Andrea L. Bogomolni
Kristina M. Cammen
Jennifer Jackman
94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
- 1Marine Science, Safety and Environmental Protection, Massachusetts Maritime Academy, Buzzards Bay, MA, United States
- 2School of Marine Sciences, University of Maine, Orono, ME, United States
- 3Department of Politics, Policy and International Relations, Salem State University, Salem, MA, United States
Editorial on the Research Topic
Rebounding marine mammal species and conservation recovery challenges
1 Introduction
Marine mammals have been valued for millennia for their cultural significance, cognitive capabilities, ecological role, and resource value. At this complex social-ecological intersection, marine mammal populations worldwide have been shaped by historical exploitation, followed by more recent decades of protection and conservation, enabling the rebound and recovery of numerous (though not all) marine mammal populations (Magera et al., 2013; Roman et al., 2013). Yet, as marine mammals celebrate recent growth in abundance and distribution, conflicts have emerged across diverse ecological, sociological, economic, and political contexts. These conflicts include ship strike, depredation, bycatch, impacts of ecotourism, competition for resources, changing cultural values and political challenges to marine mammal conservation (Nelms et al., 2021). A lack of understanding of historical baselines, differences between ecological and social carrying capacity, and perceptions of “overabundance,” whether referring to 1,200 Hawaiian monk seals or 7 million harp seals, fuels discord. While further studies of contemporary and historical marine mammal ecology can address some of the relevant knowledge gaps, these emerging conflicts also require interdisciplinary approaches and the inclusion of social science to address conservation recovery challenges. Despite this need, conflicts in the marine environment are often overlooked in human dimensions of wildlife research (Johnston et al., 2020; Jackman et al., 2023; Wallen et al., 2024).
Our aim with this Research Topic was to further emergent discussions on how to best address complex socio-ecological issues related to marine mammal recovery. The articles in this Research Topic, coming from a variety of disciplinary perspectives, tackle challenging questions such as, how do we measure and document recovery? How do we assess and address social-ecological impacts of recovery? And how do conflicting perceptions of marine mammal population recovery shape “problem” definitions and policy approaches? From this growing body of literature, it is evident that we will need to consider often-opposing values and interests in the development of solutions, and engage diverse stakeholders in decision-making processes.
2 Documenting marine mammal recovery
Marine mammal abundance and distribution have traditionally been surveyed by a combination of visual and acoustic methods. However, established best practices for these survey methods often require significant resources (e.g., vessels, acoustic equipment, time, money) that can limit their broad-scale application. As communities grapple with growing marine mammal populations and the associated conflicts, new methods of documenting marine mammal recovery are therefore emerging, and becoming increasingly accepted in the scientific and management arenas.
Emerging tools (e.g., machine learning, AI, drones, eDNA) and the use of alternative data sources (e.g., opportunistic sightings, historical records, local and traditional ecological knowledge) have the potential to increase accuracy as well as engage a broader audience (Hodgson et al., 2018; Dujon et al., 2021; Suarez-Bregua et al., 2022). Rannankari et al. highlight how long-term data collection archives, combined with the use of contemporary emerging technologies, can elucidate historical ecological shifts with important management implications for species in recovery in areas that now overlap with modern anthropogenic threats. Particularly within a historical context of heavy hunting, tensions between the line of recovering and recovered can fuel concerns about down-listing rebounding marine mammal populations given the modern threats that persist.
Engaging citizen scientists can further increase capacity and public scientific literacy, as well as engage the communities potentially in conflict with rebounding marine mammals (Puskic et al.). Olson et al.’s use of long-term opportunistic sighting records to document spatiotemporal shifts in mysticete presence exemplifies how citizen science can be effectively incorporated into community-driven local monitoring. Their approach not only allows for the tracking of regional trends but also fosters collaboration across geopolitical borders for the collective benefit of ocean stewardship.
3 Marine mammal recovery in a social-ecological context
As top predators or mesopredators in many coastal ocean ecosystems, shifts in marine mammal abundance and distribution as the species recover are likely to have broad-reaching social-ecological impacts. Considering these diverse impacts, including complex interactions between marine mammals, their prey, humans, and the environment in which they all co-exist, is important to both defining the challenges associated with marine mammal recovery and developing solutions.
Across a broad array of diet studies and field observations, we see that the ecological impacts of marine mammal populations are highly context-dependent, they can vary significantly in magnitude and direction, and they are often unexpected. Thus, regional studies that consider the impact of marine mammal recovery on both commercially exploited species (e.g., Lyssikatos and Wenzel) and species or habitats of conservation concern (e.g., Leach et al.) are critical to describing trophic interactions that support ecosystem-based management (Townsend et al., 2019) and can help address misperceptions of marine mammal impact.
While traditionally provided as input to trophic models, novel application of social-ecological systems (SES) models parameterized with trophic interaction data can also be used to predict impacts of marine mammal recovery and identify factors that support and threaten system resilience (García-Castañeda et al.). SES models can consider not only predator-prey interactions, but also impacts of changing environmental conditions, and connections between marine mammals and human activities. Novel insights gained from the SES framework may therefore facilitate the development of adaptive management strategies that can both support recovering marine mammal populations and mitigate associated challenges.
4 Perceptions of marine mammal recovery
In these complex social-ecological systems, understanding how diverse stakeholders perceive rebounding marine mammal populations is critically important. When they return to the marine environments from which they were extirpated, pinnipeds, for example, are often greeted by human populations who have no social memory of their historical presence. This phenomenon of “shifting baseline syndrome” drives conflicts as oceans depleted of large marine predators are viewed as the norm and rebounding populations are perceived as intruders (Pauly, 1995; Roman et al., 2015). The consequences include not only social conflict and dismantling of legal protections, but also direct violence against marine mammals (Konrad et al.).
Social construction and social identity frameworks can help explicate conflict dimensions. Konrad et al. identified the competing social constructions underlying conflicts over rebounding populations of Hawaiian monk seals, where seal rescue volunteers on the Hawaiian Islands view the seals as innocent victims of human-caused destruction in contrast with fishers who see the seals as resource competitors and a proxy for federal fishing restrictions. Because Hawaiian monk seals were extirpated so early in Hawaiian history, they do not play a role in traditional culture and are perceived as invaders and vectors of colonialism by Native Hawaiians. Awareness of these conflict drivers and deliberative management approaches that focus on engagement and communication can be of value to managers.
In the coastal areas of the Northwest Atlantic, stakeholders also hold conflicting views of seals. Still, stakeholder groups are not monolithic; individuals may hold multiple social identities at the same time (Lute and Gore, 2018). In a study of perceptions of residents, tourists and commercial fishers, most commercial fishers simultaneously adhered to non-consumptive (animal protection, environment) and consumptive (angler, hunter) social identities (Bratton et al.). Shared mutualistic values toward marine mammals even among divergent stakeholder groups further suggests some common ground for coexistence with marine mammals and stakeholder collaboration (Jackman et al., 2023).
5 Future directions
The story of the recovery of North Pacific gray whale populations followed by population declines that Garcia-Castaneda et al. relate offers a cautionary tale about the precarious nature of rebounding marine mammal populations, especially in the global context of climate change (Davis, 2022). Even with substantial rebounds in some marine mammal populations, species face anthropogenic threats to conservation gains (Bogomolni et al., 2010; Precoda and Orphanides, 2022). Moreover, in the current political climate, hard-won national and international legal frameworks that protect marine mammals and healthy ecosystems are in jeopardy.
The need for coalitions and collaboration to preserve conservation gains has never been greater. Interdisciplinary research and communication with and among stakeholder groups are critical to this endeavor. Evidence of the historical abundance of marine mammal populations can help address misperceptions about their return to coastal waters (Cammen et al., 2018). Increased awareness of the ecological benefits of marine mammals increases opposition to lethal management (Jackman et al., 2024). Valuing both experiential expertise and empirical data on the extent to which marine mammals interact with fisheries can contribute meaningfully to management conversations, particularly with a community science approach that involves fishermen, managers and scientists together (Bogomolni et al., 2021). Beyond direct benefits to addressing these emerging human-wildlife conflicts, community connection with rebounding populations can further foster empathy, help to mitigate ecological grief, and have broad reaching impacts for our coastal communities.
Author contributions
AB: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. KC: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. JJ: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Bogomolni A., Nichols O. C., Allen D. (2021). A community science approach to conservation challenges posed by rebounding marine mammal populations: Seal-fishery interactions in New England. Front. Conserv. Sci. 2. doi: 10.3389/fcosc.2021.696535
Bogomolni A. L., Pugliares K. R., Sharp S. M., Patchett K., Harry C. T., LaRocque J. M., et al. (2010). Mortality trends of stranded marine mammals on cape cod and southeastern Massachusetts, USA 2000 to 2006. Dis. Aquat. Organ. 88, 143–155. doi: 10.3354/dao02146
PubMed Abstract | PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar
Cammen K. M., Vincze S., Heller A. S., McLeod B. A., Wood S. A., Bowen W. D., et al. (2018). Genetic diversity from pre-bottleneck to recovery in two sympatric pinniped species in the Northwest Atlantic. Cons. Genet. 19, 555–569. doi: 10.1007/s10592-017-1032-9
Davis K. J. (2022). Managed culls mean extinction for a marine mammal population when combined with extreme climate impacts. Ecol. Model. 473, 110122. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2022.110122
Dujon A. M., Ierodiaconou D., Geeson J. J., Arnould J. P. Y., Allan B. M., Katselidis K. A., et al. (2021). Machine learning to detect marine animals in UAV imagery: effect of morphology, spacing, behavior and habitat. Remote Sens. Ecol. Conserv. 7, 341–354. doi: 10.1002/rse2.205
Hodgson J. C., Mott R., Baylis S. M., Pham T. T., Wotherspoon S., Kilpatrick A. D., et al. (2018). Drones count wildlife more accurately and precisely than humans. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9, 1160–1167. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12974
Jackman J. L., Bratton R., Dowling-Guyer S., Vaske J. J., Sette L., Nichols O. C., et al. (2023). Mutualism in marine wildlife value orientations on Cape Cod: Conflict and consensus in the sea and on the shore. Biol. Conserv. 288, 110359. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110359
Jackman J. L., Vaske J. J., Dowling-Guyer S., Bratton R., Bogomolni A., Wood S. A. (2024). Seals and the marine ecosystem: Attitudes, ecological benefits/risks and lethal management views. Hum. Dimensions Wildlife 29, 142–158. doi: 10.1080/10871209.2023.2212686
Johnston J. R., Needham M. D., Cramer L. A., Swearingen T. C. (2020). Public values and attitudes toward marine reserves and marine wilderness. Coast. Manage. 48, 142–163. doi: 10.1080/08920753.2020.1732800
Lute M. L., Gore M. L. (2018). “Challenging the false dichotomy of Us vs. Them: Heterogeneity in stakeholder identities regarding carnivores,” in Large Carnivore Conservation and Management. Ed. Hovardas T. (Routledge, London), 206–223.
Magera A. M., Mills Flemming J. E., Kaschner K., Christensen L. B., Lotze H. K. (2013). Recovery trends in marine mammal populations. PloS One 8, e77908. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0077908
PubMed Abstract | PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar
Nelms S. E., Alfaro-Shigueto J., Arnould J. P., Avila I. C., Nash S. B., Campbell E., et al. (2021). Marine mammal conservation: over the horizon. Endanger. Species Res. 44, 291–325. doi: 10.3354/esr01115
Pauly D. (1995). Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10, 430. doi: 10.1016/S0169-5347(00)89171-5
PubMed Abstract | PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar
Precoda K., Orphanides C. D. (2022). Estimates of cetacean and pinniped bycatch in the 2019 New England sink and Mid-Atlantic gillnet fisheries. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 22-05.
Roman J., Altman I., Dunphy-Daly M. M., Campbell C., Jasny M., Read A. J. (2013). The Marine Mammal Protection Act at 40: status, recovery, and future of US marine mammals. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1286, 29–49. doi: 10.1111/nyas.12040
PubMed Abstract | PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar
Roman J., Dunphy-Daly M. M., Johnston D. W., Read A. J. (2015). Lifting baselines to address the consequences of conservation success. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 299–302. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2015.04.003
PubMed Abstract | PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar
Suarez-Bregua P., Alvarez-Gonzalez M., Parsons K. M., Rotllant J., Pierce G. J., Saavedra C. (2022). Environmental DNA (eDNA) for monitoring marine mammals: Challenges and opportunities. Front. Mar. Sci. 9. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2022.987774
Townsend H., Harvey C. J., deReynier Y., Davis D., Zador S. G., Gaichas S., et al. (2019). Progress on implementing ecosystem-based fisheries management in the United States through the use of ecosystem models and analysis. Front. Mar. Sci. 6. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2019.00641
Keywords: cetacean, human dimensions, human-wildlife conflict, marine environment, stakeholder, pinniped, rewilding, social-ecological systems
Citation: Bogomolni AL, Cammen KM and Jackman J (2025) Editorial: Rebounding marine mammal species and conservation recovery challenges. Front. Conserv. Sci. 6:1565870. doi: 10.3389/fcosc.2025.1565870
Received: 23 January 2025; Accepted: 19 February 2025;
Published: 04 March 2025.
Edited and reviewed by:
Monica T Engel, Torngat Wildlife Plants and Fisheries Secretariat, CanadaCopyright © 2025 Bogomolni, Cammen and Jackman. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Andrea L. Bogomolni, YWJvZ29tb2xuaUBnbWFpbC5jb20=; Kristina M. Cammen, a3Jpc3RpbmEuY2FtbWVuQG1haW5lLmVkdQ==; Jennifer Jackman, amphY2ttYW5Ac2FsZW1zdGF0ZS5lZHU=
†These authors share first authorship