Risk Assessment of Whale Entanglement and Vessel Strike Injuries From Case Narratives and Classification Trees

• Published in: Frontiers in Marine Science 2022-06, Vol.9
• Main Authors: Carretta, James V., Henry, Allison G.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: classification tree; entanglement; injuries; random forest; vessel strike; whale
• ISSN: 2296-7745; 2296-7745
• DOI: 10.3389/fmars.2022.863070

Entanglements and vessel strikes impact large whales worldwide. Post-event health status is often unknown because whales are seen once or over short spans that conceal long-term health declines. Well-studied populations with high site fidelity verified by photo-ID offer opportunity to confirm deaths, health declines and recoveries. We used known outcome entanglements and vessel strikes of right whales ( Eubalaena glacialis ) and humpback whales ( Megaptera novaeangliae ) to model probabilities of deaths, health declines and recoveries with Random Forest (RF) classification trees. Variables included presence or absence of phrases from case narratives (‘deep laceration’, ‘cyamid’, ‘healing’, ‘superficial’) and a categorical variable for vessel size. Health status post-entanglement was correctly classified in 95.7% of right whale and 93.6% of humpback whale cases (expected by chance=50%). Health status post-vessel strike was correctly classified in 91.4% of right whale and 88.6% of humpback whale cases. Important variables included cyamid presence, emaciation, discolored skin, constricting entanglements, gear-free resightings, superficial or healing lacerations, and vessel size. Cross-validated RF models were applied to unknown outcome cases to estimate the probability of deaths, health declines and recoveries. Total serious injuries (probability of death or health decline > 0.50) assigned by RF were nearly equal to current injury assessment methods applied by biologists for known outcomes. However, RF consistently predicted higher serious injury totals for unknown outcomes, suggesting that current assessment methods may underestimate risk for cases lacking details or long-term observations. Advantages of the RF method include: 1) risk models are based on known outcomes; 2) unknown outcomes are assigned post-event health status probabilities; and 3) identification of important predictor variables improves data collection standards.