DOCSLIB.ORG

MHI Insular False Killer Whale Species Status Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
MHI Insular False Killer Whale Species Status Assessment Recovery Status Review Pacific Islands for the Regional Office Protected Resources Main Hawaiian Islands Insular False Killer Whale Distinct Population Segment August 2020 (Version 1.0) Cover photo by Robin Baird, Cascadia Research Collective. RECOVERY STATUS REVIEW | Main Hawaiian Islands Insular False Killer Whale DPS Page ii Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... v LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................. viii LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................... ix LIST OF BOXES ....................................................................................................................... ix LIST OF TERMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND ACRONYMS ................................................................. x 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1–1 1.1 History of the Main Hawaiian Islands Insular False Killer Whale ESA Listing and Recovery Planning ..................................................................................................... 1–1 1.2 Distinct Population Segment Overview ..................................................................... 1–2 1.3 Approach to the Recovery Status Review ................................................................. 1–2 2 SPECIES INFORMATION .......................................................................................... 2–1 2.1 Identifying Characteristics ......................................................................................... 2–1 2.1.1 Size and Shape ................................................................................................... 2–1 2.1.2 Internal Anatomy – Skeleton ............................................................................. 2–2 2.1.3 Internal Anatomy – Organs ............................................................................... 2–2 2.2 Taxonomy .................................................................................................................. 2–2 2.3 Life History ................................................................................................................. 2–3 2.3.1 Global Distribution and Density ........................................................................ 2–3 2.3.2 Population Dynamics ......................................................................................... 2–4 2.3.3 Feeding Ecology and Food Requirements ......................................................... 2–7 2.3.3.1 Feeding Ecology ............................................................................................ 2–7 2.3.3.2 Energetic Needs ............................................................................................ 2–7 2.3.4 Diving Behavior.................................................................................................. 2–8 2.3.5 Social Behavior .................................................................................................. 2–9 2.3.5.1 Pod Structure ................................................................................................ 2–9 2.3.5.2 Breeding ...................................................................................................... 2–10 2.3.6 Acoustic Sensory System ................................................................................. 2–10 2.4 Ecology of Main Hawaiian Islands Insular False Killer Whale DPS........................... 2–11 2.4.1 DPS Description ............................................................................................... 2–11 2.4.2 Range ............................................................................................................... 2–11 2.4.3 Abundance, Trends, and Effective Population Size ......................................... 2–13 2.4.4 Social Network and Group Dynamics .............................................................. 2–15 2.4.5 Movement ....................................................................................................... 2–17 2.4.6 Habitat and Habitat Use .................................................................................. 2–18 2.4.7 Diet and Energetic Needs ................................................................................ 2–20 3 THREATS ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................... 3–1 3.1 Incidental take in non-longline commercial and recreational fisheries .................... 3–7 RECOVERY STATUS REVIEW | Main Hawaiian Islands Insular False Killer Whale DPS Page iii 3.2 Inadequate management and reporting requirements of non-longline commercial and recreational fisheries .................................................................... 3–12 3.3 Small population size (limited genetic diversity, inbreeding depression, and other Allee effects) .................................................................................................. 3–14 3.4 Competition with commercial non-longline fisheries ............................................. 3–16 3.5 Competition with recreational fisheries .................................................................. 3–21 3.6 Environmental contaminants and naturally occurring biotoxins ............................ 3–21 3.7 Short and long-term climate change ....................................................................... 3–24 3.8 Anthropogenic noise (e.g., vessel traffic, sonars, alternative energy development) .......................................................................................................... 3–27 3.9 Cumulative and synergistic effects .......................................................................... 3–29 3.10 Competition with commercial longline fisheries (i.e., deep-set and shallow-set) ............................................................................................................. 3–30 3.11 Marine debris ingestion ........................................................................................... 3–33 3.12 Intentional harm (e.g., shooting, poisoning, explosives) ........................................ 3–34 3.13 Oil spills .................................................................................................................... 3–35 3.14 Predation (killer whales, tiger sharks, etc.) ............................................................. 3–36 3.15 Incidental take in commercial longline fisheries (i.e., deep-set and shallow-set) ............................................................................................................. 3–36 3.16 Interactions with aquaculture facilities and other marine structures .................... 3–39 3.17 Vessel strikes ........................................................................................................... 3–43 3.18 Whale/dolphin watching and other ecotours ......................................................... 3–44 3.19 Competition with marine species (marlins, sharks, etc.) ........................................ 3–44 3.20 Live capture for aquaria (historic threat) ................................................................ 3–45 4 CONSERVATION MEASURES ................................................................................... 4–1 4.1 ESA Protections ......................................................................................................... 4–1 4.2 MMPA Protections .................................................................................................... 4–4 4.3 Active Research Programs to Fill Data Gaps .............................................................. 4–8 4.4 Outreach and Education ............................................................................................ 4–9 5 LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................. 5–1 RECOVERY STATUS REVIEW | Main Hawaiian Islands Insular False Killer Whale DPS Page iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY We, NOAA Fisheries, listed the main Hawaiian Islands insular false killer whale (MHI IFKW; Pseudorca crassidens) as an endangered distinct population segment (DPS) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on November 28, 2012 (77 FR 70915). We completed a comprehensive status review in 2010 (Oleson et al. 2010) and a supplemental information report in 2012 (Oleson et al. 2012). Those two documents informed the listing decision. This document, the Recovery Status Review, contains a comprehensive collection of information for the MHI IFKW, with updated information collected since 2012. New text, information, and citations are in a blue text color to more easily allow readers to identify information since the 2012 listing. We intend for this Recovery Status Review to be a comprehensive living document that we update with significant new information as it becomes available. For example, because NOAA Fisheries publishes stock assessment reports (SARs) annually for marine mammal stocks, any updated information for the MHI IFKW (e.g., population size, trend) in the most recent SAR will be updated in this document. A Recovery Status Review does not result in a decision. Rather, it provides the best scientific and commercial data available to inform management and recovery actions for ESA listed species. It serves as the “Background”
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Evolutionary History of the Porpoises
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/851469; this version posted November 22, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 1 Evolutionary history of the porpoises (Phocoenidae) across the 2 speciation continuum: a mitogenome phylogeographic perspective 3 4 Yacine Ben Chehida1, Julie Thumloup1, Cassie Schumacher2, Timothy Harkins2, Alex 5 Aguilar3, Asunción Borrell3, Marisa Ferreira4, Lorenzo Rojas-Bracho5, Kelly M. Roberston6, 6 Barbara L. Taylor6, Gísli A. Víkingsson7, Arthur Weyna8, Jonathan Romiguier8, Phillip A. 7 Morin6, Michael C. Fontaine1,9* 8 9 1 Groningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences (GELIFES), University of Groningen, PO Box 11103 CC, 10 Groningen, The Netherlands 11 2 Swift Biosciences, 674 S. Wagner Rd., Suite 100, Ann Arbor, MI 48103, USA 12 3 IRBIO and Department of Evolutive Biology, Ecology and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Biology, 13 University of Barcelona, Diagonal 643, 08071 Barcelona, Spain 14 4 MATB-Sociedade Portuguesa de Vida Selvagem, Estação de Campo de Quiaios, Apartado EC Quiaios, 3080- 15 530 Figueira da Foz, Portugal & CPRAM-Ecomare, Estrada do Porto de Pesca Costeira, 3830-565 Gafanha da 16 Nazaré, Portugal 17 5 Instituto Nacional de Ecología, Centro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada, 18 Carretera Ensenada-Tijuana 3918, Fraccionamiento Zona Playitas, Ensenada, BC 22860, Mexico 19 6 Southwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, 8901 La Jolla Shores Dr., La 20 Jolla, California 92037, USA 21 7 Marine and Freshwater Research Institute, PO Box 1390, 121 Reykjavik, Iceland 22 8 Institut des Sciences de l’Évolution (Université de Montpellier, CNRS UMR 5554), Montpellier, France 23 9 Laboratoire MIVEGEC (Université de Montpellier, UMR CNRS 5290, IRD 229), Centre IRD de Montpellier, 24 Montpellier, France 25 26 *Corresponding author: Michael C.
    [Show full text]
  • Cetacea: Phocoenidae) from the Upper Part of the Horokaoshirarika Formation (Lower Pliocene), Numata Town, Hokkaido, Japan, and Its Phylogenetic Position
    Palaeontologia Electronica palaeo-electronica.org A new skull of the fossil porpoise Numataphocoena yamashitai (Cetacea: Phocoenidae) from the upper part of the Horokaoshirarika Formation (lower Pliocene), Numata Town, Hokkaido, Japan, and its phylogenetic position Yoshihiro Tanaka and Hiroto Ichishima ABSTRACT An early Pliocene porpoise, Numataphocoena yamashitai from Hokkaido, Japan, is known from the holotype, a fairly well-preserved skeleton with an incomplete skull and a referred earbone. A new skull referred to Numataphocoena yamashitai found from almost the same locality as the holotype is interesting because it expands knowl- edge of skull morphology and improves the diagnosis of this taxon. Numataphocoena yamashitai differs from other phocoenids in having the characteristic feature in the maxilla associated with the posterior dorsal infraorbital foramen, narrower and sharper anterior part of the internal acoustic meatus, and a robust anterior process of the peri- otic. A new cladistic analysis places Numataphocoena yamashitai adjacent to Haboro- phocoena toyoshimai and Haborophocoena minutus, among a clade of early branching phocoenids, all of which are chronologically and geographically close to each other. The new skull is probably a younger individual because it is about 80% the size of that of the holotype and it shows closed but unfused sutures. Our description of this specimen helps to understand the intraspecies variation of the extinct species Numataphocoena yamashitai. Yoshihiro Tanaka. Numata Fossil Museum, 2-7-49, Minami 1, Numata Town, Hokkaido, 078-2225 Japan, [email protected] and Hokkaido University Museum, Kita 10, Nishi 8, Kita-ku, Sapporo, Hokkaido 060-0810 Japan Hiroto Ichishima. Fukui Prefectural Dinosaur Museum, Terao 51-11, Muroko, Katsuyama, Fukui 911-8601, Japan, [email protected] Key words: skull; Phocoenidae; phylogeny; maxillary terrace; ontogeny; intraspecies variation Submission: 22 March 2016 Acceptance: 20 October 2016 Tanaka, Yoshihiro and Ichishima, Hiroto.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogeny of All Major Groups of Cetaceans Based on DNA Sequences from Three Mitochondrial Genes
    Phylogeny of All Major Groups of Cetaceans Based on DNA Sequences from Three Mitochondrial Genes Michel C. Milinkovitch,* Axe1 Meyer) and Jeffrey R. Powell * *Department of Biology, Yale University and +Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York at Stony Brook Traditionally, living cetaceans (order Cetacea) are classified into two highly distinct suborders: the echolocating toothed whales, Odontoceti, and the filter-feeding baleen whales, Mysticeti. A molecular phylogeny based on 1,352 base pairs of two mitochondrial ribosomal gene segments and the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene for all major groups of cetaceans contradicts this long-accepted taxonomic subdivision. One group of toothed whales, the sperm whales, is more closely related to the morphologically highly divergent baleen whales than to other odontocetes. This finding suggests that the suborder Odontoceti constitutes an unnatural grouping and challenges the conventional scenario of a long, independent evolutionary history of odontocetes and mysticetes. The superfamily Delphinoidea (dolphins, porpoises, and white whales) appears to be monophyletic; the Amazon River dolphin, Inia geofiensis, is its sister species. This river dolphin is genetically more divergent from the morphologically similar marine dolphins than the sperm whales are from the morphologically dissimilar baleen whales. The phylogenetic relationships among the three families of Delphinoidea remain uncertain, and we suggest that the two cladogenetic events that generated these three clades occurred within a very short period of time. Among the baleen whales, the bowhead is basal, and the gray whale is the sister species to the rorquals (family Balaenopteridae). The phylogenetic position of beaked whales (Ziphioidea) remains weakly supported by molecular data.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Small Cetaceans. Distribution, Behaviour, Migration and Threats
    Review of Small Cetaceans Distribution, Behaviour, Migration and Threats by Boris M. Culik Illustrations by Maurizio Wurtz, Artescienza Marine Mammal Action Plan / Regional Seas Reports and Studies no. 177 Published by United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Secretariat of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS). Review of Small Cetaceans. Distribution, Behaviour, Migration and Threats. 2004. Compiled for CMS by Boris M. Culik. Illustrations by Maurizio Wurtz, Artescienza. UNEP / CMS Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. 343 pages. Marine Mammal Action Plan / Regional Seas Reports and Studies no. 177 Produced by CMS Secretariat, Bonn, Germany in collaboration with UNEP Coordination team Marco Barbieri, Veronika Lenarz, Laura Meszaros, Hanneke Van Lavieren Editing Rüdiger Strempel Design Karina Waedt The author Boris M. Culik is associate Professor The drawings stem from Prof. Maurizio of Marine Zoology at the Leibnitz Institute of Wurtz, Dept. of Biology at Genova Univer- Marine Sciences at Kiel University (IFM-GEOMAR) sity and illustrator/artist at Artescienza. and works free-lance as a marine biologist. Contact address: Contact address: Prof. Dr. Boris Culik Prof. Maurizio Wurtz F3: Forschung / Fakten / Fantasie Dept. of Biology, Genova University Am Reff 1 Viale Benedetto XV, 5 24226 Heikendorf, Germany 16132 Genova, Italy Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] www.fh3.de www.artescienza.org © 2004 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) / Convention on Migratory Species (CMS). This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made.
    [Show full text]
  • The Marine Mammal Captivity Issue: Time for a Paradigm Shift
    In: The Palgrave Macmillan Series on Animal Ethics Edited by Andrew Linzey and Priscilla Cohn (in press) The Marine Mammal Captivity Issue: Time For a Paradigm Shift Lori Marino Dolphin and whale (cetacean) captivity is one of the most contentious cultural issues of modern times. Neither the “anti-“ or “pro-“ captivity groups can be expected to concede to the other but neither is it entirely impossible to conceive of ways to bring the two together over shared interests and objectives. So, the issue is whether there is a way to move forward into the future by combining forces for the benefit of everyone involved. In order to consider that possibility, three questions must be addressed. First, who are cetaceans? Second, do cetaceans flourish (or, thrive) in captivity? Third, what should we do about what we know about the answers to the first two questions? Scientific research done both in captivity and in the field has revealed much about who dolphins and whales are. There is no doubt that captive research has contributed substantially to our understanding of them. But that same empirical research leads to the inescapable conclusion that cetacean nature is fundamentally incompatible with captivity. Cetaceans cannot flourish in captivity. To flourish is to thrive and not simply exist or even live or reproduce. As Nussbaum 1 (2011) articulates: “Each creature has a characteristic set of capabilities, or capacities for functioning, distinctive of that species, and that those rudimentary capacities need support from the material and social environment if the animal is to flourish in it characteristic way.” (p.237).
    [Show full text]
  • Cetaceans of the Red Sea - CMS Technical Series Publication No
    UNEP / CMS Secretariat UN Campus Platz der Vereinten Nationen 1 D-53113 Bonn Germany Tel: (+49) 228 815 24 01 / 02 Fax: (+49) 228 815 24 49 E-mail: [email protected] www.cms.int CETACEANS OF THE RED SEA Cetaceans of the Red Sea - CMS Technical Series Publication No. 33 No. Publication Series Technical Sea - CMS Cetaceans of the Red CMS Technical Series Publication No. 33 UNEP promotes N environmentally sound practices globally and in its own activities. This publication is printed on FSC paper, that is W produced using environmentally friendly practices and is FSC certified. Our distribution policy aims to reduce UNEP‘s carbon footprint. E | Cetaceans of the Red Sea - CMS Technical Series No. 33 MF Cetaceans of the Red Sea - CMS Technical Series No. 33 | 1 Published by the Secretariat of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals Recommended citation: Notarbartolo di Sciara G., Kerem D., Smeenk C., Rudolph P., Cesario A., Costa M., Elasar M., Feingold D., Fumagalli M., Goffman O., Hadar N., Mebrathu Y.T., Scheinin A. 2017. Cetaceans of the Red Sea. CMS Technical Series 33, 86 p. Prepared by: UNEP/CMS Secretariat Editors: Giuseppe Notarbartolo di Sciara*, Dan Kerem, Peter Rudolph & Chris Smeenk Authors: Amina Cesario1, Marina Costa1, Mia Elasar2, Daphna Feingold2, Maddalena Fumagalli1, 3 Oz Goffman2, 4, Nir Hadar2, Dan Kerem2, 4, Yohannes T. Mebrahtu5, Giuseppe Notarbartolo di Sciara1, Peter Rudolph6, Aviad Scheinin2, 7, Chris Smeenk8 1 Tethys Research Institute, Viale G.B. Gadio 2, 20121 Milano, Italy 2 Israel Marine Mammal Research and Assistance Center (IMMRAC), Mt.
    [Show full text]
  • Speciation in the Face of Gene Flow Within the Toothed Whale Superfamily Delphinoidea 2 3 Michael V Westbury1*, Andrea A
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.23.352286; this version posted October 24, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 1 Speciation in the face of gene flow within the toothed whale superfamily Delphinoidea 2 3 Michael V Westbury1*, Andrea A. Cabrera1, Alba Rey-Iglesia1, Binia De Cahsan1, Stefanie 4 Hartmann2, Eline D Lorenzen1* 5 1. The GLOBE Institute, University of Copenhagen, Øster Voldgade 5-7, Copenhagen, 6 Denmark 7 2. Institute of Biochemistry and Biology, University of Potsdam, Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 8 24-25, Potsdam, Germany 9 10 * Corresponding authors: [email protected], [email protected] 11 12 Abstract 13 14 Understanding speciation is a central aspect in Biology. The formation of new species 15 was once thought to be a simple bifurcation process. However, recent advances in genomic 16 resources now provide the opportunity to investigate the role of post-divergence gene flow in 17 the speciation process. The diversification of lineages in the presence of gene flow appears 18 almost paradoxical. However, with enough time and in the presence of incomplete physical 19 and/or ecological barriers to gene flow, speciation can and does occur. Speciation without 20 complete isolation seems especially likely to occur in highly mobile, wide ranging marine 21 species, such as cetaceans, which face limited geographic barriers. The toothed whale 22 superfamily Delphinoidea represents a good example to further explore speciation in the 23 presence of interspecific gene flow.
    [Show full text]
  • Origin and Evolution of Large Brains in Toothed Whales
    WellBeing International WBI Studies Repository 12-2004 Origin and Evolution of Large Brains in Toothed Whales Lori Marino Emory University Daniel W. McShea Duke University Mark D. Uhen Cranbrook Institute of Science Follow this and additional works at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/acwp_vsm Part of the Animal Studies Commons, Other Animal Sciences Commons, and the Other Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons Recommended Citation Marino, L., McShea, D. W., & Uhen, M. D. (2004). Origin and evolution of large brains in toothed whales. The Anatomical Record Part A: Discoveries in Molecular, Cellular, and Evolutionary Biology, 281(2), 1247-1255. This material is brought to you for free and open access by WellBeing International. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Origin and Evolution of Large Brains in Toothed Whales Lori Marino1, Daniel W. McShea2, and Mark D. Uhen3 1 Emory University 2 Duke University 3 Cranbrook Institute of Science KEYWORDS cetacean, encephalization, odontocetes ABSTRACT Toothed whales (order Cetacea: suborder Odontoceti) are highly encephalized, possessing brains that are significantly larger than expected for their body sizes. In particular, the odontocete superfamily Delphinoidea (dolphins, porpoises, belugas, and narwhals) comprises numerous species with encephalization levels second only to modern humans and greater than all other mammals. Odontocetes have also demonstrated behavioral faculties previously only ascribed to humans and, to some extent, other great apes. How did the large brains of odontocetes evolve? To begin to investigate this question, we quantified and averaged estimates of brain and body size for 36 fossil cetacean species using computed tomography and analyzed these data along with those for modern odontocetes.
    [Show full text]
  • The Monophyly of Toothed Whales and the Paraphyly of River Dolphins
    Retroposon analysis of major cetacean lineages: The monophyly of toothed whales and the paraphyly of river dolphins Masato Nikaido†, Fumio Matsuno†, Healy Hamilton‡, Robert L. Brownell, Jr.§, Ying Cao†¶, Wang Dingʈ, Zhu Zuoyanʈ, Andrew M. Shedlock†¶, R. Ewan Fordyce**, Masami Hasegawa¶, and Norihiro Okada†,†† †Graduate School of Bioscience and Biotechnology, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 4259 Nagatsuta-cho, Yokohama, Kanagawa 226-8501, Japan; ‡Museum of Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720; §NOAA, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, CA 92037; ¶Institute of Statistical Mathematics, Tokyo 106-8569, Japan; ʈInstitute of Hydrobiology, The Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan 430072, Peoples Republic of China; and **Department of Geology, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand Communicated by James W. Valentine, University of California, Berkeley, CA, March 22, 2001 (received for review November 30, 2000) SINE (short interspersed element) insertion analysis elucidates higher group, the Platanistoidea (15). However, the appropri- contentious aspects in the phylogeny of toothed whales and ateness of this grouping has been doubted long by both mor- dolphins (Odontoceti), especially river dolphins. Here, we charac- phologists and molecular phylogeneticists (refs. 4, 6, 12, 13, 16, terize 25 informative SINEs inserted into unique genomic loci 17, 18, and 19; Fig. 1), and the debate is ongoing. Uncertainty during evolution of odontocetes to construct a cladogram, and about the phylogeny of river dolphins reflects not only high determine a total of 2.8 kb per taxon of the flanking sequences of skeletal disparity among living species, but also a fragmentary these SINE loci to estimate divergence times among lineages.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogeny of All Major Groups of Cetaceans Based on DNA Sequences from Three Mitochondrial Genes
    Phylogeny of All Major Groups of Cetaceans Based on DNA Sequences from Three Mitochondrial Genes Michel C. Milinkovitch,* Axe1 Meyer) and Jeffrey R. Powell * *Department of Biology, Yale University and +Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York at Stony Brook Traditionally, living cetaceans (order Cetacea) are classified into two highly distinct suborders: the echolocating toothed whales, Odontoceti, and the filter-feeding baleen whales, Mysticeti. A molecular phylogeny based on 1,352 base pairs of two mitochondrial ribosomal gene segments and the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene for all major groups of cetaceans contradicts this long-accepted taxonomic subdivision. One group of toothed whales, the sperm whales, is more closely related to the morphologically highly divergent baleen whales than to other odontocetes. This finding suggests that the suborder Odontoceti constitutes an unnatural grouping and challenges the conventional scenario of a long, independent evolutionary history of odontocetes and mysticetes. The superfamily Delphinoidea (dolphins, porpoises, and white whales) appears to be monophyletic; the Amazon River dolphin, Inia geofiensis, is its sister species. This river dolphin is genetically more divergent from the morphologically similar marine dolphins than the sperm whales are from the morphologically dissimilar baleen whales. The phylogenetic relationships among the three families of Delphinoidea remain uncertain, and we suggest that the two cladogenetic events that generated these three clades occurred within a very short period of time. Among the baleen whales, the bowhead is basal, and the gray whale is the sister species to the rorquals (family Balaenopteridae). The phylogenetic position of beaked whales (Ziphioidea) remains weakly supported by molecular data.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded the Assembled Genomes and Raw Sequencing Reads from Nine Toothed 403 Whales from the Superfamily Delphinoidea
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.23.352286; this version posted June 29, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 1 A genomic assessment of the marine-speciation paradox within the toothed whale 2 superfamily Delphinoidea 3 4 5 Michael V Westbury1*, Andrea A. Cabrera1, Alba Rey-Iglesia1, Binia De Cahsan1, David A. 6 Duchêne1, Stefanie Hartmann2, Eline D Lorenzen1* 7 1. GLOBE Institute, University of Copenhagen, Øster Voldgade 5-7, Copenhagen, 8 Denmark 9 2. Institute of Biochemistry and Biology, University of Potsdam, Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 10 24-25, Potsdam, Germany 11 * Corresponding authors: [email protected], [email protected] 12 13 Abstract 14 15 Understanding speciation is a central endeavour in Biology. The formation of new 16 species was once thought to be a simple bifurcation process. However, recent advances in 17 genomic resources now provide the opportunity to investigate the role of post-divergence 18 gene flow in the speciation process. The diversification of lineages in the presence of gene 19 flow appears paradoxical. However, with enough time and in the presence of incomplete 20 physical and/or ecological barriers to gene flow, speciation can and does occur. Speciation 21 without complete isolation appears especially likely to occur in highly mobile, wide-ranging 22 marine species, such as cetaceans, which face limited geographic barriers.
    [Show full text]
  • Development of Biosonar-Frainer-SMM-Small-Grant
    Development Of Biosonar-Related Structures Of Dolphins (Odontoceti: Delphinoidea) Guilherme Frainer Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul - UFRGS, Brazil +555191297190 [email protected] SUMMARY The threat of neonate franciscana dolphins due to increased bycatch may be caused among other thinks by immature development of biosonar-relevant structures. To test whether this thread could also be significant for other small odontocete species, my Ph.D. project is investigating the comparative anatomy of the complete ontogeny of the biosonar-relevant structures in Delphinidae, Phocoenidae and Pontoporiidae, with additional comparisons of the changes of the skull topography related to biosonar in some key species. This proposal aims to subsidize the morphometrical approach and an opportunity to perform dissections on Sousa specimens, for which forehead anatomy remains unknown. Project Description General description The biosonar of odontocetes (Cetartiodactyla: Odontoceti) is a complex system for navigation and hunting. Lindberg and Pyenson (2007) proposed that the origin of echolocation in toothed whales dates from the early Oligocene (33.9 – 28.4 m.y.) and is related to nocturnal epipelagic feeding on cephalopods and demersal fishes who perform diel migration from deep to less deep waters. The authors pointed out some morphological innovations in fossil records, which could be related to the advent of echolocation in this group, such as the transition from heterodont to homodont forms (Fordyce 2003), the origin of an asymmetric skull (Cranford et al. 1996, Heyning 1989), and the enlargement of the brain (Huggenberger 2008, Marino et al. 2004, Marino et al. 2003, Oelschläger et al. 2009). Since Norris et al. (1961) verified that a blindfolded dolphin can detect objects placed rostrodorsal to the mouth, but not below the rostrum line, it has been accepted that the sound beam formation for echolocation is originated in the epicranial (nasal) complex (Madsen et al.
    [Show full text]