DOCSLIB.ORG

Valuing an Endangered Species Using a Choice Experiment-Based

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Valuing an Endangered Species Using a Choice Experiment-Based Economic values of protected marine species: Empirical studies and challenges for ecosystem- based management* Daniel K. Lew National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service Alaska Fisheries Science Center [email protected] IIFET 2016 Aberdeen, Scotland UK July 11-15, 2016 *Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not reflect those of NMFS, NOAA, or the U.S. Department of Commerce. What economic values are measured? • Willingness to pay (WTP) • For preservation of the species • For enhancement of the species • For conservation programs • Primarily composed of nonuse (e.g., existence) and non- consumptive use (e.g., viewing) benefits • Stated preference (SP) methods • Most use contingent valuation (CV) methods, but recent studies predominantly use choice experiment (CE) methods 2 Why care about non-market values of marine protected species? • Ecosystem-based management (EBM) • U.S. National Ocean Policy • EU’s Marine Strategic Framework Initiative • UN’s Millennium Ecosystem Assessment • Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services • Ecosystem services valuation • The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) initiative • Benefit-cost analysis (BCA) • Evaluations of policies affecting marine protected species often employ some type of BCA • EO12866 (and EO13563) • U.S. Endangered Species Act • Damage assessments 3 Review of Literature: Lew (2015, Frontiers in Marine Science) • Focused on disaggregate species SP valuation studies • Enable estimation of species-specific values • Over 30 SP studies from peer-reviewed literature • Most species valued were charismatic megafauna and well- known fish species • Limited geographic coverage • U.S., Canada, Australia, U.K., Spain, and Greece • Individual/household-level economic values vary widely (up to $356) 4 Benefits transfer • Conducting primary data collection is often infeasible due to time and/or resource constraints • Benefits transfer (aka environmental value transfer) • Methods for applying existing economic values and value functions to new applications (Johnston and Rosenberger 2010; Navrud and Ready 2007) • Common benefit transfer methods • Unit value transfer • Value function transfer • Meta-regression function transfer • Empirical studies • Sanchirico et al. (2013, Marine Policy): Incorporating conservation values into BCA of hypothetical fisheries policies revealed numerous challenges 5 Some challenges: Availability of quality values/studies • Existing primary studies and values • Economic valuation databases: TEEB, Envalue, EVRI, et al. (see http://www.es-partnership.org/esp/80136/5/0/50) • Lew (2015) finds numerous coverage issues for protected species values • Are species values different? • Do values have expiration dates? (Temporal stability) • Lew and Wallmo (under revision) • Quality of original studies/values • Changes to “state-of-the-art” methods • Researcher judgment/decisions and data quality; measurement error • Assessing study quality requires significant expertise and knowledge of underlying methods 6 Some challenges: Minimizing transfer error • Transfer error = transferred value – “true” value • Choosing benefit transfer method to minimize transfer error • Unit value transfer < value function transfer ≤ meta-regression function transfer (Rosenberger and Phipps 2007; Rosenberger and Loomis 2003) • Depends upon availability of existing quality studies • Choosing original studies to use • Similarity of good being valued (good/service definition) • Does the value you want to transfer precisely and accurately match up with the good/service you wish to value? • Similarity of population sampled • Are values/preferences for one population transferable to a different population? 7 More challenges: Matching primary value information to policy applications/models • Aggregation and scaling issues • Adding up/embedding effects with other ecosystem service values? • Scaling up/down values? • Market size issues (e.g., region nation?) • Translation issues to enable per unit estimates based on area or number of animals when original values are at the species level (e.g., work w/ Sanchirico and Lindsay) 8 Looking forward • More and better values needed that cover the species and populations of interest – but we’re on the right track! • Cautious application of benefits transfer is warranted (always), and particularly for applying values from the protected marine species valuation literature • Challenges to transfer value information exist (in general), but many of the issues are actively being studied From: www.seeturtles.com From: www.gowhales.com 9 Questions? Special thanks to collaborators, co-authors, reviewers, and others – Kristy Wallmo (NMFS S/T), James Sanchirico and Amanda Lindsay (UC Davis), David Kling (OSU), Alan Haynie and Brian Garber-Yonts (AFSC), Rob Johnston and Daniel Jarvis (Clark University), David Layton (UW), Bob Rowe (Stratus Consulting), PSMFC; Jon Kurland, Mandy Migura, and Brad Smith (Protected Resources); Lew Queirolo (AKR); Lowell Fritz, Rod Hobbs, Tom Gelatt, and Kim Shelden (NMML); (current and former) AFSC and REFM management; and participants of the AFSC seminar series and the PICES conference special session on marine ecosystem services and the economics of living marine resources. 10 Are species values different? • Are values different between species? • Wallmo and Lew (2012, Conservation Biology) • Do values differ across spatial scale? • Johnston et al. (2015, Land Econ) and Wallmo and Lew (2016, JEM) 11 Recent disaggregate T&E marine species valuation studies Species Reference Valuation Mean/Median Frequency of Unitsb Survey Good Valued Country Method WTP Range payment Year Short-nosed sturgeon Aldrich et al. (2007) CV -$9.38 – 58.89 One-time I 1997 Recovery program U.S. Harbor seal Boxall et al. (2012) Hybrid $78.84 – 201.61 Annual H 2006 Improved status Canada CV/CE Beluga whale Boxall et al. (2012) Hybrid $113.58 – 355.73 Annual H 2006 Improved status Canada CV/CE Steller sea lion Giraud and Valcic (2004) CV -$119.63 – 119.29 Annual H 2000 Recovery program U.S. Lew et al. (2010) CE $39.26 – 229.47 Annual H 2007 Improved status and U.S. population increase Mediterranean monk seal Kontogianni et al. (2012) CV $75.51 – 131.54 Unknownc H 2009 Protection program Greece Stithou and Scarpa (2012) CV $21.74 – 29.95 One-time I 2003 Protection program Greece $17.74 – 20.41 Per visit I 2003 Protection program Greece Gray whales Larson et al. (2004) CV $37.38 – 56.35d Annual I 1991 – Population increases U.S. 1992 Hawaiian monk seal Lew and Wallmo (2011), Wallmo CE $47.47 – 92.68 Annual H 2008 Improved status U.S and Lew (2011) CE $47.47 – 73.97 Annual H 2008 Improved status U.S. Wallmo and Lew (2012) CE $39.37 – 72.00 Annual H 2009 Improved status U.S.. Puget Sound Chinook salmon Wallmo and Lew (2011) CE $50.98 Annual H 2008 Improved status U.S. Wallmo and Lew (2012) CE $43.97 Annual H 2009 Improved status U.S.. Smalltooth sawfish Lew and Wallmo (2011) CE $36.74 – 69.79 Annual H 2008 Improved status U.S Wallmo and Lew (2011) Wallmo CE $36.74 – 57.97 Annual H 2008 Improved status U.S. and Lew (2012) CE $35.24 – 56.35 Annual H 2009 Improved status U.S.. Norwegian lobster Ojea and Loureiro (2010) CV $22.96 One-time H 2006 Protection program Spain Hake Ojea and Loureiro (2010) CV $35.63 One-time H 2006 Protection program Spain Manatee Solomon et al. (2004) CV $13.48 – 28.20 Annual H 2001 Protection program U.S. Loggerhead sea turtle Stithou and Scarpa (2012) CV $22.46 – 32.12 One-time I 2003 Protection program Greece Wallmo and Lew (2012) CE $17.22 – 19.51 Per visit I 2003 Protection program Greece $47.47 Annual H 2009 Improved status U.S. Upper Willamette River Chinook Wallmo and Lew (2012) CE $44.14 Annual H 2009 Improved status U.S. salmon North Pacific right whale Wallmo and Lew (2012) CE $45.30 – 79.44 Annual H 2009 Improved status U.S. North Atlantic right whale Wallmo and Lew (2012) CE $42.12 – 77.77 Annual H 2009 Improved status U.S. Leatherback sea turtle Wallmo and Lew (2012) CE $41.22 – 73.81 Annual H 2009 Improved status U.S. aWTP is reported in 2013 U.S. dollars (all values converted using consumer price index and annual currency conversion rates). bUnits refer to the value’s unit measurement in terms of household (H) or individual (I). cThe payment vehicle was a contribution made on the water bill, but the frequency of billing was not mentioned. dAlso presents estimated WTP in non-monetary terms (hours donated). 12.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alaska Sea Lions and Seals
    Alaska Sea Lions and Seals Blaire, Kate, Donovan, & Alex Biodiversity of Alaska 18 June 2017 https://www.stlzoo.org/files/3913/6260/5731/Sea-lion_RogerBrandt.jpg Similarities & Differences of Sea Lions and Seals Phocidae Family Otariidae Family cannot rotate back can rotate back flippers flippers; move like a marine under themselves to walk caterpillar on land mammals and run on land no external earflaps pinniped, “fin external earflaps footed” in use back flippers for Latin use front flippers for power when swimming power when swimming preyed upon by polar use front flippers for use back flippers for bears, orcas, steering when swimming steering when swimming and sharks food: krill, fish, lobster, food: squid, octopus, birds birds, and fish claws and fur on front no claws or hair on front flippers flippers Seals ("What’s the Difference “ 2017) Sea Lions Evolution • Both seals and sea lions are Pinnipeds • Descended from one ancestral line • Belong to order carnivora • Closest living relatives are bears and musteloids (diverged 50 million years ago) http://what-when-how.com/marine-mammals/pinniped-evolution- (Churchill 2015) marine-mammals/ http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2009-04/24/content_7710231.htm Phylogenetics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinniped Steller: Eumetopias jubatus http://www.arkive.org/stellers-sea-lion/eumetopias-jubatus/image-G62602.html Steller: Eumetopias jubatus • Classification (”Steller Sea Lion” 2017) Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Mamalia Order: Carnivora Family: Otarridae Genus: Eumetopias Species:
    [Show full text]
  • Monk Seals in Post-Classical History
    Monk Seals in Post-Classical History The role of the Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus) in European history and culture, from the fall of Rome to the 20th century William M. Johnson Mededelingen No. 39 2004 NEDERLANDSCHE COMMISSIE VOOR INTERNATIONALE NATUURBESCHERMING Mededelingen No. 39 i NEDERLANDSCHE COMMISSIE VOOR INTERNATIONALE NATUURBESCHERMING Netherlands Commission for International Nature Protection Secretariaat: Dr. H.P. Nooteboom National Herbarium of the Netherlands Rijksuniversiteit Leiden Einsteinweg 2 Postbus 9514, 2300 RA Leiden Mededelingen No. 39, 2004 Editor: Dr. H.P. Nooteboom PDF edition 2008: Matthias Schnellmann Copyright © 2004 by William M. Johnson ii MONK SEALS IN POST-CLASSICAL HISTORY The role of the Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus) in European history and culture, from the fall of Rome to the 20th century by William M. Johnson Editor, The Monachus Guardian www.monachus-guardian.org email: [email protected] iii iv TABLE OF CONTENTS MONK SEALS IN POST-CLASSICAL HISTORY ......................................................III ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................... VII ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................ VII MONK SEALS IN POST-CLASSICAL HISTORY ..............................................................................1 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIES ......................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Role of Sea Lions As Predators, Competitors, and Prey
    Ecological Role of Sea Lions as Predators, Competitors, and Prey • Sea Lion Species • California Sea Lions (not listed) - increasing • Steller Sea Lions eDPS (threatened) – increasing (delisting review under way, June 2010) • Steller Sea Lions wDPS (endangered) - decreasing • Predators – varied diet: fish, cephalopods, crustaceans • Competitors – commercially-targeted longline and trawl species; ESA-listed salmon ESUs • Prey – killer whales, some sharks Population Size (2011 MM Stock Assessments, NMFS) California Sea Lion – 296,750; 153,337 minimum – CA, Mexico Steller Sea Lion, eDPS – 58,334- 72,223 – CA,OR,WA,SE AK Steller Sea Lion, wDPS – 42,286 – Sea Lions as Predators Primarily Piscivorous Wide Variety of Prey Diet Varies Seasonally, by Age Group, by Sex, by Geographic Location Can Specialize Eulachon in SE Alaska (eSSL) Atka mackerel in Aleutians (wSSL) Now salmon, sturgeon, lamprey in Columbia (eSSL) Fishery SSL Sub- Primary Prey (% FO) Management RCA Region Area Summer Winter wAI 543 1 1.Atka mackerel (55) 1.Atka mackerel (96) 2.P. Cod (26) 2 2.Salmon (17) 542 3.Irish Lord (23) 3.Cephlapods (13) 3 4.Cephlapods (18) cAI 4.Pollock (7) 4 5.Pollock (12) 541 5.P. Cod (6) 5 6.Snailfish (12) 6 1.Pollock (46) 1.Pollock (53) 2.Salmon (38) 2.Atka mackerel (43) 3.Herring (35) 3.P. Cod (39) eAI 610 4.Sand Lance (34) 4.Irish Lord (35) 7 5.Atka mackerel (32) 5.Sandlance (28) 6.Rock Sole (19) 6.Salmon (25) 7.P. Cod (18) 7.Arrowtooth (21) 1.Sandlance (65) 1.Pollock (93) 2.Salmon (57) 2. P. Cod (31) 3.Pollock (53) 3.Salmon (17) wGOA 620 8 4.P.
    [Show full text]
  • MEDITERRANEAN MONK SEAL REHABILITATION in GREECE 1990-2004: 15 Years of Action
    HELLENIC SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY AND PROTECTION OF THE MONK SEAL MEDITERRANEAN MONK SEAL REHABILITATION IN GREECE 1990-2004: 15 years of action © M. Schnellmann / MOm Athens 2005 MEDITERRANEAN MONK SEAL REHABILITATION IN GREECE 1990-2004: 15 years of action Athens 2005 © Copyright notice This report or any part of this report can be used only after the written permission of MOm/ Hellenic Society for the Study and Protection of the Mediterranean Monk Seal (www.mom.gr). Hellenic Society for the Study and Protection of the Monk Seal Operation – Coordination: MOm/ The Hellenic Society for the Study and Protection of the Monk Seal Cooperating Organizations: • Seal Rehabilitation and Research Centre (SRRC), Pieterburen, the Netherlands • Department of Virology, Erasmus University Rotterdam • Veterinary Faculty of Aristotle University of Thessalonica Centre Coordinator Eugenia Androukaki, biologist, MOm 1987-1996: Lies Vedder, DVM SRRC Responsible 1996-2004: Natassa Komnenou, DVM, PhD Univ. of Veterinarians Thessaloniki A.D.M.E. Osterhaus, Prof. Of Virology, Erasmus Veterinary Consultant University of Rotterdam Scientific Consultant Spyros Kotomatas, PhD Population Ecology, MOm Eugenia Androukaki, biologist, MOm Report Editing Archontia Chatzispyrou, marine biologist, MOm Mediterranean Monk Seal Rehabilitation in Greece 1990-2004: 15 years of action 1/29 Hellenic Society for the Study and Protection of the Monk Seal CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography of the Hawaiian Monk Seal Monachus Schauinslandi Matschie 1905
    BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE HAWAIIAN MONK SEAL MONACHUS SCHAUINSLANDI MATSCHIE 1905 by George H. Balazs Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology and G. Causey Whittow Kewalo Marine Laboratory Pacific Biomedical Research Center UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII HAWAII INSTITUTE OF MARINE BIOLOGY HONOLULU, HAWAII TECHNICAL REPORT No.3S MARCH 1978 BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE HAWAIIAN MONK SEAL MONACHUS SCHAUINSLANDI MATSCHIE 1905 by George H. Balazs Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology and G. Causey Whittow Kewalo Marine Laboratory Pacific Biomedical Research Center March 1978 Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology University of Hawaii Technical Report No. 35 1 INTRODUCTION There is considerable interest in the Hawaiian monk seal at present due to its restricted range and recent designation as an "endangered species" under provisions of the U. S. Endangered Species Act of 1973. The following comprehensive list of references has therefore been assembled for the benefit of anyone seeking information on this rare, endemic marine mammal. All material known to us as of February 10, 1978, which deals either exclusively or in part with Monachus schauinsl.andi, has been included. A special feature of the bibliography is the incorporation of references to articles from the " Honolulu newspapers and to unpublished reports, which we were in a strategic position to locate. It should be noted that an unknown number of publications also exist on the Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus) , as well as the Caribbean monk seal (Monachus tY'opical.is) which is now thought to be extinct. Unpublished reports listed as resulting from the Pacific Ocean Biological Survey Program (1963-1969) as well as those by E.
    [Show full text]
  • Full Text in Pdf Format
    Vol. 16: 149–163, 2012 ENDANGERED SPECIES RESEARCH Published online February 29 doi: 10.3354/esr00392 Endang Species Res Age estimation, growth and age-related mortality of Mediterranean monk seals Monachus monachus Sinéad Murphy1,*, Trevor R. Spradlin1,2, Beth Mackey1, Jill McVee3, Evgenia Androukaki4, Eleni Tounta4, Alexandros A. Karamanlidis4, Panagiotis Dendrinos4, Emily Joseph4, Christina Lockyer5, Jason Matthiopoulos1 1Sea Mammal Research Unit, Scottish Oceans Institute, University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews, Fife KY16 8LB, UK 2NOAA Fisheries Service/Office of Protected Resources, Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, USA 3Histology Department, Bute Medical School, University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews, Fife KY16 9TS, UK 4MOm/Hellenic Society for the Study and Protection of the Monk Seal, 18 Solomou Street, 106 82 Athens, Greece 5Age Dynamics, Huldbergs Allé 42, Kongens Lyngby, 2800, Denmark ABSTRACT: Mediterranean monk seals Monachus monachus are classified as Critically Endan- gered on the IUCN Red List, with <600 individuals split into 3 isolated sub-populations, the largest in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Canine teeth collected during the last 2 decades from 45 dead monk seals inhabiting Greek waters were processed for age estimation. Ages were best estimated by counting growth layer groups (GLGs) in the cementum adjacent to the root tip using un - processed longitudinal or transverse sections (360 µm thickness) observed under polarized light. Decalcified and stained thin sections (8 to 23 µm) of both cementum and dentine were inferior to unprocessed sections. From analysing patterns of deposition in the cementum of known age- maturity class individuals, one GLG was found to be deposited annually in M.
    [Show full text]
  • Periodic Status Review for the Steller Sea Lion
    STATE OF WASHINGTON January 2015 Periodic Status Review for the Steller Sea Lion Gary J. Wiles The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife maintains a list of endangered, threatened, and sensitive species (Washington Administrative Codes 232-12-014 and 232-12-011, Appendix E). In 1990, the Washington Wildlife Commission adopted listing procedures developed by a group of citizens, interest groups, and state and federal agencies (Washington Administrative Code 232-12-297, Appendix A). The procedures include how species listings will be initiated, criteria for listing and delisting, a requirement for public review, the development of recovery or management plans, and the periodic review of listed species. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is directed to conduct reviews of each endangered, threatened, or sensitive wildlife species at least every five years after the date of its listing. The reviews are designed to include an update of the species status report to determine whether the status of the species warrants its current listing status or deserves reclassification. The agency notifies the general public and specific parties who have expressed their interest to the Department of the periodic status review at least one year prior to the five-year period so that they may submit new scientific data to be included in the review. The agency notifies the public of its recommendation at least 30 days prior to presenting the findings to the Fish and Wildlife Commission. In addition, if the agency determines that new information suggests that the classification of a species should be changed from its present state, the agency prepares documents to determine the environmental consequences of adopting the recommendations pursuant to requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act.
    [Show full text]
  • MASS TOURISM and the MEDITERRANEAN MONK SEAL
    MASS TOURISM and the MEDITERRANEAN MONK SEAL The role of mass tourism in the decline and possible future extinction of Europe’s most endangered marine mammal, Monachus monachus William M. Johnson & David M. Lavigne International Marine Mammal Association 1474 Gordon Street, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1L 1C8 ABSTRACT Mass tourism has been implicated in the decline of the Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus) since the 1970s, when scientists first began reviewing the global status of the species. Since then, the scientific literature, recognising the inexorable process of disturbance and loss of habitat that this economic and social activity has produced along extensive stretches of Mediterranean coastline, has consistently identified tourism as among the most significant causes of decline affecting this critically-endangered species. Despite apparent consensus on this point, no serious attempt has been made to assess the tourist industry’s role, or to acknowledge and discuss its moral and financial responsibility, in the continuing decline and possible future extinction of M. monachus. In view of this, The Monachus Guardian 2 (2) November 1999 1 we undertook a review of existing literature to identify specific areas in which tourism has impacted the Mediterranean monk seal. Our results provide compelling evidence that mass tourism has indeed played a major role in the extirpation of the monk seal in several European countries, that it continues to act as a significant force of extinction in the last Mediterranean strongholds of the species, and that the industry exerts a generally negative influence on the design and operation of protected areas in coastal marine habitats. There are compelling reasons to conclude that unless the tourist industry can be persuaded to become an active and constructive partner in monk seal conservation initiatives, it will eventually ensure the extinction of the remaining monk seals in the Mediterranean.
    [Show full text]
  • SEALS and SEA LIONS in BRITISH COLUMBIA Sea Lion Comparison Five Species of Seals and Sea Lions (Pinnipeds) Are Found in British Columbia (B.C.) Waters
    SEALS AND SEA LIONS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA Sea Lion Comparison Five species of seals and sea lions (pinnipeds) are found in British Columbia (B.C.) waters. Although commercial hunting of all marine mammals is prohibited in the Pacific Region, accidental Steller Sea Lions are commonly entanglement in fishing gear or debris, oil spills, conflicts with fisherman, and environmental mistaken for California Sea Lions contaminants all pose a threat to pinnipeds. which pass through B.C. in early winter and late spring. Look for Steller Sea Lions were listed as a species of Special Concern in Canada under the Species at Risk these key differences. Act (SARA) in 2005. People and boats can interfere with an animals’ ability to feed, communicate, rest, breed, and care for its young. Be cautious and quiet around pinnipeds, especially when passing haulouts, and avoid approaching closer than 100 meters. CALIFORNIA SEA LION STELLER SEA LION Only males in B.C. Males and females in B.C. Reporting Marine Mammal Incidents Broad snout Adults larger, Rescuing an injured or entangled seal or seal lion can be dangerous - do not attempt to touch or Prominent tan colour sagittal crest move an animal yourself. Observe from a distance and report any incidents of injured, entangled, Growling distressed, or dead marine mammals and sea turtles. If accidental contact occurs between a marine Long, narrow vocalizations snout mammal and your vessel or gear, regulations require you to immediately report it. Proper species identification (see back) is critical for documenting
    [Show full text]
  • Diet of a Mediterranean Monk Seal Monachus Monachus in a Transitional Post-Weaning Phase and Its Implications for the Conservation of the Species
    Vol. 39: 315–320, 2019 ENDANGERED SPECIES RESEARCH Published August 22 https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00971 Endang Species Res OPENPEN ACCESSCCESS NOTE Diet of a Mediterranean monk seal Monachus monachus in a transitional post-weaning phase and its implications for the conservation of the species Cem Orkun Kıraç1,*, Meltem Ok2 1Underwater Research Society - Mediterranean Seal Research Group (SAD-AFAG), 06570 Ankara, Turkey 2Middle East Technical University - Institute of Marine Science (METU-IMS), Erdemli, 33731 Mersin, Turkey ABSTRACT: The Mediterranean monk seal Monachus monachus is the most endangered pin- niped in the world and is considered Endangered by the IUCN. Transition from suckling to active feeding is a critical time in the development of all mammal species, and understanding the dietary requirements of seals during this vulnerable period is of value in establishing conservation meas- ures, such as fishery regulations. This study provides unique information on the dietary habits of a moulted monk seal pup, through the opportunistic necropsy of a dead animal encountered at a very early age (5 mo). A total of 6 prey items from 2 families (Octopodidae, 90.8% and Congridae, 8.9%) were identified from stomach contents. The remaining stomach content mass consisted of fish bones from unidentified species (0.3%). The estimated age, low diversity and number of prey items in the stomach contents indicate that this individual may have been in a transition period from suckling to active feeding. The study confirms independent foraging in Mediterranean monk seals at about 5 mo of age. Given the importance of early life survival for maintaining stable Medi- terranean monk seal populations, and the occurrence of an ontogenetic shift in its close relative (Hawaiian monk seal), these findings contribute to the establishment and implementation of suc- cessful conservation and management strategies for this Endangered species.
    [Show full text]
  • Foraging Ecology of Steller Sea Lions and Northern Fur Seals in Far Eastern Russia
    ForagingForaging ecologyecology ofof StellerSteller seasea lionslions andand northernnorthern furfur sealsseals inin farfar easterneastern RussiaRussia Vladimir Burkanov North Pacific Wildlife Consulting, Anchorage, AK National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Seattle, Washington Kamchatka Branch of the Pacific Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Russia Don Calkins North Pacific Wildlife Consulting, Anchorage, AK Jason Waite Institute of Marine Science, University of Alaska Fairbanks Paul OlivOlivier,ier, Olga Belonovich, Olivia Lee, Randy Davis Dept. of Marine Biology, Texas A&M University, Galveston, Texas Sarah Norberg & John Skinner Alaska SeaLife Center, Seward, Alaska Russ Andrews Program participants: Altukhov A.V., Andrews R., Artemeva S.M., Artukhin Y.B., Batin M.S., Belonovich O.A., Blokhin I.A., Burkanov N.V., Calkins D.G., Chetvergov A.V., Dyachkov V.S., Grachev A.I., Gurarie E., Hill I., Kondratuk E.G., Korbolin A.N., Kornev S.I., Kutrukhin N.N., Kuzin A.E., Lisitsin D., Mamaev E.G., Mamaeva I.V., Matsuev D.D., Nikulin V.S., Nikulin S.V., Norberg S.N., Olivier P. Ososkova M.N., Pavlov A.E., Phillips C., Permyakov P.A., Ponteleeva O.I., Purtov S.Y., Ryazanov S.D., Sagatelova L.V., Savenko O.V., Sedunov P.A., Shpak O.V., Shulezhko T.S., Skinner J.S., Sonin N.K., Sychenko A.A., Tarasyan K.K., Testin A.I., Thomason J., Thompson D., Tret'yakov A.V., Trukhin A.M., Vertyankin V.V., Waite J.N., Yakovlev V. M., Zagrebelny S.V. Kamchatka Branch of the Pacific Institute of Geography, FEB, RAS National Marine Mammal Laboratory, AFSC, NMFS, NOAA Alaska SeaLife Center, Seward, Alaska University of Alaska, Fairbanks Kamchatka Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky Sevvostrybvod, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky Magadan Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography, Magadan TINRO-Center, Vladivostok Vyatka Agricultural Academy, Kirov Sakhalinrybvod, Y-Sakhalinsk V.I.
    [Show full text]
  • Collapse of a Marine Mammal Species Driven by Human Impacts
    Collapse of a Marine Mammal Species Driven by Human Impacts Tero Harkonen1*, Karin C. Harding2, Susan Wilson3, Mirgaliy Baimukanov4, Lilia Dmitrieva5, Carl Johan Svensson2, Simon J. Goodman5 1 Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm, Sweden, 2 Department of Marine Ecology, Gothenburg University, Go¨teborg, Sweden, 3 Tara Seal Research Centre, Killyleagh, County Down, United Kingdom, 4 Institute of Hydrobiology and Ecology, Almaty, Kazakhstan, 5 Institute of Integrative and Comparative Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom Abstract Understanding historical roles of species in ecosystems can be crucial for assessing long term human impacts on environments, providing context for management or restoration objectives, and making conservation evaluations of species status. In most cases limited historical abundance data impedes quantitative investigations, but harvested species may have long-term data accessible from hunting records. Here we make use of annual hunting records for Caspian seals (Pusa caspica) dating back to the mid-19th century, and current census data from aerial surveys, to reconstruct historical abundance using a hind-casting model. We estimate the minimum numbers of seals in 1867 to have been 1–1.6 million, but the population declined by at least 90% to around 100,000 individuals by 2005, primarily due to unsustainable hunting throughout the 20th century. This collapse is part of a broader picture of catastrophic ecological change in the Caspian over the 20th Century. Our results combined with fisheries data show that the current biomass of top predators in the Caspian is much reduced compared to historical conditions. The potential for the Caspian and other similar perturbed ecosystems to sustain natural resources of much greater biological and economic value than at present depends on the extent to which a number of anthropogenic impacts can be harnessed.
    [Show full text]