriptive pathology.

531-535: Much is repetition- may even be deleted.

We appreciate the comment provided by the reviewer, but respectfully disagree with removal of this statement. The paragraph is intended to provide a summary of the study findings, which are then addressed in more detailed throughout the remainder of the Discussion.

717-721: “UME was invaluable in establishing effective channels of communication and developing and standardizing response protocols across stranding response networks, as well as regional, national, and international governmental partners and agencies which enhanced surveillance and reporting of floating and stranded dead gray whales”. Delete this section. To me this is not a biological conclusion and should not be part of the conclusion. After the biological conclusion it could be mentioned that in future protocols should be standardised and national and international neworks improved.

The first sentence from line 783 has been moved to the end of the paragraph

Reviewer #3: Thank you for letting me reviews this paper. This manuscript studies a very important topic, which is the relevant information that the identification and monitoring of Unusual Mortality Event (UME) are important as they allow scientists and conservation organizations to collect data on possible causes of mortality, assess the impact on the gray whale population, and take measures to protect this endangered species.

The study focuses on the analysis of post-mortem results of gray whales, which means it examines the characteristics and observations made after the death of these animals. The mentioned unusual mortality event refers to a period when an abnormally high number of gray whales died in the Northeast Pacific region.

The purpose of this study is therefore to analyze these post-mortem results in order to better understand this phenomenon of unusual mortality in gray whales. This could help determine the possible causes of these deaths and develop conservation and protection measures for this endangered species.

I have directly written my comments and some corrections in the manuscript.

Thank you for your comments and editorial suggestions on the manuscript. We have tried our best to refer to the lines identified in the original version, but the responses below indicate the line number in the revised version.

Abstract, lines 74-83. We respectfully disagree with removal of this text. Although it is not a direct reflection of findings from our paper, the text provides important historic context in terms of population trends, a prior unusual mortality event and potential contributing factors to the decline in the number of eastern Pacific gray whales.

Introduction

Line 91, the added before western, thank you

Line 95, have has been changed to has, thank you

Line 102, comma inserted after recovery

Line 105, thought to be, has been replaced was probably less than 30,000…

Line 106, that placed before higher.

Line 109 has been revised. The 2015/2016 eastern Pacific gray whale abundance estimate was 26,960 individuals, which declined to 20,580 in 2019/2020 and further to 16,650 in 2021/2022 [13].

Lines 114-116, text revised, thank you, but some elements from the original sentence have been retained. We hope this may be acceptable.

Transformative changes in the summer Bering Strait feeding grounds [14] with reported local declines in prey abundance and quality [15], which may have a direct impact on gray whale bioenergetics, fecundity, health, and homeostasis [16].

Lines 114 and 115 comma added after [14] and [15]

Line 122, 23 year inserted for 23- year

Line 127, content of parentheses revised to i.e., fewer ice-free days

Line 130 comma inserted after [20,13], please note reference list expanded and the citation numbers have been updated

Line 133, the impacts replaced to impacts, thank you

Line 136, for clarification, the start of the sentence has been rephrased to These traumatic injuries may be .. we would to retain this statement in the text.

Line 139, north replaced with North thank you

Line 150, comma inserted after North America, please note that per the request of reviewer 4, this text has been removed.

Line 151, a replaced with the, please see comment for line 150

Line 152, due to the small number of examined animals and anecdotal reporting, we cannot assign a percentage for this finding.

Line 155, the sentence describes the pathologic findings in 3 animals, one with encephalitis, one with heavy intestinal parasitism and another with high domoic acid levels. If possible, we would like to retain this sentence as it provides a brief overview of prior diagnostic findings.

Line 153, an has been removed.

Line 153, 155, reference changed to 25 and now revised to 30.

Line 157, the list of environmental and disease processes provided in this sentence (from citation listed as 25), are general considerations, but not conclusive findings from the 3 examined dead animals during the UME. This statement was included in the text as baseline considerations for disease investigations with stranded animal. We would like to retain the sentence as stated in the text as it reflects the cited publication.

Line 294, or replaced with comma

Thank you for the comments about missing statistics. We have re-worked the Results section extensively to avoid redundancy between text and tables and deleting statements that would have required statistical testing. We should not have made those statements as this is a subset of data. Our intent is to describe out dataset and put it in context, but not to make any assertions about differences between years, regions, age classes, or other factors. Table 6, Title changed to Significant causes of death, the summary removed from Causes of Death and totals changed to total with an additional row added under undetermined, the X’s were placeholders and have been revised. Table 7 refers to the nutritional condition of stranded animals. Thank you for your comments and suggestions.

Lines 388-390 Table 6 revisions and Line 465, Table 6 removed as it was a duplicate

Line 916 here have found has been removed. Thank you

Reviewer #4: The authors present an analysis of the recent and ongoing gray whale unusual mortality event (UME) in the Eastern North Pacific. They compare this UME to a previous UME and highlight a south to north gradient in potential causes of mortality. I think this work is interesting, and the potential approximately 23 periodicity in these events is especially interesting and insightful to future conservation efforts for this species.

However, the manuscript as it currently stands is poorly written. There are many verbose sections that are written in the passive voice that need to be converted to the active voice. UME is referenced in the text before it is defined. Portions of the text feel like they conflict each other, especially when discussing what samples are considered regarding orca-related mortality. The text needs to be consolidated and written concisely.

With the constructive comments provided by reviewers 1, 2 and 3, portions of the text in the manuscript have been refined. We have also revised portions of the text from a passive to active voice. We have deleted extraneous information and combined some previously redundant sections: we went from 10, 245 words to 7800 words.

Unusual mortality event (UME) has been corrected in lines 113 and 152.

For additional corrections, please refer to the bottom of this text.

Furthermore, the results are quickly lost in the jargon of the manuscript, which currently feels like it was written as an internal report rather than a broader audience. It is very difficult to follow along with the conclusions drawn by the authors as a result. Most of the results describe diseases and conditions that are not understood by a general audience and there is no attempt to define most of, if not all, of these terms. These intricate details may be better suited for a supplement.

We respectfully disagree with your assessment of the use of scientific and pathologic terms in the manuscript. For those scientists, veterinarians and pathologists interested in marine mammal health, familiarity with these terms will help understand disease processes in gray whales and other marine mammal species. As many disease processes described in this paper have not previously been well documented in gray whales, extrapolation of nomenclature from terrestrial and other marine mammal species informs how to investigate disease and provides some insights into differentials and diagnostic strategies.

Most of the results are simply regurgitating the tables presented (some of which are duplicated in my copy of the manuscript). I feel like 1) the results text should not simply restate the tables and 2) that the results would be easier to comprehend using maps to illustrate the spatial distribution of causes of mortality. This would better help illustrate the S-N gradient the authors discuss. The current figures (images of biopsy samples) are not useful to a broader audience without a background in pathology or marine mammals, and also don’t translate well to grayscale.

We agree that text describing the tables was duplicative and we have deleted it.

We respectfully disagree with the reviewer regarding the figures. Initially, we had 4 maps to demonstrate the trends in causes of death across the N-S gradient but concluded that there would have been too many figures for this paper. The figures and images will be reformatted in TIF which should improve the image quality. The photographs of the gross findings as well as the blubber sections provide perspective for future efforts to conduct field necropsies and we believe these are essential for the manuscript. The photomicrographs reflect findings of unique microscopic features which to the best of our knowledge, have not been well documented in gray whales.

There is also no attempt to perform any statistical analysis on these data. The authors state that they do not have enough sample points to perform statistical analysis but do not perform any power calculations to back this up. Statistical analysis should be performed and would strengthen the manuscript considerably.

We apologize for making statements that need statistics and have deleted these from the results section.

The lack of statistical analysis is purposeful because this paper is descriptive. If we were comparing age class, sex, or location between UME and non-UME years, statistics would be important. This may be something that could be done in the future when there is sufficient non-UME stranding and PME data has been compiled. Prior to this UME, range wide response to stranded and dead whales was often sporadic and uncoordinated such that the numerators and denominators between this UME and previous years will have to be handled with care. One of the major achievements of this UME investigation has been to coordinate and inform responders from Mexico, the continental US, Canada, and Alaska to support and train each other.

Coauthors and outside reviewers have asked if the vessel strike animals were more nutritionally compromised than the others, but the sample size really was too small to evaluate nutritional condition (with 4 categories) versus vessel strike in 11 animals. A power analysis would also be confusing here (is the question how many vessel strike whale would we need to prove that more than 50% are thinner than expected on their northbound migration to their foraging grounds? We are still developing case definitions and quantitative analysis protocols to detect and better define thinner than expected whales).

I think ultimately, as we look at specific high risk areas (San Francisco Bay for example), we can look at the historical data and a growing body of live animal research to understand if vessel strikes have increased. We assume the risk of vessel strike will increase if whales frequent or spend more time in the bay. As a result, the question becomes…does nutritional condition on the wintering grounds predict the likelihood of increased residence time and risk of vessel strike in San Francisco Bay? This would require statistics and modelling and is well beyond the scope of our dataset and the focus of this paper.

I think the most interesting part of this paper is the potential 23 periodicity in UME and unfortunately, this or any other environmental drivers of the UME are not discussed. I understand the division of labor across a diverse research team such as this one and the desire to publish results sooner rather than later. However, I think the manuscript would be strengthened significantly if these mortality results were correlated to the environmental variables in the same manuscript.

As stated previously, the focus of this paper is descriptive pathology of examined whale carcasses and not population modelling or demographics. As mentioned in the comments provided to the other reviewers, a separate paper has recently been published that describes the environmental drivers of the gray whale population numbers. It highlights decreases in the population that correspond with the UMEs and our focus was to characterize the gross and microscopic findings of the stranded animals during the UME. In the prior UME from 1998-2002, to the best of our knowledge, only 3 animals were necropsied, and the intent of our study was to examine as many animals as possible to establish baseline information on health and causes of death during the current event. Without prior data, it is difficult to place our findings in context with respect to whether the incidence of a specific cause of death or potential anthropogenic event is stable, increasing or decreasing over time. This paper reviews post mortem findings of stranded animals provide trends in mortality to compare with ongoing annual, and any future unusual mortality events. Thank you for your comments with regards to the manuscript.

Based on these comments, I am recommending to reject this manuscript and encourage the authors to resubmit their manuscript when the environmental analysis is complete and can be added to these results.

We understand your concern and hope they will be allayed somewhat by the publication of Stewart et al 2023 which models the long term periodicity of the gray whale calf production, mortality, and nutritional condition (based on photogrammetry of live whales) with possible environmental drivers.

We have added the results and citation to the manuscript, but the two datasets cannot be meaningfully combined (multidecadal live animal observations with detailed pathology results from a subset of one mortality event). Efforts are underway to figure out how to augment each other’s datasets, but for now, areas of crossover are elusive (for example, nutritional condition from photogrammetry is always determined looking at the whale from above, while dead whales almost always present with their undersides facing up). Our nutritional condition protocol is an initial attempt to bring these processes together and further blubber analyses (which could be done using live biopsy samples and dead whale blubber) are a next step.

We think that the pathology findings reported in this paper are interesting and important in their own right, especially the changes in blubber pathology with nutritional condition in a fasting animal which is a fascinating topic on its own. This is one of the few papers to ever address the gross and histologic pathology of a large number of stranded baleen whales. That alone is justification for publication, and it will add substantially to the global literature on this topic.

Line 165, sentence reworded to be more concise.

Abstract

Line 63, spring has been replaced with fall Line 72 and 73, after Two whales, the text has been revised to were entangled at the time of death and one whale died from entrapment.

Line 75, “could be determined as” and “to have” have been removed.

Line 84, “for the 1999-2000 and current UME” has been removed

Lines 86-87, “eastern North Pacific gray whale” has been removed.

Introduction

line 91 after and, the has been inserted

line 93, after The, latter has been inserted and PCFG whale removed

line 95, after population, have has been replaced with has

line 96, after Russia [1]. The following statement has been inserted. Historically, gray whales were thought to fast during their migration and while resident on the wintering grounds [27]; however, more recent field observations indicate some animals actively forage during the southward and northward migrations [20, 28-30].

Line 103, per another reviewer, greatest has been replaced with largest

line 107, The 2015/2016 gray whale abundance estimate was 26,960 individuals, which declined to 20,580 in 2019/2020 and further to 16,650 in 2021/2022 [13] has been revised to the text in line 109, The 2015/2016 gray whale abundance estimate was 26,960 individuals, which declined to 20,580 in 2019/2020 and further to 16,650 in 2021/2022 [13].

Line 110, Similar has been replaced with Since, 1967 and later in the sentence, in line 111, from a time series since 1967, occurred has been replaced with “were detected”

Line 113, after 1999-2001 Unusual Mortality Event (UME) has been inserted. Thank you

Line 114, the paragraph first sentence to has been changed to “Transformative changes in the summer Bering Strait feeding grounds [14], with reported local declines in prey abundance and quality [15], may have a direct impact on gray whale bioenergetics, fecundity, health, and homeostasis [16].”

Line 119, the sentence now starts as Diet varies, by geographic location and whether foraging in shallow mud flats or deeper waters, and consists primarily of benthic and epibenthic invertebrates, including amphipods, crustaceans, mysids, and plankton. References provided, please see response to reviewer 2.

Line 122, has been replaced with was

Line 125, reference 13 added to the text. For the following sentence, WNP gray whales has been inserted and endangered western gray whale population removed

Line 127, Among the gray whales foraging on the PCFG feeding ground has been removed and a new sentence started with Decreased….after documented, “for PCFG whales” has been inserted.

Line 131, Eastern North Pacific has been replaced with ENP and gray whale has been removed from before population.

Line 133, the inserted after to and before impacts and environmental change on calf production has been reworded to a changing environment, the editorial suggestion by one reviewer has been reconsidered and not included in the text.

Line 136, after These, trauma injuries may be, inserted.

Line 139, north changed to North

Line 141 to gray whales has been removed

Lines 144-151, the paragraph has been reworded to the text contained in lines 152-157. The 1999/2001 gray whale UME resulted in 283 confirmed strandings in 1999 and 368 in 2000 [25] however, only three whales were necropsied during this event and while the cause of death for most whales was not determined, malnutrition was considered a prime contributor to the UME [25]. One animal had encephalitis, another had a heavy intestinal helminth infection, and a third had high levels of domoic acid, a biotoxin, in gut contents [30, 31].

Line 157-159, the sentence has been removed and in line 160, the sentence now starts with However,

Line 161, field observations of has been removed

Line 162 due to the recent increase in abundance has been removed and in line 163, likely has been inserted before contributed. Line 164, dramatic has been removed.

Line 167, As a result… has been replaced with In response to this

Line 170 an has been changed to the and after UME, the text resulted in a federal investigation that facilitated expert consultation, has been removed and the rest of the sentence continued as facilitated coordination.

Line 172, after countries, and has been removed

Line 173, Media reports has been removed and replaced as and heighthend public awareness through increased reporting by the media.

Line 174, the start of the sentence has been changed to Here we present the pathology and ancillary test findings from a …

Lines 175 and 176, and were examined has been removed.

Materials and Methods

Line 180, the sentence has been reworded to “Marine mammal mortalities observed by the public, biologists, enforcement, and indigenous community members were reported to Canadian, Mexican, or US regional marine mammal stranding response networks, and when feasible, trained personnel were mobilized to examine stranded whales.”

Line 185, were collected has been changed to who collected.

Line 188, after different angles, were used was inserted

Line 191, the sentence has been rephrased to “Interpretation of vessel strike was also based on internal and external examination.”

Line 193, has been reworded to Age class was initially determined

Line 195 This was replaced the original text, These were

Line 200 has been reworded, after 2-=3 year olds, “therefore final age”, replaced, finally categorized as

Lines 203-212, the text has been reworded for conciseness and the statement “Carcasses were evaluated for nutritional status using a protocol (Appendix 1) established be a review of carcass photographs obtained at the time of necropsy. The new text is

“Defining emaciation for fasting migratory whales is complicated (for example, blubber depth), while easily measured at necropsy, is not a sensitive measure of nutritional status in gray whales [25]). Because of a lack of available quantitative tests to assess nutritional condition, and to avoid applying different measures of nutrition in different locations, a protocol was developed during this investigation and standardized across all stranding response networks to ensure consistent interpretation of post-mortem nutritional condition (Appendix 1). The protocol evaluated nutritional condition using external features (e.g. the concavity of the epaxial muscle), internal features (e.g. epicardial and mesenteric fat stores), and microscopic evaluation of full thickness blubber sections (e.g. for evidence of adipocyte atrophy or stromal collapse).”

Line 221, the was inserted before nutritional score and the following sentences were modified for clarity to “Carcasses were assigned into one of four nutritional scores: Emaciated (1), thin (2), average (3) and fat (4). Furthermore, the disposition of each stranding at reporting was defined as alive (1), fresh dead (2), moderate decomposition (3), advanced decomposition (4), mummified (5), or undetermined (6) [41].”

To improve the flow of information, the following text was moved to line 226. “Where the carcass code was scored as between decomposition states (e.g., 2.5 or 3.5), [38], the post-mortem state was assigned to the more advanced decomposition state for tabulation and analysis.”

Lines 229-235 have been reworded to “Post-mortem examinations (PMEs) were performed as thoroughly and systematically as possible contingent on multiple variables including, but not limited to, carcass access (eg. beach cast or floating), state of decomposition, human safety (including restrictions imposed by the Covid19 pandemic in 2020), tides, available daylight, and weather. For fresher floating carcasses or those with external evidence of traumatic injuries, efforts were made to tow the animal ashore to a secure and accessible site.”

Line 238, under was replaced with below and later in the sentence, “sampling of” was inserted before skin and blubber.

Sentences in lines 239-248 were reworded and shortened to follow. “Criteria for inclusion in this study were a full gross PME and, for most cases, sampling for histopathology. Exclusions were based on incomplete PMEs or microscopic assessment of sampled tissues, even if they were confirmed, probable, or suspect cases of human or killer whale interaction. As such, the numbers reported herein are a minimum and represent a subset of the full UME response and investigation.”

Lines 250 -254 revised for conciseness to “Trauma was inferred by evidence of epidermal lacerations or incisions, hemorrhage, edema and necrosis or maceration of skeletal muscle, and skeletal fractures. While entanglement was documented based on presence of foreign material attached to the carcass and determined to have been present at the time of death [43].

Line 256, rephrased and the sentence now reads as. Response level varied and in

Lines 262-271 reworded to shorten the text to “predation events including missing portions of the tongue or the mandibles, semilunar tissue defects (bite wounds), avulsion of sheets of blubber and skin,”

Line 269, Premortem killer whale was removed, and the sentence reworded to Predation.

Line 271, after rake marks, “and on histology” was inserted.

Line 272, The first sentence has been reworded for conciseness to “A case definition of killer whale predation was formulated based on the literature to consistently evaluate the gross lesions and assign a level of diagnostic certainty (Appendix 2).”

Lines 278-282 deleted.

Line 283 was rephrased to Pigment…..

Line 284, after re-epithelialization “were used” was inserted

Line 287 Also considered here was replaced with “Other factors” and after with “the” was inserted.

Line 290, at the end of the statement “were included in diagnosis of a predation event” was inserted.

Line 296 the sentence was reworded, and the text shortened and reformatted into two separate statements. “Fixed tissues were trimmed, placed in cassettes and processed using conventional histologic methodology and stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E). When indicated, Tort’s Gram stain, Periodic Acid Schiff (PAS) and Perl’s stain (for iron) and reviewed by veterinary pathologists.”

Lines 300-301 to better define the life history samples, the sentence was reworded to “When feasible, baleen, ear plug (wax), stomach contents, full thickness blubber, and ovaries were archived for later life-history studies.”

Lines 315-317, information regarding the use of the open access map for Figure 1 is included and the program details provided. The sentence is “ Reported stranding locations (in decimal degrees) were mapped using ArcGIS Pro 2.8.0 with Natural Earth base maps (naturalearthdata.com).”

Line 333, There were no was inserted before PME data

Lines 335, 349, 378, 387, and 407 the Legend text has been revised with a better explanation of the numbers within the parentheses.

Line 335: Table 1. Gray whale strandings by location and year (17 December 2018 to 31 December 2021). MX = Mexico, CA=California, OR=Oregon, WA=Washington, BC=British Columbia, AK=Alaska. The number in parentheses is the subset of whales for which a full PME and sampling were conducted.

Line 353. Table 2. Gray whales stranded by month in Mexico, the United States and Canada. MX = Mexico, CA=California, OR=Oregon, WA=Washington, BC=British Columbia, AK=Alaska. The number in the parentheses is the subset of whales examined and sampled.

Line 381. Table 3. Gray whales stranded in Mexico, the United States and Canada by age class and geographic location from south to north. MX = Mexico, CA=California, OR=Oregon, WA=Washington, BC=British Columbia, AK=Alaska. The number in the parentheses is the subset of whales included in this study.

Line 390, Table 4. Gray whale strandings by sex and year. MX = Mexico, CA=California, OR=Oregon, WA=Washington, BC=British Columbia, AK=Alaska. The number in the parentheses is the subset of whales with a full post mortem examination (PME).

Line 413, Table 5. Gray whales stranded in Mexico, the United States and Canada by decomposition state and geographic location from south to north. MX = Mexico, CA=California, OR=Oregon, WA=Washington, BC=British Columbia, AK=Alaska. Decomposition state is recorded at the time of examination, however for whales that were not examined, this staging refers to the decomposition state at first observation. The number in the parentheses is the subset of whales included in this study.

Line 366 To reduce repetition, the bulk of the text form the paragraph was removed, and the remainder includes. “The demographics of all the reported gray whales, as well as the subset discussed in this paper (in parentheses) are described in Tables 3 and 4 by location and year. The only newborn noted outside of Mexico was a fetus reported in BC [37].”

Line 395- to 400, text deleted to minimize repetition. The text now reads “Carcass decomposition varied with 10 mummified animals (2.0%), 251 (50.0%) in advanced decomposition, 175 (34.8%) in moderate decomposition, 51 (10.1%) fresh dead, and 3 (0.6%) that were initially observed alive (Table 5).”

Line 402, the first statement was moved from the Materials and Methods to Results section. The following statement was revised with the numbers corrected. The text now reads “Of the 61 selected whales, a cause of death was attributed for 33 cases (54%, Table 6, Figs. 1 and 2). This included 16 whales with emaciation as the only post mortem finding, 11 whales with evidence of vessel strike (including two that were also emaciated, three whales with pre-mortem killer whale attack (two probable, one suspect), two entanglement cases, and one entrapment.”

Line 463, Table 7 inserted at the end of the sentence.

Line 468, text removed, and the sentence rewritten to could not be determined for various reasons including limited photographic...

Line 477, CBD- Could not be determined added in reference to the last column in the table.

Line 490-492. The text was reworded to “The reason for the color variation of the blubber was not determined but was observed in the more severely malnourished animals (seven were emaciated and seven were thin).”

Line 492 was revised to a more active tone to “Stomach contents were not consistently present and/or recorded, but wood chips, bark, eel grass, kelp, and some prey were identified in a few animals”

Line 495, Gray spelling corrected.

Line 500, hyphen inserted after plant and before based.

Line 503 sentence revised and shortened to “The primary cause of death was starvation in 16 of 18 (89%) of the emaciated whales, with no apparent pre-existing pathology that would have contributed to suboptimal nutritional condition.”

Line 509, other inserted after were and before processes and later in the sentence, after in the “death” was inserted.

Line 514, text removed to shorten sentence to Vessel strike was the cause of death in….

Line 517, after varied for, these cases was inserted.

Line 538, after entrapped in, wharf pilings was inserted

Line 540, for clarification, that may have resulted was inserted after one entanglement…

Line 547, after At, necropsy was replaced with PME

Line 549, However removed at the start of the sentence which now reads as Advanced autolysis…

Line 550, after obscured “similar” was inserted.

Line 551, revised to have impacted the health…

Lines 558 to 569. To make the text less redundant, a number of phrases have been revised. The new text is

“Nineteen cases, eight adults and 11 subadults, had lesions consistent with killer whale interaction characterized by acute lacerations or chronic (healed) scars. The latter were observed on 14 whales predominantly on the tips of the fins, flukes, or more rarely along the rostrum. Five carcasses had more acute active lesions consistent with recent killer whale predation: and the likelihood that predation contributed to mortality was categorized as probable for two cases (eg. Figs. 2F and 2G), suspect for one case, and could not be determined in two cases (Fig. 2H).”

Line 570, after for these “five whales were variable.

Line 572, after animals with, chronic non-lethal

Line 600, to condense the text, the sentence was revised to “Microscopic findings were categorized by organ system and (Table 8) the most common findings. The table number was corrected from 7 to 8.

Line 608, the sentence was moved to this paragraph. Sporadic and incidental diagnoses included adrenal and myocardial hemorrhage, penile papilloma, myocellular sarcocystosis (Fig. 6D), glossitis and lingual mucosal inclusions (Figs. 6E and 6F), gastric erosions and enteric cestodiasis (Table 8).

Line 628, Table 8, a statement was added to the end of the Legend for clarification “Multiple morphologic diagnoses in individual tissue sections accounted for a total number of diagnoses greater than the 53 of 61 animals that were evaluated microscopically.”

Discussion:

Lines 659-662: For conciseness, the two sentences were changed to

“The resulting UME declaration by the NMFS enabled this pathologic assessment of stranded whales. While emaciation was speculated to have had a role in the previous 1999/2000 gray whale UME, this investigation confirmed its significant role in the 2019/2021 event. The resulting UME declaration by the NMFS enabled this pathologic assessment of stranded whales.”

Line 674, to be more specific, achieved through the nutritional condition protocol (SI 1) was inserted.

Lines 678, the sentence was reworded after this investigation, and when combined with validated biomarker measurements should be invaluable with future nutritional health assessments.

Lines 681-687, the text has been reworded for conciseness. The new paragraph now reads,

The gradation in atrophy of adipose tissue through the blubber layer reported here suggests that greater effort is required to differentiate atrophy associated with physiologic fasting from atrophy of malnutrition. This would better inform decisions on body condition and enable researchers to factor it into the nutritional condition score matrix in the future (Appendix 1). Because of logistical challenges at the time of PME and varying states of tissue decomposition, not all organs or tissues were systematically examined or collected, so histologic lesions were likely underrepresented. Advanced autolysis in many cases also precluded evaluation of possible endogenous pigments, including endogenous bile or exogenous compounds, such as carotenoids. The accumulation of hepatic iron and atrophy of skeletal muscle in animals stranded in WA and CA substantiated the gross diagnosis of thin or emaciated animals. Hepatocellular hemosiderosis can also be associated with acute infections (with iron sequestration), chronic inflammation, a maladaptive type syndrome, excessive dietary iron consumption, and other factors. However, significant inflammatory lesions were not observed in these cases.

Line 699, of added before stranded

Line 700, as well as corrected

Line 702 revised to more active prose. For example, photogrammetry has detected. And reference 16 added at the end of this statement.

Line 702, after In addition, these methods used was insered.

Line 705, n=14, one period removed.

line 706, for clarification after northward migration “because they have been fasting” was inserted into the text.

Line 710, a period is inserted after reference 25, and new sentence started with Ectoparasite

Line 724, per request of reviewer 1 a statement regarding ethical considerations has been inserted.

Line 790. To convey the information more succinctly, the text related to extralimital detection of gray whales has been reworded and revised. The new paragraph is below. The information has been repositioned and combined with the vessel strike paragraph.

We did not observe an association between suboptimal nutritional status and increased propensity for traumatic injury. Rather, extralimital foraging efforts on the northern migration and increased residence time in coastal bays and sounds on the west coast (e.g. San Francisco Bay, CA, Puget Sound, WA and Port of Los Angeles, CA) increases the time spent in shipping lanes and may increase the risk of vessel strike, exposure to sound disturbances, and possible disorientation. During this UME, gray whales were observed foraging in San Francisco Bay for periods of time up to a month (Markowitz et al. 2022). The increased overlap between whales and shipping lanes is concerning from species conservation and individual animal health and welfare perspectives.

Line 746, text removed, “or the population of gray whales may be approaching carrying capacity. “

Line 748, within replaced with as

Lines 767-775, to reduce the repetitiveness of the text, the paragraph has been revised and large segments deleted. -

In this case series it is difficult to infer a direct association between the salmon coloration of the blubber observed in WA whales and malnutrition and hepatocellular hemosiderosis. The salmon coloration was distinct from jaundice and was most likely due to exogenous pigment deposition, possibly related to prey shifts and consumption of a diet richer in carotenoids. The subcutaneous edema noted in a few cases of discolored blubber may be secondary to hypoproteinemia, localized trauma, or impaired vascular perfusion as a consequence of live stranding.

Line 802: Further a has been removed and the start of the sentence has been revised to Analysis…the paragraph has also been edited for conciseness and references updated.

Line 802, Rake marks or scars has been inserted at the start of the sentence and baleen inserted before whale species at the end of the sentence.

Line 805, this sentence has been with the following text changes: photographic study of free ranging was inserted at the start of the sentence for clarity and with 42% affected added to the end of the sentence.

Line 806, the start of the sentence has been modified to For fetal predation cases documented in AK,

Line 809, the sentence has been reordered for clarification, In addition, there may also be and after detachment, or stripping of skin has been removed.

Line 812, and evisceration added at the end of the sentence

Line 815, text removed and the text “bite wounds on the margins of the pectoral flippers and flukes’ inserted.

Line 817, for this and future events was inserted to further substantiate the development of the killer whale case definition

Line 819, will help inserted

Line 822, the text in this sentence was revised for clarity and to limit word usage to

“External examinations of gray whales that did not meet selection criteria for this study, particularly those stranded in OR where full PME was not always feasible , often revealed substantial evidence of killer whale interactions”

Line 834, after several hours on a beach was revised to before the network was able to respond.

Line 843, text removed Due to inclement weather, etc, and the sentence revised to Internal examinations can not be pursued

Line 851, in progress replaced with on-going

Line 852, rare inserted before fresh carcasses

Line 855, reference 18 inserted.

Line 1553, Alaska changed to AK

Line 860, references 57 and 59 inserted

Line 863, reference revised from 40 to 52.

Lines 871-882 and 886 to 896, the text has been revised and shortened to below.

During the UME, the population of eastern north Pacific gray whales declined from approximately 28,000 animals to 14,000 of which 501 were reported stranded along the western seaboard of Mexico, the United States and Canada. A new analysis modeling the long term periodicity of the gray whale calf production, mortality, and nutritional condition with environmental drivers (Stewart et al, 2023) found that periodic reductions in gray whale numbers were associated with prey availability and access to feeding areas in the Arctic. This model fits with malnutrition as the primary finding in investigations of the 1999-2000 and 2019-2021 events.

As the Arctic continues to change, the synergy between environmental influences, prey availability, nutritional condition, calf production, and mortality are increasingly important for understanding the fate of the ENP gray whale population. In particular, the impact of oceanic thermal anomalies in the North Pacific [56], unprecedented loss of winter sea ice and extreme summer sea surface temperatures in the Bering and Chukchi marine shelf ecosystems between 2017 and 2019, and changes in infaunal, benthic and pelagic prey abundance and nutritive quality to the morbidity and mortality of gray whales require further research [14-16]. The current data and review of the 2019-2021 strandings, as well as comparison with the epidemiologic and necropsy findings from the 1999-2000 UME, support the hypothesis that these events are likely recurring and transitory.

Line 897, Finally has been removed and the sentence starts with The roles and citation 57 has been changed to 62

Line 902 The text at the start of the paragraph: “Grey whales continue to strand, and sampling is ongoing with more data and testing to be conducted on archived samples” has been removed.

Line 905, gray whale population has been inserted and replaces whales

Lines 915-922 have been revised and select text removed for succinctness.

The preliminary findings from the subset of 61 whales in this study have shown that malnutrition, vessel strikes, killer whale predation, gear entanglement and entrapment were variably implicated. The necropsy findings of malnutrition support the observations of poor body condition in live free ranging whales and low calf recruitment during the UME period suggesting that environmental drivers are impacting the Eastern North Pacific gray whale population.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

pone.0295861.s004.docx (89.5KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Vitor Hugo Rodrigues Paiva

1 Dec 2023

Gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) post-mortem findings from December 2018 through 2021 during the Unusual Mortality Event in the Eastern North Pacific

PONE-D-23-22593R1

Dear Dr. Raverty,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Vitor Hugo Rodrigues Paiva, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The manuscript has improved considerably. I answered yes to the quesition concerning statistical analysis. There are no hypoteses to be tested, but the conclusions are based on sound data.

Reviewer #3: I thoroughly read your manuscript and think that you have improved it significantly. The revisions you've made have strengthened the overall structure and coherence of the content, making it more engaging and compelling. I recommend this manuscript for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Vitor Hugo Rodrigues Paiva

26 Feb 2024

PONE-D-23-22593R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Raverty,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Vitor Hugo Rodrigues Paiva

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Appendix. Dead whale nutritional condition protocol_Nov2023.

    Gray Whale UME Dead Whale Nutritional Condition Protocol & Table.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0295861.s001.docx (14.2MB, docx)
    S2 Appendix. Case definition_ GW KW predation 2023.06.15.

    Case Definition: Killer Whale Predation as the Cause of Death in Gray Whales in Alaska.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0295861.s002.docx (37.1KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: POLS ONE-D-23-22593_reviewer - Comments.pdf

    pone.0295861.s003.pdf (2.2MB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    pone.0295861.s004.docx (89.5KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    Third party data are publicly available from NOAA (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2019-2023-gray-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-west-coast-and). Additional data is available as Supporting Information.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES