DOCSLIB.ORG

Monachus Schauinslandi) P

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Monachus Schauinslandi) P Journal of Zoology. Print ISSN 0952-8369 Distribution and frequencies of shark-inflicted injuries to the endangered Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi) P. Bertilsson-Friedman Department of Zoology, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA Keywords Abstract Hawaiian monk seals; Monachus schauinslandi; shark-inflicted injuries; injury I analyzed the frequencies of wounds inflicted by sharks to the endangered distribution; shark interactions. Hawaiian monk seal Monachus schauinslandi at three colonies in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands between 1990 and 2000. I applied specific criteria typical of shark Correspondence bites to all injuries to avoid bias. Pooling data from all years and the three colonies Petra Bertilsson-Friedman. Current address: revealed several patterns. Sharks injured more pups (nursing and weaned) and GPS Department, St Joseph’s College of juveniles (1–2 years old) than adults and subadults. More female pups and male Maine, 278 Whites Bridge Road, Standish, juveniles than any other size classes were injured by sharks. Almost all (97%) of ME 04084-9978, USA. the injured pups were from French Frigate Shoals. More juveniles than expected Email: [email protected] were wounded at Laysan Island and Lisianski Island. Most shark wounds were between the diaphragm and the pelvic girdle, but pups were bitten most often just Received 13 December 2004; accepted behind the pelvis compared with adults who were bitten more often near the head 23 June 2005 and neck. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.2006.00066.x Introduction atolls and islands. The species has declined substantially during the past several decades. Many factors have been In contrast to well-studied terrestrial mammals, little is suggested to explain the decline and lack of recovery, known about predation on marine mammals. It is challen- including predation (Taylor & Naftel, 1978; Johnson et al., ging to evaluate the significance of aquatic predation 1982; Craig & Ragen, 1999; Ragen & Lavigne, 1999). Actual as the habitat is often inaccessible, and both prey and interactions between the seals and sharks have rarely been predator are at least partially aquatic. Because predation observed, but the consequences can be investigated as may have a substantial effect on estimates of survival, wounds from shark bites are often observed (Kenyon & it is important to assess the influence of potential predators Rice, 1959; Rice, 1960; Hiruki et al., 1993; P. Bertilsson- on marine mammals and its influence on demography, Friedman, pers. obs.). Several species of sharks inhabit the particularly for endangered or otherwise vulnerable species inshore waters of NWHI and have an important role as (Sinclair & Arcese, 1995; Oosthuizen et al., 1997; Boveng high-level predators in the shallow-water communities (Par- et al., 1998; Lima, 1998; Sinclair et al., 1998; Geraci, Har- rish et al., 1984). Among the most abundant sharks are three wood & Lounsbury, 1999; Lucas & Stobo, 2000; Williams species of charcharhinids: the tiger shark Galeocerdo cuvier, et al., 2004). the Galapagos shark Charcharhinus galapagensis and the Shark predation has been suggested to potentially gray reef shark Charcharhinus amyblyrhynchos (De Crosta have substantial impacts on some pinniped populations et al., 1984). Tiger shark and Galapagos shark are both (Ainley et al., 1981; Le Boeuf, Riedman & Keyes, 1982; potential predators on monk seals as both species have been Ainley et al., 1985; Le Boeuf & Crocker, 1996; Lucas & observed attacking seals (Balazs & Whittow, 1979; Alcorn & Stobo, 2000; Klimley et al., 2001). It is suggested that Kam, 1986; P. Bertilsson-Friedman, pers. obs.). Remains of immature phocids may be more vulnerable to shark preda- seals have been found in tiger sharks (Taylor & Naftel, 1978; tion than adults (Ainley et al., 1985; Le Boeuf & Crocker, De Crosta et al., 1984), and Galapagos sharks have fre- 1996; Klimley et al., 2001), and Le Boeuf et al. (1982) quently been observed stalking and attempting to attack suggested that shark-bitten elephant seal females may have pups at French Frigate Shoals (FFS) (P. Bertilsson-Fried- reduced reproductive success. man, pers. obs.). Shark attacks can result in mortality or The endangered Hawaiian monk seal Monachus schauin- injury. Although mortality has immediate consequences to slandi primarily occupies the Northwestern Hawaiian individuals and populations, injuries can also have serious Islands (NWHI) with established breeding colonies at six detrimental effects on an animal and might be an important Journal of Zoology 268 (2006) 361–368 c 2006 The Zoological Society of London 361 Shark-inflicted injuries to the endangered Hawaiian monk seal P. Bertilsson-Friedman factor in regulating populations (Harris, 1989; Juanes & Statistical analysis Smith, 1995). I tested for differences in the frequencies of shark-inflicted I studied shark-inflicted injuries on Hawaiian monk seals injuries between islands with a one-way analysis of variance in NWHI between 1990 and 2000. Long-term monitoring (ANOVA). Annual variations between the islands were data collected by National Marine Fisheries Service analyzed using the w2 test for independence and simple linear (NMFS) provide reliable demographic data of the species, regressions with arcsine transformation. Injury frequency and allow for tracking individual seals through time. The was calculated as the number of seals injured divided by the results can serve as a foundation for an index of shark attack total number of seals identified at a given site in a given year. effects on monk seal population. My objectives were to Both the total identified including and excluding pups was investigate patterns in the frequency, severity and body used as the denominator in calculating injury frequency, as location of shark wounds on monk seals according to annual fluctuations in pup production can introduce great colony, size class and sex. variability. Comparisons between Lisianski Island and the other two islands excluded data from 1991 and 1994. Methods I used a two-way ANOVA and the w2 test of indepen- dence (Zar, 1999) to examine differences in the distribution Study area of injuries among size classes [pup, juvenile, subadult and adult size (following Stone, 1984)]. Weaned pups and nur- Data on injuries to Hawaiian monk seals were collected sing pups were combined into a single category. Paired t- from 1990 until 2000 at three of the six Hawaiian monk seal tests were used to examine differences among the sexes. To colonies in NWHI. FFS (231450N, 1661100W) had the examine patterns in the distribution of shark-inflicted in- largest population of Hawaiian monk seals with at least juries on the seals’ bodies, and the severity of these injuries, 345 seals (including 67 pups) in 2000, Laysan Island I used w2 goodness of fit and test of independence analyses (251460N, 1711460W) had 315 individuals (43 pups) in 2000, (Zar, 1999). Sequential Bonferroni adjustments for multiple and in the same year Lisianski Island (261020N, 1741000W) comparisons were used for all repeated tests. had 204 individual seals (20 pups) (Johanos & Baker, 2002). Data on injured seals were collected every year (except that there were no data for Lisianski in 1991 and 1994) Results in conjunction with standardized population assessment I used 315 shark-inflicted injuries in my analyses (FFS (Johanos & Baker, 2004). n=191, Laysan Island n=85, Lisianski Island n=39). Another 143 injuries, described at the time of data collection Analyses of injuries as possibly shark inflicted, were not included in the analysis because they did not meet the criteria I applied. It is I reviewed all records of injuries to monk seals that may important to note that observations of the seals are not year have been caused by sharks between 1990 and 2000. Using round and consequently some injuries go unnoticed, and criteria modified after Long & Jones (1996), I included an also that an unknown number of shark-bitten seals never injury as a positive shark injury if either (a) a shark attack make it back to shore. Consequently, my analyses consider was witnessed or (b) a living or dead seal showed injuries only a minimum estimate of seals injured by sharks during with characteristics of a shark bite: oval or crescent arcs, the 11-year study. triangular punctures, jagged serrations or flipper amputa- tions. I excluded injuries that did not fit these criteria from the analysis. Furthermore, data on all subsequent injuries Colony comparisons were excluded if an animal had been previously injured by a Overall, there was no significant difference in the rates of shark in the same year to avoid bias. I did not include shark-inflicted injuries among the three colonies (P40.05) wounds inflicted by the small (o50 cm) ectoparasitic cookie (Table 1). There was, however, a significant increase in the cutter shark Isistius brasiliensis as this small deep-sea shark percentage of shark-injured animals over the years at FFS only takes small circular pieces of flesh (usually o3–7 cm (P=0.011, r2 =0.532). There was no significant change in diameter) from its victims (Jones, 1971; Jahn & Haedrich, the percentage of animals injured by sharks over the years 1987), and this study focused on wounds from large sharks. for the other islands, although there was a small increase in Injuries included in the analysis were new for each year, the percentage of injured animals at Lisianski Island when and severity standards [levels between one and three, with pups were excluded (P=0.053, r2 =0.439). three being the most severe (life threatening)] for all injuries were applied as developed by NMFS in 2000 and described Distribution of injuries in Johanos & Baker (2002). I used methods developed by Long et al. (1996) to determine whether shark-inflicted The observed number of juveniles and pups with shark- injuries occurred more often on any part of a seal’s body. inflicted wounds deviated significantly from the proportion For this analysis, I divided the body into four regions: snout available in the population (w2 =19.81, Po0.001, d.f.=3; to shoulder girdle, shoulder girdle to diaphragm, diaphragm w2 =23.58, Po0.001, d.f.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Managing for Extinction Conflicting Conservation Objectives in a Large
    POLICY PERSPECTIVE Managing for extinction? Conflicting conservation objectives in a large marine reserve Leah R. Gerber1, James Estes2, Tara Gancos Crawford1, Lindsey E. Peavey3, & Andrew J. Read4 1Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Sciences, School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Box 874501, Tempe, AZ 85287-4501, USA 2Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, USA 3Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA 4Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Beaufort, NC 28516, USA Keywords Abstract Hawaiian monk seal; marine protected areas; endangered species conservation; intervention; Establishment of the Papahanaumoku¯ akea¯ Marine National Monument adaptive management; extinction; marine (PMNM) in 2006 was heralded as a major advance for marine conserva- mammal. tion. The PMNM is one of the largest no-take marine reserves in the world (36,207,439 hectares) and includes all of the Northwestern Hawaiian Is- Correspondence Leah R. Gerber, Ecology, Evolution and lands (NWHI). Despite the protection, within its boundaries one of Hawaii’s Environmental Sciences, School of Life most charismatic marine species, the endemic Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus Sciences, Arizona State University, Box 874501, schauinslandi), is declining towards extinction. In contrast, monk seal abun- Tempe, AZ 85287-4501, USA. dance is increasing in the largely unprotected Main Hawaiian Islands. High Tel: +1-480-727-3109; Fax: +1-480-965-6899.
    [Show full text]
  • FATAL SHARK ATTACK on a HAWAIIAN MONK SEAL (MONACHUS Schaulnslandl)
    MARINE MAMMAL SCIENCE, 2(4):313-3 15 (October 1986) 0 1986 by the Society for Marine Mammalogy FATAL SHARK ATTACK ON A HAWAIIAN MONK SEAL (MONACHUS SCHAUlNSLANDl) We describe here a fatal attack on a Hawaiian monk seal, Monachus schauins- Iandi, apparently initiated by tiger sharks, Galeocerdo cuvier. The attack oc- curred near sunset at 1957 h on 28 May 1982, 15 m off the landing beach on the west side of Laysan Island (25"42'N, 171"44'W),Northwestern Hawai- ian Islands. Observations were made from shore at a distance of approximately 33 m. Predation by sharks on this endangered species is indicated by the presence of monk seal remains in tiger sharks (Taylor and Naftel 1978), tiger sharks seen feeding on dead seals (Balats and Whittow 1979, Johanos and Kam 1986), a tiger shark seen injuring a seal Uohanos, unpubl. ms.) and apparent shark-inflicted wounds on monk seals (e.g., Wirtt 1968, Kenyon 1973, John- son and Johnson 1978, Alcorn 1984), but a fatal attack on a live monk seal has not been documented. First attack-At 1929 h the fins of a large tiger shark were seen about 12 m offshore, near two monk seals. One seal, an adult, appeared by its behavior to be a male; the other seal was the site of a subadult with open pink puncture wounds on its back and sides and shallow tears as long as 8 cm. The wounds were not bleeding and were at least a few days old; we had seen them on this seal 3 d earlier.
    [Show full text]
  • Hawaiian Monk Seal
    THE HEAT IS ON Species feeling the effects of climate change Hawaiian Monk Seal Monachus schauinslandi NOAA Region: ABOUT THIS SPECIES Pacific Ocean Their Hawaiian name translates to “dog running in rough seas,” and Hawaiian monk seals are indeed having a rough time right now. Although it has been protected under Area affected: the Endangered Species Act since 1976, the Hawaiian monk seal population continues Northwest Hawaiian Islands to decline at a rate of about 3 percent per year. With only about 1,100 remaining in Climatic change: the wild, these seals are one of our most endangered marine mammals. Most are found Sea-level rise in the Northwest Hawaiian Islands, a series of small, low, coral atolls built on the remnants of the oldest volcanically formed islands, which extend for hundreds of miles Impact: northwest of the inhabited Hawaiian Islands. The seals forage in the waters surrounding Habitat loss these islands, diving to pursue fish, squid, octopus and eels. Several of these atolls, particularly the French Frigate Shoals, are critically important to the seals for giving birth and nursing their pups, and resting during molt periods. DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT The Northwest Hawaiian Islands are part of a national wildlife refuge, surrounded by the enormous Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, which protects the reefs and the seabirds, fish and other marine wildlife that depend on this environment. However, that designation is not sufficient to protect the low-lying atolls from the effects of sea-level rise, which is compounding the natural effects of erosion common there. For instance, from 1985 to 1996, nearly 35 percent of the region’s monk seal pups were born on Whaleskate Island in the French Frigate Shoals, but by the late 1990s this island—once the second most important breeding site in the area— was completely submerged.
    [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]
  • Īlio-Holo-I-Ka-Uaua Or Hawaiian Monk Seal Neomonachus Schauinslandi
    Marine Mammals Īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua or Hawaiian monk seal Neomonachus schauinslandi SPECIES STATUS: Federally Listed as Endangered Courtesy State Listed as Endangered State Recognized as Indigenous and Endemic IUCN Red List – Critically Endangered SPECIES INFORMATION: Īlio-holo-i-ka-uaua, or Hawaiian monk seals, are benthic feeders and feed on reef fishes, octopus, squid, and lobsters over many substrates up to depths of 305 meters (1,000 feet). Juveniles feed on a higher proportion of nocturnal fish species. Food seems to be a limiting factor for population growth. They are usually solitary, except on preferred beaches when they occur in close proximity and interact. Mating occurs in the spring and early summer. Gestation is approximately one year. Pupping occurs in late winter and spring. Weaning lasts five to six weeks, in late spring, and pups and mothers stay ashore until pups are weaned. Foster parenting occurs. Most females breed every other year, but about one-third breed in consecutive years. Sexual maturity occurs at around five to ten years of age, and earliest is at Laysan. Life span is 20 to 25 years of age. These are the only endangered marine mammal that occurs exclusively within the United States. DISTRIBUTION: Occurs in all of the Hawaiian Islands, including a small population in the Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI), although the majority of the population and pupping occurs in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI). ABUNDANCE: The total population is estimated at 1,200 individuals, most of which occur in the NWHI, with a decreasing population trend. About 150 of these seals occur in the MHI, where the population is increasing.
    [Show full text]
  • Monk Seal Action Plan English Version 2005
    Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals Secretariat provided by the United Nations Environment Programme THIRTEENTH MEETING OF THE CMS SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL Nairobi, Kenya, 16-18 November 2005 CMS/ScC.13/Inf.3 ACTION PLAN FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE MEDITERRANEAN MONK SEAL IN THE EASTERN ATLANTIC Under this cover is reproduced the Action Plan for the Recovery of the Mediterranean Monk Seal in the Eastern Atlantic, elaborated within the Concerted Action for the species. The document is reproduced as received from the Government of Spain, lead country in the development of the Concerted Action, without editing. 2 ACTIOON PPLAANN FOORR TTHHEE RREECOVERRYY OOFF THE MMEDDIITTEERRRAANEEAN MOONNKK SSEAALL IIN TTHHEE EEASSTERRNN ATLAANNTIC CONVENTION O N THE CONSERVATION OF MIGRATORY SPECIES OF WILD ANIMALS (BONN CONVENTION) 1 ACTION PLAN FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE MEDITERRANEAN MONK SEAL (Monachus monachus ) IN THE EASTERN ATLANTIC Prepared by the WORKING GROUP OF THE MEDITERRAEAN MONK SEAL IN THE EASTERN ATLANTIC For the CONVENTION ON THE CONSERVATION OF MIGRATORY SPECIES OF WILD ANIMALS (BONN CONVENTION) 2005 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................................................4 MEMBERS OF THE ATLANTIC MONK SEAL WORKING GROUP...............................................5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..........................................................................................................................6 LIST
    [Show full text]
  • Biology of the White Shark
    BIOLOGY OF THE WHITE SHARK A SYMPOSIUM MEMOIRS OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES VOLUME 9 (24 May 1985) MEMOIRS OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES The MEMOIRS of the Southern California Academy of Sciences is a series begun in 1938 and published on an irregular basis thereafter. It is intended that each article will continue to be of a monographic nature, and each will constitute a full volume in itself. Contribution to the MEMOIRS may be in any of the fields of science, by any member of the Academy. Acceptance of papers will be determined by the amount and character of new information and the form in which it is presented. Articles must not duplicate, in any substantial way, material that is published elsewhere. Manuscripts must conform to MEMOIRS style of volume 4 or later, and may be examined for scientific content by members of the Publications Committee other than the Editor or be sent to other competent critics for review. Because of the irregular nature of the series, authors are urged to contact the Editor before submitting their manuscript. Gretchen Sibley Editor Jeffrey A. Seigel Camm C. Swift Assistant Editors Communications concerning the purchase of the MEMOIRS should be directed to the Treasurer, Southern California Academy of Sciences, Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, Exposition Park, Los Angeles, California 90007. Communications concerning manuscripts should be directed to Gretchen Sibley, also at the Museum. CONTENTS FOREWORD On 7 May 1983 a symposium entitled “Biology of the White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias)” was held during the annual meeting of the Southern California Academy of Sciences at California State University Fullerton.
    [Show full text]
  • 2011 12 01 Ferretti Hawaiian Monk Seal Predation Removal Review Report
    Peer review report of shark mitigation as a tool for conservation of the Hawaiian Monk Seal Francesco Ferretti Independent Peer Review Completed for the Center for Independent Experts (CIE) December 2011 1 1 Executive summary The French Frigate Shoals (FFS) subpopulation of Hawaiian monk seal is at its lowest historical level after a steep decline since the end of the 1980s. Multiple causes are affecting this population including shark predation, which lately believed to have an unsustainable impact. Through a review of two workshop reports and other peer-review literature on abundance, movement and survival and ecology of both sharks and seals, I provided comments and recommendations on data, analyses, conclusions, and proposed shark predation mitigation tools to improve the conservation of the species. The science reviewed revealed a great amount of effort in collecting information on several aspects of monk seal and shark biology and their interaction. Data available on population dynamics of seals are excellent. Information on population structure, abundance, and movement of sharks is increasing, but it is still not optimal to characterize the behavior of the species involved in monk seal predation. Many of the hypotheses concerning the causes of monk seal decline and the possible involvement of the Galapagos shark are still untested. There are many aspects of the interaction between the two species that are still unexplored empirically and/or analytically. Therefore, culling Galapagos sharks to reduce monk seal mortality remains unjustified, and possibly ineffective and detrimental in the long term. Data gathered on multiple aspects of seal and shark behavior and biology, and from shark deterrent and harassment experiments, have a high informative potential that could be extracted by switching from an explorative to an inferential analytical stage.
    [Show full text]
  • Gross Anatomy of the Digestive Tract of the Hawaiian Monk Seal
    Gross Anatomy ofthe Digestive Tract ofthe Hawaiian Monk Seal, Monachus schauinslandi1 Gwen D. Goodman-Lowe, 2 Shannon Atkinson, 3 and James R. Carpenter4 Abstract: The digestive tract of a female juvenile Hawaiian monk seal was dis­ sected and described. Intestine lengths were measured for a total of 19 seals ranging in age from 1 day old to over 10 yr old. Small intestine (SI) lengths were measured for 10 seals and ranged from 7.1 to 16.2 m; mean SI to stan­ dard ventral length (SVL) ratio was 7.1 ± 0.9 m. Large intestine (LI) lengths were measured for 11 seals and ranged from 0.4 to 1.2 m; mean LI: SVL was 0.5 ± 0.1 m. Total intestine (TI) lengths were measured for 18 seals and ranged from 7.5 to 18.4 m; total intestine length to SL ratio was 7.9 ± 1.3 m. SI and LI lengths both exhibited a linear relationship relative to SVL, whereas stomach weight: SVL showed an exponential relationship. TI: SVL was signifi­ cantly smaller than ratios determined for harbor, harp, and northern elephant seals, but was not significantly different from those of crabeater, leopard, and Ross seals. No correlation was seen between gut length and body length for seven species of seals, including the Hawaiian monk seal. THE HAWAIIAN MONK SEAL, Monachus monk seal's digestive physiology, including schauinslandi, has a population currently esti­ gross anatomy of the digestive tract. mated at 1300 individuals with a decline cur­ Data on intestinal lengths have been com­ rently occurring at French Frigate Shoals piled for most species of pinnipeds (King (FFS) (National Marine Fisheries Service 1969), including the rare Mediterranean [NMFS], unpubl.
    [Show full text]
  • Species in the Spotlight—Hawaiian Monk Seal
    SPECIES in the SPOTLIGHT Priority Actions 2021–2025 Species in the Spotlight Priority Actions 2021 - 2025 California Coast Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Hawaiian Monk Seal (Neomonachus schauinslandi) Cover: Monk seal at French Frigate Shoals. Credit: Mark Sullivan, NOAA Fisheries Species in the Spotlight: Hawaiian Monk Seal | PRIORITY ACTIONS: 2021 - 2025 The Species in the Spotlight Initiative In 2015, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) launched the Species in the Spot- light initiative to provide immediate, targeted efforts to halt declines and stabilize populations, focus resources within and outside of NOAA on the most at-risk species, guide agency actions where we have discretion to make investments, increase public awareness and support for these species, and expand partnerships. We have renewed the initiative for 2021-2025. The criteria for Species in the Spotlight are that they are extinction. In most cases, we understand the limiting listed as endangered under the Endangered Species factors and threats to these species, and we know that Act (ESA), their populations are declining, and they the necessary management actions have a high prob- are considered a recovery priority #1C (84 FR 18243, ability of success. In some cases, we are prioritizing 4/30/2019). A recovery priority #1C species is one research to better understand the threats so we can whose extinction is almost certain in the immediate future because of rapid population decline or habitat we can’t do this alone. A major part of the Species in the Spotlightfine-tune initiative our actions is to for expand the maximum partnerships effect. and We moti know- development, or economic activity.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Hawaiian Monk Seal Field Season Report
    2019 Hawaiian Monk Seal Field Season Michelle Barbieri, DVM, MS NOAA Hawaiian Monk Seal Research Program 2019 Hawaiian Monk Seal Field Season 2019 NWHI Research & Recovery Activities • Population assessment • Individual marking • Interventions • Vaccinations • Necropsy • Debris removal • Patient triage & transport to rehabilitation Range-wide Population Update (2018) • 2018 population estimate: 1429 (1358, 1544) • Increase from 2017 (1351) but confidence intervals overlap • Overall positive trend, 2013-2018: Median estimated growth rate 2% per year • 2019: Data analysis wrapping up; >140 pups born in NWHI RangeHawaiian-wide Monk Population Seals Update2017 Review(2018) 2019 Hawaiian Monk Seal 54 NWHI Interventions Field Season • 14 FFS pups translocated from high shark predation • 12 disentangled & 5 released from entrapment • 8 pups translocated to avoid male aggression at PHR • Mom-pups reunited • 4 pups taken into care • Wound treatment, etc. 34 MHI Interventions • 7 dehookings (3 ingested) • 2 disentangled • Rehabilitation, health, other interventions Wild seals fully vaccinated: 2016-2019 (Preliminary data) Total # Seals % Population Herd Immunity Population Vaccinated Vaccinated (Estimated %) 1,400 764 54.6% 60-90% of Population at most sites 2019 Hawaiian Monk Seal Field Season Rehabilitation: Ke Kai Ola • Public-private partnership with The Marine Mammal Center • 32 seals rehabilitated since 2014 • Seals primarily from NWHI • 4 seals rescued in August 2019 (PHR, LIS); awaiting release in April 2020 2019 Hawaiian Monk Seal Field
    [Show full text]
  • Galapagos Sharks and Hawaiian Monk Seals
    GalapagosGalapagos SharksSharks andand HawaiianHawaiian MonkMonk Seals:Seals: AA ConservationConservation ConundrumConundrum BudBud AntonelisAntonelis,, BertBert HartingHarting,, BrendaBrenda Becker,Becker, SusanneSusanne CanjaCanja,, ShawnShawn FarryFarry,, RobertRobert DollarDollar,, DanDan LuersLuers,, andand AaronAaron DietrichDietrich National Marine Fisheries Service Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center Honolulu, Hawaii 30N Kure Atoll Midway Atoll Pearl and Hermes Reef Lisianski I. Laysan I. 25N French Frigate Shoals Necker I. Nihoa I. 20N Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Main Hawaiian Islands 15N 180° 175W 170W 165W 160W 155W Hawaiian Monk Seal Population Trend 1000 800 600 400 200 Beach Count (Non-Pups) 0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year IS THE FFS SITUATION UNIQUE? 1.0 LAY LIS 0.9 MDY 0.8 0.7 FFS Pre-Weaning Survival Rate 0.6 0.5 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Year BLANKBLANK SLIDESLIDE TEMPLATETEMPLATE ConservationConservationmmmm ConundrumConundrum CompetingCompeting InterpretationsInterpretations ofof MandatesMandates EndangeredEndangered SpeciesSpecies ActAct MarineMarine MammalMammal ProtectionProtection ActAct andand MaintainMaintain BiodiversityBiodiversity FWSFWS CompatibilityCompatibility DeterminationDetermination DoingDoing NothingNothing WorstWorst possiblepossible consequence?consequence? BestBest possiblepossible consequence?consequence? DoingDoing SomethingSomething WorstWorst possiblepossible consequence?consequence? BestBest possiblepossible consequence?consequence? KeyKey FactorsFactors
    [Show full text]