Triple Whammy Led to High Rate of Bottlenose Dolphin Deaths in Gulf of Mexico

Cold weather, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and an influx of cold fresh water combined to cause record cetacean mortality

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

From Nature magazine

Bottlenose dolphins in the northern Gulf of Mexico were hit by a triple whammy of events, leading to an unusually high death rate in early 2011, a paper published in PLoS ONE suggests.

Between January and April 2011, 186 bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) washed ashore in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Of these, 86 were near-term or newborn, nearly double the historical average. Dolphin deaths are being monitored by an ongoing Unusual Mortality Event (UME) survey, which began in response to high numbers of adult dolphins dying during a period of sustained cold weather in early 2010.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The PLoS ONE study suggests that the cold weather was the first of three factors that weakened the dolphin population and contributed to the high death rate. The second was the Deepwater Horizon oil spill that followed in April. And the third was large volumes of cold fresh water from melting snow entering Mobile Bay — an inlet in the Gulf of Mexico — in 2011.

Dolphins naturally encounter seasonal temperature and freshwater fluctuations, says lead author Ruth Carmichael, a marine scientist at Dauphin Island Sea Lab in Alabama, and neither factor alone would necessarily cause strandings or death. But the cold freshwater pulses may have been the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back, if the dolphin population was already weakened due to depleted food resources caused by preceding events, such as oil in the northern Gulf food chain, or bacterial infection.

Between June 2010 and January 2012, 12 of the 51 stranded dolphins tested for Brucella bacteria gave positive results, according to Teri Rowles, coordinator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program in Silver Spring, Maryland. Brucella, which is present in some healthy animals, can cause pneumonia, encephalitis, skin and bone infections, and abortion in dolphins.

“Studies show that dolphins were in poor condition after Deepwater Horizon and some particularly cold winters, and we know from theNOAA analysis that some had Brucella,” says Carmichael. “For animals already stressed and in poor condition, this freight train of cold fresh water could certainly have affected the timing of mortality.” The cold water pulsed into Mobile Bay during the spring birthing period, and the greatest number of newborn strandings were found close to this area. Since dolphins have a gestation period of 12 months, some of the stranded newborns would have been conceived during the oil spill, which could have affected their ability to survive.

“It’s a common fact that animals in good shape nutritionally are much more able to withstand change and stress,” says marine biologist Moby Solangi, executive director of the Institute for Marine Mammal Studies in Gulfport, Mississippi. “With multiple environmental challenges, we may not be able to say it was one thing or another. We do know that dolphins in the northern Gulf have been subjected to a number of environmental challenges in the past few years, and we do know that each one of those challenges will have affected their ability to deal with the others.”

As is often the case with strandings, few of the dolphins were recovered in good enough condition to determine the cause of death, Rowles says. Nor do scientists have full data on the causes of death from those that have been analyzed. The UME survey is still ongoing, and final data and analysis are typically not available until 18 months after an event.

Carmichael hopes that the study will encourage scientists to consider the physical and chemical environments in which events such as strandings happen, as these could affect the way species respond to stresses.

“It’s important to understand links between events that are human related and can potentially be managed, and those that just happen and that we may or may not be able to manage,” she says.

This article is reproduced with permission from the magazine Nature. The article was first published on July 19, 2012.

A science and environment writer based in Austin, Texas, Melissa Gaskill has a B.S. in zoology from Texas A&M University and a master's in journalism from the University of Texas. She also has a passion for the ocean and writes about it whenever possible for publications such as Nature News, Men's Journal, The New York Times, and many others.

More by Melissa Gaskill

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe