MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411005425 · doi:10.1002/ece3.71444

The Foe You Know: Observations of Interspecific Interactions Between Small Cetaceans and Northern Resident Killer Whales ( <scp> <i>Orcinus orca</i> </scp> ) in the Northeast Pacific

2025· article· en· W4411005425 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Brittany C. Visona‐Kelly, Lance Barrett‐Lennard

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology and Evolution · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsRaincoast Conservation Foundation
FundersFisheries and Oceans CanadaTransport CanadaMolson FoundationKenneth M. Molson FoundationSeaWorld and Busch Gardens Conservation Fund
KeywordsInterspecific competitionFisheryEcologyGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We documented the first aerial observations of interspecific interactions of fish‐eating, northern resident killer whales ( Orcinus orca ) with two small cetacean species, Dall's porpoises ( Phocoenoides dalli ) and Pacific white‐sided dolphins ( Lagenorhynchus obliquidens ), off northeastern Vancouver Island, BC, Canada. Specifically, we used drone‐collected data to compare observations of porpoises and dolphins interacting with northern resident killer whales to understand factors which may promote interspecific interactions. From 2018 to 2021, 42 interactions were opportunistically recorded of Dall's porpoises (19%), Pacific white‐sided dolphins (74%), and both species (7%) approaching groups of traveling, milling, socializing, and resting northern resident killer whales. The mean group size of killer whales during interactions with dolphins (an average of 8 killer whales) and porpoises (an average of 3 killer whales) was significantly different. Porpoises interacted only with small groups ( n ≤ 5) of killer whales, while dolphins interacted with larger groups ( n ≥ 25). This suggests that the likelihood of interaction by each species is influenced by killer whale group size. However, the age and sex composition of killer whale groups, as well as the number of small cetaceans present, were found to have no significant effect on interaction patterns. Additionally, we never observed killer whales initiating interactions. We discuss several adaptive benefits, including antipredator, foraging, hydrodynamic, and social advantages, to dolphins and porpoises that may drive the observed interactions. The benefits of interactions appeared to be predominantly antipredator‐focused and species‐specific, with both species possibly also benefiting from increased hydrodynamic efficiency while swimming. While opportunistic, our observations provide detailed accounts of non‐predatory interactions between small cetacean species and northern resident killer whales. Future studies focusing on the drivers of mixed‐species group formation in the North Pacific are needed, and we suggest that these utilize drones as a platform for data collection.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology and EvolutionSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207