The combined use of organochlorine contaminant profiles and molecular genetics for stock discrimination of white whales (Delphinapterus leucas) hunted in three communities on southeast Baffin Island

Abstract

Putative stock differences in white whales (Delphinapterus leucas) landed by hunters between 1992 and 1996 from the southeast Baffin Island communities of Kimmirut (KI), Iqaluit (IQ) and Pangnirtung (PA) were examined using organochlorine contaminant (OC) profiles of 124 whales, the molecular genetics of 270 whales and both types of data from 97 whales. OC concentrations were generally lower in whales hunted in PA than those hunted in KI and IQ, and many OCs were lower in KI than IQ. In canonical discriminant function (CDA) using 13 OC predictor variables (10 OC groups, mirex, octachlorostyrene and endosulfan), the first canonical function accounted for 77% of the variance and separated whales from PA with those from IQ and KI; the second canonical function separated whales from KI with those from IQ. A previous study of the molecular genetics of white whales showed that whales hunted in the three communities were significantly differentiated on the basis of haplotype and/or microsatellite allele frequencies (de March et al., 2002). When the results of two studies were combined, many whales were slightly more strongly associated with a particular source hunting community than they were in the component studies. Using a posteriori crossvalidation probabilities in an analysis with variables from both studies, 72% of white whales were correctly crossvalidated to their source hunting community; 82.5% from PA; 56.5% from IQ; and 58.8% from KI. The highest misclassification rates were KI to IQ (23.5%), IQ to KI and IQ to PA (21.7% in both cases) and the lowest rates were PA to KI (3.5%), PA to IQ (14.0%) and KI to PA (17.6%). This pattern of assignments was not significantly different from those in the genetics or contaminants studies alone. However, the crossvalidation probabilities to the most likely source communities were approximately 20% larger in the combined analysis than in the component studies. Canonical scores in the combined analysis were more strongly correlated with variables from the OC Study than with variables from the genetics study. Whales placed to PA and IQ could be identified primarily by their OC signatures, however many whales from PA also had a strong PA genetics signature. Whales from IQ were identifiable only by their OC signatures. Both a strong KI genetics and OC signature described approximately half of whales from KI. We believe that at least three stocks were sampled from the three communities. Some whales in PA were very distinct, confirming previous beliefs that a separate stock occurs in Cumberland Sound. Whales hunted in IQ and KI differed to a lesser degree, and may be from stocks subject to a gradient or from a mixture of stocks. Some whales from PA are more likely to have genotypes and OC signatures that are also found in IQ and KI than the reverse. It is possible that summering areas of the stocks that were identified in KI and IQ are not consistent from year to year or across generations. The main problems in combining results for individuals used in several studies, particularly when there are many measurements for relatively few individuals, is to find a limited number of relevant predictor variables that can be used in the combined analysis, while avoiding both overparameterisation and results blurred by meaningless variables.